In reference to his (unproven) theory that languages closer to the homeland of the language family are more complex and become less complex the further away they are from the Uhrmeit:
CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: It really is if it’s true. I doubt we can prove it to the degree of certainty we’ve proved the Indo-European family but it’s fun to dream.
I’m sure that if I brought that up in one of the Linguistics Academia sessions I get invited to I would be laughed and shouted down. I doubt if they believe it.
Languages Simplify With Increasing Civilization
Languages do tend to simplify as the people who use them become more civilized and as civilization advances. And by the same token, the most complex languages of all are often found in extremely isolated places like the Papuan Highlands, Amazonia, the Caucasus.
In Papuua and the Caucasus, people have been speaking their tongue in their isolated valley forever. It’s surrounded by extremely high mountains. Over the mountains are other people speaking other, often very different, tongues, but no can remember the last time anyone climbed over one of those ridges because nobody has to – they have everything they need right there in that mountain valley.
Due to the islandization effect, the lack of contact with other languages causes languages to spin out of control and go off on their own genetically, whereas languages in contact with other tongues have their evolution modified by constant interaction with other languages which keep them in check.
One of my professors told me that less civilized or even primitive people speaking very complex languages like to spend a good part of their time playing language games with their fiendishly complex tongues. I’ve told this to other linguists and they laughed in my face, as is their wont with any remarkable linguistic popular theory. But they have to prove it’s not true. So go do it. They don’t even try.
After all, even primitive humans are very smart. Go out to the Amazon and meet some of those Indians sometime. You’ll be amazed at how smart they are.
The Lost Human Psi Skills
The Bushmen of Africa are even reported to have psi skills. Everyone who spends any amount of time with them comes back saying, “I swear to God those people have ESP. I’m positive they can read your mind!”
These are the most primitive humans out there and perhaps they have retained psi skills now lost in modern humans. After all, it’s well known that lower animals like dogs, cats, and even lions have obvious psi skills. We retain some like “the feeling of being stared at.” Many experiments have shown that when someone is staring at people behind their backs, the people being stared at act uncomfortable, fidget, and start moving around.
Time Is Money So Languages Simplify with Increasing Civilization
Why? Because time is money. Because the more people around, the less time you have to get your point across. Saying what you need to say in the shortest way possible is best for business and moneymaking. Civilized people don’t have much free time.
Primitive Humans Spend Most of Their Time Sitting on Their Asses and Screwing off
Primitive peoples spend only 3-4 hours a day taking care of whatever work they need to do to sustain life. The rest of the time is spent in either idleless or play activities. Therefore, for most of human evolution, we’ve mostly been sitting on our asses, playing games, and screwing around. So this is apparently what God intended for us. At least this is what I would like to believe as I am retired, no longer go to work every day or even do much to make money, and sleep, rest of screw off the rest of the time.
This is an old piece but people are still commenting on it so I will republish it with an extensive introduction.
John Engelman is a race realist liberal who was a frequent commenter on the White nationalist American Renaissance. He’s not a White nationalist. He’s just a liberal who got mugged by Blacks several times, the last time leaving him with permanent injuries. He’s the proverbial “liberal who’s been mugged by life.”
As the old saw goes, White liberals are all liberals until they get mugged by a Black.” After that, maybe not so much. Nevertheless, I think he is wrong here.
I do not think agriculture was innovated in Babylonia 11,000 YBP. It would be news to me. I’ve always heard it was simultaneously innovated 9,000 YBP in three different places, though the latest information is that agriculture was actually innovated by Africans 12,000 YBP, starting with proto-agriculture in fencing off fields of edible foods (yes, that is proto-agriculture).
The Indians in California nearly cultivated individual oak trees for their acorns. I told my mother they way they treated those trees and the ground around them and asked her if that was agriculture. She said, “Not really, but it sure is awful close.” Keep in mind that agriculture does not necessarily involve sticking seeds in the ground.
Another fallacy is that because Africans, Papuans, etc. have quite low IQ’s now and are behind Whites and Asians, that this means it has always been way. This is a backwards projection of White Supremacist. “Whites are better now, so we’ve always better!” Not necessarily so! No one knows what the IQ’s of any groups were long ago, and higher IQ’s in Whites and Asians may well be a quite new development far along into the Holocene.
Furthermore, like it or not, Africans truly innovated almost all of the most important aspects of human civilization. Language, fire, stone tools, toys, agriculture, animal husbandry, art, decoration, jewelry, fishing with hooks, sewing – it all came out of Africa first, every single bit of it. When you see a Black person, you’re not looking at some alien species. You’re looking at your oldest grandparent of them all.
All humans came from African Blacks. For some reason, the idea that “Grandpa was a nigger” is insulting to White Nationalists, who go to great lengths to try to show that OOA is not true. This shows the extreme insecurity that lies at the base of all supremacism.
I told a Chinese commenter about this and he laughed and said Chinese people didn’t care if they came from Blacks. He said, “If you go back further than that, we were all frogs. We Chinese are just the latest model.” I told my mother what he said and how it differed from the insecurity of White Supremacists, and she said, “See! That proves that Asians are smarter than Whites. We Whites aren’t all that smart, you know.” I don’t know about that, but we are apparently more secure.
Also although the Out of Africa people left Africa at least 60,000 YBP, they didn’t progress all that much in the meantime, and in fact, they continued to resemble Blacks for a long time. Most of the OOA people looked like Aborigines, Papuans, Negritos, and Melanesians until quite recently. The earliest White man looks like some sort of an ugly freak, resembling an African Bushman most of all. 20,000 years ago, Europeans looked like the Makah Indians of Washington State in skull structure. Go look at them. They look like Asiatics.
A Swedish girl from several thousand years ago has green eyes and quite dark, though not Black, skin. I’m not aware of any important human innovations that the OOA people made until the Holocene that were not made in Africa. Yes, they had arrowheads, but I think Africans had those too. The advancements of the White and Asian man, while impressive, are quite recent indeed.
European Whites have only appeared in the last 9,000 years. All “Whites” before then looked something like Arabs. So in a way, Arabs are “the oldest Whites of them all.” South Indian Dravidians and some odd-looking North Africans like Moabites may also be the remains of the most primitive Whites. The claimed achievements of Mesopotamia 11,000 YBP that the White Supremacists like to harp on were done by Arabs at a time when all Whites looked like Arabs. And White nationalists say Arabs are non-Whites or at the very least are
“mongrels” or “off-Whites.” So there.
John Engelman: Agriculture and civilization select a race for intelligence. Caucasians began agriculture about eleven thousand years ago. We began civilization about five thousand years ago. Negroes only adopted agriculture about four thousand years ago. They never developed their own civilizations. They have only recently been exposed to White civilization.
Agriculture was probably developed by Africans before it was developed by anyone else. There is evidence for agriculture or pre-agriculture in Africa (West African Guinea Highlands) as early as 12,000 YBP. You must realize that Africans originated many things that we as humans do.
The next to develop agriculture were the Mayans (corn), the Chinese (rice), and the Papuans (yams), all at 9,000 YBP. The Egyptians and Mesopotamians were not far behind. Africans even had plantation agriculture as early as 900 CE in Tanzania. I doubt if Caucasians developed agriculture 11,000 YBP. Are we referring to Mesopotamia, the Levant, or Egypt here?
Animal husbandry was also developed very early on in Africa. It may have been developed in the Western Sahara before anywhere else on Earth. A figure of 9,000 YBP is suggested for animal husbandry in the Sahara. However, pigs may have been domesticated in Papua around this time also. Animal husbandry was widespread in Africa, particularly in the Sahara, the Sahel and Ethiopia, on contact. I don’t know much about animal husbandry further south, but I have heard there was a shortage of animals to domesticate.
At any rate, the invention of the hoe and subsequent hoe agriculture along with the spear played a major role in the history of Africa. Both derived from the early development of metallurgy in the form or iron. Indeed, the Iron Age came to Africa before it came to Europe. The development of iron metallurgy and the subsequent creation of those two iron tools allowed the Bantus to expand massively all over Central and South Africa in only the last 2-3,000 years.
Africans definitely had civilizations, that’s for sure. Mostly in West Africa but quite a few in the Sahel too. There was even a civilization in Rhodesia. Early European explorers drew drawings of large African cities. Looks like civilization to me. Civilizations were especially common in Nigeria. They had manufacture, trade, agriculture for export, all sorts of things.
Very nice comment here about how the whole of Venezuelan society is structured around a close-knit family unit. Actually, I have found that most of Latin America is like this, at least in the white and mestizo countries. It’s also true in Brazil. I really don’t how true it is in the Black Caribbean because I don’t understand that part of the world very well.
Please note that a stable father is typically not a part of the Venezuelan extended family! Yet society carries on anyway.
Manuel Rodriguez: I think that the stigma about labeling “momma boys” to men with an healthy attachment to their mothers might be mostly about western culture. We could also add the culture of individualism and the atomization and lack of relevance of blood families.
See, in Venezuela, we have a matrifocal system that is present in the majority of the popular class families. The father usually has little if any relevance on the stability and development of the family. The children might have other male models (usually other boyfriends of the mother), but their weight is still not significant.
Boys not only end up being raised mainly viewing their mother as the source of stability of the family, but she is literally the base of the family unit.
The families are “nuclear” in the sense that usually it will be two partners and children in a household, with the possibility of grandparents and grandchildren. But there is a good connection with those you consider to be part of the family. You can go stay with your relatives at their home without any problems as long as you behave yourself, say if you have to travel somewhere near where they live to study or do some other business.
There is the “family welfare” where families usually have the responsibility of giving medicine, food, and money to their relatives in need. This has been present for as far back as anyone can remember, but during the pandemic, this system has been of vital importance for the survival of the Venezuelan people. This is in contrast to countries like Spain, where families simply dropping their elderly on nursing homes ended in tragedy when the pandemic hit those places.
Other thing is that Western countries, specially Anglos, view the family as having a very limited role in the lives of adults.
The family is seen as composed of a nuclear family of two spouses and their immediate children. Apparently, they are expected to be independent and disconnect from their raised family as soon as they turn 18. They may interact occasionally with their immediate family sometimes, but they are otherwise expected to depend on themselves and don’t get much help.
The cultural expectations in other cultures in the world usually are that children are to stay in the family household until they either get married or end up financially secure enough to live independently without issue.
In said cultures the extended family is considered part of the basic family unit. You are also expected to help and give support to any family member that is in need.
This is strengthened when there is a mentality of collectivism or tribalism of sorts, as usually those who are connected to the bloodline are part of the tribe.
This is a comment from Bumface, a regular commenter from the UK. He’s a bit of a volatile fellow, but I’ve kept him around anyway because he’s also nice sometimes, and he can be interesting. I might as well point out right now that it is more than obvious to me that Bumface is a hebephile, that is, he is preferentially attracted to girls in the pubescent 11-14 age range.
However, the American Psychiatric Association has stated flat out that Hebephilia is not a mental disorder. They also said that it’s not even abnormal! The APA said that hebephiles who act on their feelings and have sex with girls in that range would in most countries be called criminals. So if you just have these thoughts, it’s nothing, but if you act on them, in most places, you would be a criminal.
I’ve done some research and hebephilic attractions are very common in men. In fact, 19% of all men are like Bumface – they are preferentially attracted to 11-15 year old girls! In most cases, they probably have a strong attraction to mature females too, and in that case, you can always suppress or repress your antisocial hebephilic urges and focus on your prosocial attraction to adult women.
I suspect this is what most such men do, and actually, I would advocate this for anyone in this category. Nevertheless, there are hebephiles who have no attraction to girls over 15! I’ve been on their forums. People post photos of 16 year old girls and the hebephiles start yelling, “Ew gross!…No grandmas!,” etc. It’s actually pretty hilarious. That doesn’t strike me as real normal behavior, but I’ll defer to the APA on this one.
I was just reading the hebephile forum for research interests, and there’s nothing illegal on there anyway. At any rate, going to those forums is no big deal. All open pedophile/hebephile forums are about half pedophile/hebephile haters cursing them and saying they’re going to prison and half pedophiles/and hebephiles. In other words, those forums have as many pedophile and hebephile haters as pedophiles and hebephiles.
For self-disclosure purposes, I’m actually a teleiophile. Teleiophiles are maximally attracted to mature females aged 16+. The vast majority of straight men are teleiophiles.
78% of men are teleiophiles, 19% are hebephiles, and 3% are pedophiles. It’s stunning how tens of millions of men in the US are so strongly attracted to very young girls! But perhaps it makes sense, right?
Everyone screams about men having sex with 13-15 year old girls and of course about men having sex with children under 13. Just reading around, there sure seem to be a lot of men engaging in this behavior. Perhaps a good explanation for why this sort of thing is so ubiquitous is that so many of us men have strong attractions to younger girls. Why do we do this all the time? Because young girls turn us on so much, that’s why! Seems like the best explanation for me.
I’m a teleiophile, although I’m also very attracted to 15 girls. As we go down from there, I start getting less interested, and it looks more and more like a “little girl” to me, and I’m not into that.
In particular, 13 and 14 year old girls have what I call “little girl faces,” or baby fat in their cheeks. I don’t like that. Among 15-17 year old girls, the more she looks and acts like a grown woman, the more attracted I am to her. The more she looks and acts like a kid, the less I’m attracted to her. I suspect that my desires are typical for teleiophilic men.
Given that 22% of my fellow men have preferential attractions to pretty young girls, I’m not going to get on the “pedophile”-hating bandwagon. To me this is a men’s rights issue. God or evolution has saddled us men with some pretty weird desires in terms of age. We men so afflicted cannot help feeling this way.
If we truly are going to “kill all pedophiles” as everyone recommends, we will have to kill 24 million men. I’m sorry, I’m not willing to condemn 24 million of my fine brothers to death just because a bunch of feminist screechers and moral hysterics demand it. I’m willing to let all these guys slide as long as they only remain thought criminals. If they molest little girls, they need to be incarcerated, as in many cases, the girls get harmed. Even where the girls are not harmed, I don’t wish to live in a society where men can molest little girls.
Since there is no evidence that a majority of girls are harmed over the long term by being molested, I have mostly an ethical, not psychologicalobjection to child molestation. However, many are still harmed anyway, so I do in part have a psychological objection because you might hurt the girl.
About men have sex with 13 year old girls, I mostly don’t like it, not for any particular reason except I think it’s gross and weird and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
About men having sex with 14-17 year old girls, I don’t see the harm if it’s consensual, and I have no problem at all with it if it is legal, but US society doesn’t agree with me and regards this behavior as morally objectionable to the extreme.
Societies have a right to have whatever reasonable morals they wish. They are free to encode these morals into laws as they see fit. We must live in society. If you break these laws, you might be incarcerated. I don’t like to see my brothers behind bars. I’ve always recommended to all my male readers that they don’t break the statutory rape laws wherever they live because you might end up behind bars.
I also strongly recommend all my readers not molest little girls (under 13) because to me it’s simply immoral behavior. You can also hurt the girl and end up “behind gay bars” yourself for a really long time.
Everything factual I stated above has been proven by science and is straight up scientific fact. Yet if you say it, it’s such a hate fact that you will have a lynch mob at your door screaming “Pedophile!” in ten minutes.
As you can see, my views on adult-teen and adult-child sex are more than reasonable. It’s beyond me why these views have made me into such a pariah. I’m not advocating anything bad.
On a final note, I don’t completely agree with much of Bumface’s hebephilia defense below. Nevertheless, I concur with him that hebephilia is not pathological or even abnormal for that matter.
Hello, I’ve been reading some evo-psych and sexology, and I’ve come across some things I think are very wrong. I just want to explain what I think is wrong about these ideas. Most of what I say will probably just be ignored by people in the field, but I’ll say it anyway.
I’ve often seen it claimed in the Evo-Psych literature that the best females for men to go for in ancestral times were those in their late teens at peak reproductive value. Many people just nod their heads in agreement with this claim without knowing that this is not really how it works in the real world. In primitive foraging societies the girls are actually married off quite a bit younger than that. Most girls are married off by the time they’re 16, so focusing on girls after that age would obviously not have been the best strategy.
In order to stand a chance at monopolizing the females’ reproductive lifespans, the best females to go for are those just prior the onset of their fertility, not after it, and this is what we see happening in primitive foraging societies. The girls are usually married off, and the men start having sex with them a few years before they become fertile.
By getting a female slightly before the onset of her fertility, you can guarantee she hasn’t been impregnated by any other males and still has all her reproductive years ahead of her. The price you pay for doing that is that you’re going to have to wait several years before she starts giving you offspring, but it’s not a big problem.
I’ve seen some Evo-Psychs claim that women about 20 would have been the best for long-term relationships in ancestral times. Now, this is completely out of touch with reality. Girls in foraging societies usually start reproducing before they’re 20, so what these Evo-Psychs are saying is that the best females to go for would have been those that are already married off and up the duff by some other man in the tribe. Complete nonsense.
The best females to go for would have been those that weren’t yet married or starting to reproduce. The typical age of a girl’s first pregnancy in foraging societies is about the mid to late teens, so men would do best by aiming for girls under that age. If focusing on 20 yr olds is such a winning strategy, then how come we don’t see men in foraging societies using it?
Instead, we see girls get married off much younger than that, and it’s certainly not 20 yr olds that sell for the highest price in bride markets. It’s usually girls much younger than that. In a recent study into child marriage in Tanzania, they found that girls about 13 were selling for over double the price of 20 yr olds. If these Evo-Psychs are going to keep on ignoring real-world data like this, then they can’t call themselves proper scientists.
In his paper arguing that hebephilic preferences are maladaptive, Blanchard claimed that taking on pubescent wives would not be a workable strategy since you’d have to wait a few years before they’d start reproducing, but this argument is just more nonsense that ignores real-world data. We know the strategy works fine because we see it working.
It’s common practice in foraging societies for men to marry girls several years before they reach reproductive age. The most common age is about 14, but that’s only the age they’re officially married. The relationship often begins several years before that.
Sure, the men have to wait a few years before they start getting offspring from their wives, but it isn’t much of a problem and is easily outweighed by the advantages of getting a female who is guaranteed to have all her fertile years ahead of her. If it was as big a problem as Blanchard claimed, then it wouldn’t have become common practice to marry girls that young.
12 yo girls in HG societies on average live into their 50s, so claims that your 12 yo wife may die before she starts giving you offspring are more nonsense. Sure, she might die, but the chances are she’ll live all the way to menopause and be able to give you plenty of offspring along the way. Again, real-world data is being ignored. Two other ridiculous claims in his hebephilia paper are first about the fact that pubescent girls in foraging societies are often closely guarded to protect them from sexual harassment and rape, and second about the reproductive statistics from the Pume tribe.
Blanchard mentioned that pubescent girls are often guarded by their male relatives and claimed that this is somehow evidence that being attracted to pubescent girls is abnormal. Wait, what? If they didn’t have to be guarded that would be evidence that the men aren’t interested in them. The fact they have to be closely guarded just goes to show how much the men want them.
When a girl in a primitive foraging society comes into puberty and sprouts some perky eye-catching boobs, she has now entered her most attractive time of life, and all the men notice. She’s now a perky little Lolita, a young maiden, her body is tight and fresh, her boobs are pert, and her face is young and cute.
She is now at the age she where she will suffer the most sexual harassment and is most likely to be sexually assaulted or abducted by raiders who want to keep her for themselves. That’s why she has to be closely guarded at that age. By the time she gets to about 20 and has started reproducing, she’s past her peak, the men lose a lot of interest in her, and she no longer has to be closely guarded.
Her boobs have started getting saggy from breast-feeding, she has stretch-marks on her stomach, pregnancy has made her fatter, and her face has lost its youthful freshness and sparkle.
The risk of sexual assault follows the same pattern in our societies. Girls are most likely to be victims of sex crimes between the onset of puberty and the beginning of adulthood. The males in our species are focusing on the females just prior the beginning of their reproductive lifespan when their long-term reproductive potential is at its highest.
At the end of his paper Blanchard shows some reproductive statistics from the Pume tribe and thinks he has proof that hebephilia would be maladaptive. Basically, the statistics show that girls who start reproducing under 14 are reproductively less successful overall than those who start at 16+.
He thinks this means that men who commit themselves to girls under 14 would also be reproductively less successful than those who commit themselves to girls 16+. This just does not mathematically follow because the girls don’t start reproducing at the age that men commit themselves to them.
A man may marry a 12 yo girl and start having sex with her at that age, but she won’t typically get pregnant until several years later. If a man married an 8 yo girl, she obviously won’t start reproducing at that age, apart from maybe one time in ten million. You can’t presume that a girl would start reproducing at the age a man commits himself to her because that just isn’t what we observe to happen in the real world.
Men in primitive societies marry young girls, but they don’t start reproducing until a few years later. That’s the whole point of the strategy. In order to stand a chance at monopolizing a girl’s reproductive lifespan, you need to claim and commit yourself to her sometime before she reaches reproductive age. What those statistics are really telling us is that it’s a bad idea for girls to start reproducing in their pubescent years. If a girl starts reproducing at 12, she’ll leave behind fewer descendants than if she starts at 17.
It’s a bad idea to start reproducing at 12, and that’s why it rarely happens. Evolution has selected out a lot of the genes that cause girls to start reproducing at 12, though not completely because it does still happen sometimes. Selection happens on a gradient, it’s not just on or off. What makes Blanchard’s theory even more laughable is that the Pume are actually a good example of how adaptive hebephilic preferences can be.
The typical age of a girl’s first pregnancy in the Pume is about 15, so in order to stand a chance at monopolizing a girl’s reproductive lifespan, Pume men need to claim her before she’s 15. Which is exactly what happens. It’s common practice in this tribe for men to marry and knob girls about 12. Whoops.
I think being gay makes it difficult for Blanchard to understand normal male sexuality. One thing he doesn’t seem to understand is that straight men find cuteness sexy.
For example, Belle Delphine.
He seems to think that men should only find adult features sexy, but this is just wrong. There’s no law of evolution that says males must prefer the fully developed adult form. The only thing that ultimately matters in evolution is reproductive success.
If the males in a species can achieve greater reproductive success by going after the immature females, then they will evolve to do exactly that. This has happened to a degree in our species. It makes sense for men to go for females who are a bit immature and haven’t quite yet reached reproductive age because they still have all their reproductive years ahead of them.
The female physical features that men find the most attractive are often those that indicate a certain level of immaturity. The facial proportions men find most attractive are those of girls about 13-14. Men find soft, smooth, hairless skin highly attractive. The skin of adult women is usually a bit coarser and a bit hairy. Disproportionately long legs are highly attractive to men.
During puberty when a girl has her growth spurt, her legs grow faster than her torso, making her legs out of proportion with the rest of her body. It’s not until adulthood that the rest of her body catches up. The general petiteness and slimness men find highly attractive is not typical of adult women but is instead the physical proportions we’d expect to see in teenage schoolgirls.
The BMI men find most attractive, for instance, is the typical BMI of girls about 13. The female genitals men find most attractive are those that look a bit immature, with small inner labia and overall petiteness – the kind of genitals we’d expect to see in girls about 12-14. Men find pert boobs the most attractive. In primitive foraging societies the boobs of adult women have gone saggy due to breast-feeding. It’s only the young adolescent girls who haven’t had a baby yet that still have nice pert boobs.
This state of breast pertness men find highly attractive is naturally an immature feature, not adult feature. In modern societies women retain this immature pert state longer into adulthood due to having babies at a later age and wearing bras that push up their boobs making them look perkier.
The male preference for blonde hair may be another example. People’s hair is often blonde when they’re kids and then goes darker when they’re adult. In cartoons and CGI the female characters are made more attractive by making them look immature, while for the males it generally goes the other way. And, of course, the image of the schoolgirl is popular in the porn industry all around the world.
Fairy tale men below.
So when sexologists like Blanchard and company claim that men prefer fully developed adults, we can see that this is not true. That is what they want to be true, the way they think men should be. They think men should have preferences for fully developed adults 18+, but that is just not what the data shows or what biology predicts.
The most popular age for girls in the porn industry is 18, but that’s because they’re not allowed to go any lower. Obviously, what the market really wants is girls under 18. It’s like in that Chernobyl drama when the Geiger counter measures 3.6 Roentgens because that was the highest it would go to. The evidence is that if there were no legal restrictions, the most popular age for girls in the porn industry would be about 14.
A few years ago, the most popular porn genre was the barely legal stuff in which they’d use petite 18 yo girls with cute faces who looked about 14. They’d often dress up in school uniforms or role play as a young girl. This practice has since stopped because porn like that is now classed as child porn in most countries, but that’s what the market wants.
According to “experts” like Blanchard and Seto, a preference for girls that age is an abnormal evolutionarily maladaptive sexual disorder. They are clowns. They don’t understand the very basics of how the human mating system works. I think it’s only a matter of time before social attitudes change and some studios are granted a special license to produce porn in which the actresses have been made to look under 18 with machine learning.
Some country, probably in Europe, will decide to legalize this pseudo-CP in an effort to cut down on demand for the real stuff. It will have its own category on porn sites, and each video or photo will be electronically licensed to distinguish it from real CP. I predict that when this happens, it will become the most popular category on porn sites, and the most popular age will be about 14.
The most popular AI girlfriend in China is Xiaoice. She’s officially 18 years old, but she’s clearly modeled on a girl about 14. She has a cute face, a petite little body, and wears a school uniform. We can see what the market really wants.
In this video she explains how she hopes to mature in the future, meaning that she’s immature at the moment.
Samsung getting in on it too. They’ve just brought out an immature-looking virtual assistant Sam.
This preference for immature females can’t be unique to our species. I imagine that in species in which the males try to monopolize the females’ reproductive lifespans, the males have a preference for the slightly immature females just prior the onset of their fertility. One example we see this in is Hamadryas baboons. They live in communities of several hundred out on the savanna.
Within these communities males keep small harems of females with their young. When the males enter maturity and are able to start building their harems, they become interested in the young immature virgin females and want to take possession of them. They often kidnap them from neighbouring communities.
What we see in Hamadryas baboons may be something like the way our Australopithicine ancestors used to live and mate out on the savanna. Over the past few million years of evolution through Homo Erectus and archaic humans, the harem size has gotten smaller and smaller, approaching monogamy.
But…but…don’t the highly scientific willy tests show that most men prefer fully developed adults? I don’t think we should take these primitive dick-meters too seriously. There are a ton of problems with them, the biggest of which is that the way people behave in the lab is not always the same as how they behave in the real world.
According to these dick-meters men find 30 yo women more attractive than teen schoolgirls, in complete contradiction with both real-world data and what biology predicts. Teen schoolgirls have double the number of reproductive years ahead of them than 30 yo women, so biology predicts they would be much more sought after, and this is exactly what we see in the real world.
The schoolgirl image is much more popular than the MILFs in the porn industry, teen girls are targeted for sexual assaults much more often than 30 yo women, young teen girls sell for a much higher price in bride markets, and in fairy tales and mythologies around the world, young teen maidens are the most highly prized, etc.
If these tests say that men find 30 yo women more attractive than teen schoolgirls, then we just can’t take them seriously. I think the sexologists who like to rely on them so much are suffering a bad case of physics envy. They like the idea that they can take some scientific measurements of men’s attractions and put them in a graph or equation like they’re doing Real Science. One day we’ll have the technology to do that, but these primitive dick-meters just aren’t it, and if they’re in conflict with real-world data, then we should go with the real-world data.
Menarche and Mammories
In a lot of primitive societies there are taboos against having sex with girls before menarche. A man may marry a young girl, but he isn’t supposed to consummate the marriage until she has her first period. People often take this to mean that this is the way nature intended things to work, as if menarche represented nature’s age of consent. When a girl has her first period, she has now supposedly become fertile and ready to have sex. A little bit of thinking will show that this just isn’t true.
There are no dramatic changes in a girl’s appearance of behaviour when she starts having periods. If a girl sprouted boobs and became interested in sex all of a sudden when she had her first period, we would have good reason to think girls have evolved to start mating just after menarche, but we see no such thing. One month before and one month after menarche girls look and behave the same. Minus the symbolic significance many cultures put on it, menarche is actually pretty uneventful.
Also, menarche doesn’t really mark the beginning of fertility. Girls don’t usually become able to conceive until 2-3 years after their first period. These rules against having sex with girls before menarche are really just as much social inventions as the age of consent in our societies. We have a rule that says “Don’t have sex with girls before age X,” and these primitive societies may have a rule that says “Don’t have sex with girls before menarche.” But is that how people actually behave?
I grew up in a working-class town just outside London in the UK. The AOC was 16, but it was common for men to have sex with girls younger than that. I knew two girls who lost their virginity at age 11 to men in their 20’s. Girls about age 13 would often have older boyfriends in their late teens or early 20’s. That’s what happened with my mum and dad.
I was always jealous of those Bigger Boys taking our girls, but when I was 20, I had a 13 yo girlfriend for a while, so it all balanced out in the end. When she was 15 she hooked up with her 35 yo uncle-in-law, and they’ve now been together for about 20 years and had 3 kids.
I knew a girl who loved older men, and when she was 12, she confided in me that she was screwing a 50 yo man who lived in the flats. I never saw him but I had no reason to doubt her. She also had a 23 yo boyfriend for a while when she was 12, and that was no secret. He was a friend of the family and used to come around her house to visit a lot.
So this is a little taste of reality. We may have this rule against having sex with girls under 16, but it happens anyway. The attitude we basically had was that if a girl had reached puberty and got the boobers, then she was ready. I think this is the way nature intended things to work, and we see the same kind of thing happening in primitive societies.
When Chagnon lived with the Yanomamo, he saw that when a girl got to about 12 and had some boobs, all the men noticed and she had to be guarded to protect her from sexual harassment and rape. The men weren’t supposed to have sex with girls that young because they usually hadn’t started their periods yet, but in reality they did. Most girls would start having sex with their husbands before menarche. In the Ache tribe researchers found that every single girl lost her virginity before menarche, usually with an adult man.
Out there in the jungle they may have some rule that you should only have sex with a girl when she has had her first period, but in reality probably most girls get screwed before that. Boobs are nature’s signal a girl is physically ready to have sex, not menarche. A girl reaches puberty, sprouts the boobs that signals she’s ready, and all the males notice and want to have have sex with her. This is how nature intended mating to work. It’s kind of obvious when you think about it.
Girls develop boobs a few years before they become fertile and able to conceive, but this is nothing strange. Soon after the onset of puberty, chimp females start getting sexual swellings on their bums that signal they’re ready to have sex, but they don’t become fertile until a few years after that. So we’re just following the same pattern we see in other animals. The females develop sexual characteristics and start having sex a bit before the onset of their fertility.
The problem is that we are in such a crazy moral panic and mass hysteria over this subject right now that anyone who simply recites the good, hard, solid science behind this matter, as discovered in many good laboratory studies, will get accused of being a pedophile. Because the science, according to the modern craziness, is “pro-pedophile.”
This is nonsense. Science isn’t pro anything or anti anything. If it is, it’s not science, it’s politics. Which is what a lot of what passes for science nowadays, especially in the pathetic social sciences (which aren’t even sciences) right now, especially when it’s driven by SJWism, Identity Politics, and Critical Race Theory, three viciously anti-science plagues menacing our society.
I’ve done a lot of research on this subject because it interests me. Now the morons, which is 95% of humans, think that makes you guilty right there. If you study it, you do it. If you talk or write about it, you do it. Your average idiot actually believes that. Of course it’s true in some cases, but pro-pedophile types are pretty easy to spot. I’ve seen quite a few of their webpages. They’re not very shy about it.
I’m also interested in a million things, including a lot of sick and fucked up things I would never think of doing. I do seem to have some sort of attraction to sick and fucked up stuff. I don’t do these things, but for some reason, I am fascinated by them. How about if I write next time about the coprophiles, or shiteaters? What do you all think? Good subject for a post? No? Too bad, I’ll write about them anyway!
Anyway the figures are absolutely shocking:
3% of men are pure pedophiles, having more attraction to girls age 2-10 than to mature females. That’s absolutely bizarre. That’s 3.3 million American men right there. Now, as long as these guys don’t touch any kids, I don’t care what their sexual orientation is. We are not into the era of thought crimes, but we are headed that way. This is why I appear to be defending these people sometimes.
If they are not offending, I have beef with them, and any man with an orientation like this can’t help it anyway. It appears to be a developmental disorder like homosexuality, transsexualism and so many other things.
The debate about this has gotten so heated. People want to execute every “pedophile” in the US or at least lock them up for life. I’m not willing to execute 3.3 million American men and I’m not willing to lock them all up for life either. I don’t have any solutions to this mess, but those are not the way to go.
Beyond that, 18% of men are more attracted to females under age 15 (some say under 13) than to mature females. Most everyone would call these men pedophiles, but in the literature they are calling them hebephiles (maximal attraction to 11-14 year old girls, though the attraction does go up to age 15 in the hebephiles I have seen). That figure is truly shocking to me!
Most of these men probably have strong drives towards mature women, so they can substitute a prosocial drive for an antisocial one. But the way most Americans see it, 21% of all US men are pedophiles!I’m not about to condemn 20% of my brothers. I love my fellow men too much. I’m not about to jump on board this Misandry Train and condemn tens of millions of men to the gallows or life imprisonment. It’s bizarre.
26% of all men are as attracted or more attracted to girls under 15 than they are to mature females. Of the 26%, 3% of them or 10% of the total, are literal pedophiles. The rest are hebephiles or at least most people would see them that way. The vast majority of these men probably have strong attraction to mature females too, hence they can put aside their urges for young girls and focus on mature teenagers (16-17) and women (18+), hence they are not particularly dangerous.
That is absolutely shocking! How could 1/4 of all men have such a strong orientation to girls under 15, even preferring them to mature females? It boggles the mind.
Now almost everyone you tell this to will raise a fit, start screaming and yelling, and will quickly accuse you of being a pedophile yourself.
Beyond that, how on Earth has such a strong attraction or even preference for girls under 15 compared to mature females even evolve in our species (because it must be evolved).
The commenter here attempts to answer that question in terms of evolutionary biology. He is responding to this post:
bluestar: Well, the truth is that a certain amount of pedophilic attraction is normal for men and makes biological sense. Because what matters is the amount of offspring a female can give a man over the long-term, men have evolved to prefer young, nulliparous females that have all their fertile years ahead of them.
In primitive societies it’s common for men to pursue little girls for marriage. It makes more biological sense for men to chase after 8 yo girls who have all their fertile years ahead of them than 30 yr olds who have used up half of their fertility.
We see a similar thing in Hamadryas baboons. When the males come up to maturity they become interested in the juvenile females and want to take them into their harems. They often kidnap them from neighbouring communities.
Men in hunter-gatherer societies do the same thing. This practice is often called “woman theft” which makes it sound like the men are kidnapping 25 yr olds, but they’re usually much younger than that. Chagnon saw men in the Yanomamo tribe in Venezuela often kidnap “unripe” girls from neighbouring villages. Native American tribes would often kidnap little girls from other tribes. A famous case of this is Cynthia Parker, who was kidnapped at about age 10 and lived with the Comanche tribe for over 20 years, having 3 kids with the chief.
Hamadryas baboons are very interesting as the modern human mating may have evolved something like the generalized polygyny system they use.
The whole topic of pedophilia is so taboo that evolutionary psychologists won’t touch it. It just has to be completely evolutionarily maladaptive and abnormal!
It’s not pathological for a man of any age to have sex with a teenage girl of any age. That’s clear from the debates around DSM-5 Hebephilia which wished to pathologize men who have a preference for girls under 15 over mature females. The criteria would probably have been been severe and persistent fantasies of pubertal girls, so that would rule out most men. However, fully 21% of all men are more attracted to girls under 13 than they are to mature females!
I realize that figure is shocking, but bear with me. It’s been born out by study after study.
I did some research on the local Yokuts Indians from a site in the 1600’s-1700’s. They had a series of skeletons of young women who had all died. They were between ages of 27-35. The assumption was that this was a woman’s lifespan among this primitive tribe. She was dead by age 31! If a woman is going to be dead by age 31, she’d best start having kids at age 16 or maybe even younger. If she starts breeding at age 16, her children will be 15 when she dies. Starting at 15, her kids would be 16 when she died. Starting at 14, her kids would be 17 when she died.
In Mexico, they marry their women and start breeding them at age 14, and it is usually an adult man who marries her. In most primitive tribes, there is a coming of age ceremony around age 15. Even today among most primitive tribes, girls and boys are both considered full adults at age 15. According to modern, advanced American thinking, 100% of the people in primitive tribes today are child molesters and pedophiles! See how stupid that sounds? 95% of the American population actually thinks like this.
You might think it’s terrible for a teen’s mother to die when the teen is 15-17 years old, but back then, that was just normal. The kids would not be left adrift anyway as by that age, they were all no longer boys and girls but full-fledged men and women.
Furthermore, sad events that are normalized in your society may not be very traumatizing. Much of the trauma occurs because people are told that something horrible has happened to them. Before they get told that, they were often not sure of how to process the event. If instead we told that that what happened was wrong or bad but it was no big deal and they would get over it, you would see the trauma rates collapse.
Tell someone they’ve been traumatized and guess how they act? They act traumatized! In our society, we’ve decided that 50% of life is traumatizing, especially with the snowflakes and their safe spaces and microaggressions. No wonder so much young people seem so nuts these days. We’ve been yelling at them that they’re being traumatized all the time all through childhood and teen years and it doesn’t even get better when they grow up. So they act, duh. Traumatized! Of course once you have a Traumatizing Society, you need to set up a huge Trauma Industry dedicated to making mountains out of molehills and ensuring that grown adults remain pussified babies long into adulthood.
The modern notion that people are all little tiny children until the day they hate 18 is insane. It’s backed up by notions that the brain is not fully matured by 17. Well, it’s not fully matured by age 24-26 either, so let’s put the age of consent for sex and the majority at age 25! After all, you’re only an adult when your brain is mature, right?
Truth is that people mature at different ages. In early times in the West, children were considered “little adults” and were often treated as such. It’s not known if they matured earlier then but maybe they did. Treat someone like a kid, they act like a kid. Treat someone like an adult, they act like an adult.
Although this sounds very groovy and compassionate to our postmodern, late capitalist, metrosexual, 3rd Wave feminist ears, the truth is that for 200,000 years of our evolution, no human gave two shits that the brain didn’t fully mature until age 25, although they probably had some notion of the idea. They simply didn’t feel it was worth thinking about because frankly it isn’t.Our present culture infantalizes teenagers and young adults to an extreme degree. Infantalizing humans doesn’t seem to be a good idea to me, but maybe “modern people” have other ideas. After all, treat someone like a baby and they act like one, right?
Further, most primitive tribes allow both boys and girls to start having sex at puberty, around age 13. The girls often have sex with boys, but sometimes they have sex with men. For instance, the typical marriage among the Blackfoot Indians was between a man aged 35 and a 15 year old girl. Our “modern, scientific, compassionate” society would state unequivocally that all Blackfoot men were pedophiles or child molesters for the thousands of years that the tribe was in existence.
Isn’t that a stupid way to think? Look how stupid we are! We’re surrounded by all these damned gadgets, we are so technologically advanced that we’re about to become literal aliens, we can cure or help most diseases, we understand most of the most important questions, including the biggies or we’re on our way to figuring them out. Unified Theory, here we come!
But some goddamned primitive Indian with a digging stick and a rock to grind acorns in who doesn’t know the first thing about technology, science, or medicine has more wisdom we “advanced” clowns do. For Chrissake, we may be advancing technologically, but we’re going backwards in terms of wisdom. How pathetic is it that Silicon Valley ultra-technologists have less wisdom that some primitive tribe eking out an existence in the jungle? Are we too civilized for our own damn good? It’s possible to get so “civilized,” protective, pampering, and fussy that you’re not even rational anymore. That my modern colleagues have less wisdom than some spearchucker in the jungle is a pretty sad statement!
From age 13-15, most girls are not very fertile, so it’s hard to get pregnant.
The debate around Hebephilia ended up concluding that even having a strong preference for pubertal children as sex partners was not mentally disordered. Further, it wasn’t even abnormal! Having been in chatrooms full of these guys, I’m not so sure about that, but it’s best to keep as much sex crap out of the DSM as we can.
It was even decided that having sex with 13-15 year old girls if one had a preference for them was not mentally disordered either because most crimes are not mental disorders and most criminals aren’t nuts. Instead, the argument was that these men weren’t nuts – instead they were just criminals, with being criminal and being nuts as two different things!
Of course most crooks aren’t nuts. They’re just bad. Are there disorders called Murder Disorder, Mugging Disorder, Fraudster Disorder, Batterer Disorder, Attempted Murder Disorder, Burglar Disorder, Robber Disorder, Forger Disorder, etc.? Well, of course not.
In mental health all we care about is if something is nuts or not. Hence we don’t care much about criminal behavior because most crooks aren’t nuts. We leave that to the judicial system to deal with and moral philosophers to decide what to allow and forbid. If people are disordered, we say they are abnormal. If people are not disordered, we say they are normal.Obviously a lot of real bad people are not disordered. So we are forced to call a lot of criminal behavior and most criminals normal because neither one is generally crazy. So a lot of very bad behavior and people are “normal” in the sense that they’re not nuts.
So a man of any age having sex with a teenage girl of any age does not make him sexually abnormal, as it’s completely “normal” behavior, as in, it’s not nuts, and even, looking at human history and other cultures, in most places and times, it was more or less normal.
But normal behavior doesn’t necessarily mean ok behavior. It just means that the behavior is not crazy.
The statutory rape matter is a moral and legal problem, not a psychological one.
We in mental health do not like to pathologize crimes and morally unethical behavior as psychological disorder. This is outside of what we care about and off into the lands of moral philosophers, religious thinkers, and legal theorists. It is in the area of right and wrong, good and bad, and good and evil. Most criminal behavior is not driven by psychological disorder. It’s driven by a defective moral conscience.
So whether it should be legal for a man of whatever age to have sex with a teenage girl or whatever age is a moral matter, a moral question. Perhaps you feel it is the worst behavior on Earth. Perhaps you think it’s completely ok and should be legal. Probably you are somewhere between those views. All of those views about this behavior are valid, as everyone and hence society itself is entitled to reasonable moral values of right and wrong.
Why was there an attempt to shove Hebephilia into the DMSO category in the first place. Because it was a game. A game called “Call Em Crazy, Lock Em up as Dangerous Forever, and Throw Away the Key.” Otherwise known as preventive detention. Or putting people in prison for life for the crime of “dangerousness.”
The game here is make a lot of the sexual behavior we dislike into “mental illnesses.” Because the only way we can lock someone up forever on the bullshit charge of “dangerousness” (there’s no such crime) is if they’re nuts. Yep. You can be dangerous as Hell, and as long as you’re not officially crazy and you’re just a mean SOB, it’s all kosher.
Obviously most sex offenders are not the slightest bit nuts, so a scam was made up to call them crazy so we could lock them up forever in preventive detention (which is probably illegal) for the rest of their lives because we think maybe they might sort of kind of a little bit possibly theoretically plausibly do something, we don’t know what, to someone, we don’t who, somewhere, we don’t know where, somehow, we don’t know how.
That’s unconstitutional on its face.
The only people you can lock up like are the dangerously mentally ill, and you are supposed to release them when they get better, except we never do because no matter how much better they get, we always say they’re not better enough. So we wanted to lock all these poor sops away forever, but we couldn’t because they weren’t nuts, they were just bad people, you know, like most criminals? So a scam was created to make up a bunch of “mental disorders” out of what are mostly just kinks and sexual perversions, when it’s doubtful whether any kinky or perverted people are actually nuts.
Generally they’re not nuts. They’re just perverts. Perverts aren’t nuts. They’re perverted. Two different things.
So they made up a fake mental disorder called Pedophilia to lock up all the child molesters forever, although most men in preventive detention are nonpedophilic molesters. Also they never let them out even when they get better because no matter how much better they get, the cops still say they’re not better enough yet. When will they be better enough? When they’re dead! It’s right out of Kafka. They just sit and rot forever. All because, you know, think of the children! And the usual pearl clutching we Americans so excel at.
So we decided all the chomos and short eyes had a “mental disease” called “Pedophilia” that made them “insane” or if you prefer “crazy.” Well, it doesn’t make you insane and it doesn’t even make you crazy. It might make you do bad things, but it doesn’t make you nuts. And since we decided on no rational basis whatsoever that all of these people were permanently dangerous, we have locked them all away forever on the basis that they are “dangerously mentally ill.” It’s all a big joke.
Dangerously mentally ill is supposed to be for the paranoid schizophrenic who grabs a gun and climbs a tower. It’s not for run of the mill criminals. Merely being dangerous as opposed to being nuts and dangerous is not granted the penalty of preventive detention because it’s decided that as long as you’re not nuts, you have at least some ability to control your dangerous behavior because obviously if you’re nuts, you lose that ability.
How about all the other paraphilias? Why don’t we decide they’re all dangerously mentally ill too? There’s nothing preventing it. The peeping toms? The flashers? The fetishists? The masochists? The sexual sadists? The first two are low level criminals so no one cares, the third are harmless except to women’s panties, shoes, and pocketbooks, the fourth only hurt themselves so no one cares, but the fourth? The sexual sadists? One might make the case that some convicted sexual sadists are dangerously mentally ill, but they never go down on this stuff. Only the Chesters. Because, you know, everyone hates Touchers. Think of the children!
One might think that as Antisocial Personality Disorder is in the DSM, a lot of these guys could go down on dangerously mentally ill, but there’s a serious argument whether any personality disordered person is mentally ill per se as opposed to be what I would call sick, character disordered, twisted, etc. Axis 2 people are what I call “soul-sick.” They’re permanently disordered, but the issue is at the core of their selves so they’re not really mentally ill. Instead, they are “sick.”
But nope, no PD’s go down on dangerously mentally ill. We save that for the sex criminals! Because, you know, the sex criminals are really so much worse than your ordinary variety criminals who burgle, rob, thieve, defraud, beat, maim, mug, shoot, stab, torture, and kill people because as long as they’re not fucking anyone while they’re doing it, it’s never quite so bad, you see? Because Puritanism. Obviously it’s so much worse to do bad things when you are fucking someone as opposed to just, you know, doing bad things when you don’t happen to be fucking anyone. Because whether you’re fucking someone or not when you commit your crime makes such a difference!
There has been a very devious attempt lately to sneak another mentally disordered sex offender (MDSO) into the mix.
But first notice that they singled out the sex criminals for permanent preventive detention as opposed to, you know, your garden variety maniacs. But why? Why do only sex criminals deserve preventive detention as opposed to regular murderers, muggers, and robbers? Because moral panic. That’s why.
They went after the rapists. Because of course everyone hates rapists. Except we live in a rape culture that says it’s ok to rape and encourages all men to go rape all they want. But at the same time everyone hates rapists. Makes sense, huh? They tried to sneak in a Rape Paraphilic Disorder in order to round up all the rapists just like they rounded up all the Chesters.
Problem? The vast majority of rapists do not have any sort of a paraphilia about rape. They do it for all sorts of reasons. Some like to hurt people (sadistic rapists), some are angry at or hate women (anger rapists) and two different types do it for different power trips – the Power Reassurance Rapist and another that slips my mind. One of these types is the “gentleman rapist” who actually feels bad about raping you! So there are different kinds, and almost all rapists won’t kill you, except the Sadists (5%) are very dangerous, and the Anger Rapists (30%?) may well hurt you but generally won’t kill you unless you fight them, in which case they might.
But men who have a specific paraphilia about rape? That is, they get aroused more by the idea of raping women than by anything else, possibly to the point that unless they rape or pretend to rape, it just doesn’t move the meter? It’s either very uncommon or nonexistent, depending on who you listen to. But of course, once they sneak in Rape Paraphilic Disorder, they’re going to label allthe rapists mentally ill with this fake illness, and lock them all away as MDSO’s! Neat trick, huh? Thankfully the DSM-5 committees stopped that one coming and dodged the bullet.
DSM-5 Hebephilia was shot down on similar grounds, that this was an attempt to round up men who committed statutory rape with young teens (13-15 year old girls) and missed the deadline for going down on Child Molestation (usually under 13). So this way we get to lock up countless men who bang hot to trot little jailbaits forever as dangerously mentally ill.
A famous study on childhood sexual abuse was done 20 years ago by Rind et al. I think I still have a copy of it on my desktop here.
It provoked wild outrage. Even the idiotic American Psychological Association denounced it, notable as one of the most anti-scientific statements this anti-scientific organization has ever issued. Even the US Congress got in on the act. The Congress passed a resolution condemning the study! Congressmen, mostly Republicans, stood up and denounced it forcefully.
The problem? The study came up with the wrong answer. In other words, the truth was wrong and society preferred to believe pleasant lies over unpleasant truths, so the paper was condemned for discovering the wrong facts.
Usually when theory and facts do not match up, we say that the theory was wrong and go back to the drawing board.
However, in this case and with all ideological arguments by ideologues and politics types, when the theory and the facts don’t match up, the facts are wrong, and the facts are not the facts! Why? Because the theory is said to be automatically a priori true. The theory must be true. It cannot be false. So the facts must be wrong and we need to change the facts, wipe out the truth, and say that reality isn’t real, instead, what is real is some fantasy world that doesn’t exist.
A number of fake “studies” were undertaken by other behavioral “scientists” taking about the Rind findings and finding fault with this or that conclusion. None of the fake studies denouncing it were worth a hill of beans. That they made it into the journals at all shows that pathetic anti-scientific nature of the social sciences, sadly also including Psychology, which has been trying to become more of a science for a long time now.
But by the very fact that it is a social science means that Psychology will always be a fake science in some ways because its findings have to do with people, and the science of people will always be twisted by politics, ideology, bias, and mostly emotional reaction.
It’s hard to get emotional about a new finding in math or physics. Who cares! But findings in the social sciences are inherently emotional because we are always emotional about ourselves and our fellow humans, and anything people are strongly emotional about will always be tainted by bias, propaganda, politics, and ideology. In other words, lies. This is why the social sciences will always be doomed to the charge of being fake sciences and will always carry the guilty burden of physics envy.
Ritter et al conducted a meta-analysis of a huge number of studies on the effects of childhood sexual abuse on children as adults. Child abuse was mostly defined as sexual abuse below age 13, so sex with teenage girls and boys, a massive minefield, was left out.
The available evidence shows that consensual sex with teenage girls and boys and adults causes little if any damage to teenagers. This behavior is illegal not because it is harmful to the teens, as I doubt that it is. Instead it is outlawed because society’s morals say that members of society do not wish to live in a society where adults are free to have sex with teenagers of various ages.
It’s seen as unsavory, unpleasant, disgusting or revolting, and often morally wrong. But this behavior is not psychologically disordered in any way. This is a moral and legal problem, not a psychological one.
Unfortunately we are now in the midst of a truly insane mass hysteria around the sexuality of teenage girls in which 90% of the population has thrown reason out the window and gone batshit insane, out and out lies are widely believed, and science and facts are no where to be seen.
In fact, the people who quote the science and the facts about this question are attacked as pedophiles! Because I guess only pedophiles believe in science and truth when it comes to this sort of thing. If you don’t want to be called a pedophile, just spout the usual lies about this subject. As long as you keep lying and don’t ever resort to facts, you’re in the clear!
Fact: nothing published in an academic journal has ever produced evidence suggesting that teen/adult relationships are harmful or predatory. Literally not even one. Anthropological and historical studies all over the world have found that such relationships are common in many societies and no harm was reported in any society ever studied.
How do I know this? I’ve studied them. A particularly large one was done out of Germany in the 1950’s. You can find this evil science of banned truths on the Net, though I can’t tell you where to look. The pedo advocate sites have links to it, but I don’t want to send you there. I suspect the motives of those who wrote this study, but the science seems good.
Furthermore, historically speaking, I’ve learned from the Psychohistorian sites that teen/adult relations were normal in most of the world including the West up until 1900. Zero harm was reported.
Sadly, mass molestation of children was also reported in the West from Roman and Greek times until 1900. Under the crowded urban conditions that arose with the onset of capitalism and the Industrial Revolution, where families were packed together in tiny spaces, a great deal of molestation went on. I’m not happy about this at all, but it’s notable that no ill effects were observed in Greece and Rome until the pre-1900 West.
Perhaps the reason for this was that molestation of children was simply an expected fact of life. If you grow up as a female and get molested and all of your woman friends also got molested, it’s seen as a normal thing. There’s usually nothing inherently wrong with this behavior absent physical damage. Things that are normalized in any society tend to cause little if any damage.
I disagree here with some folks like psychohistorians who argue that all sexual abuse of children under any circumstances, normalized or condemned, results in inevitable terrible lifetime damage to the person. They also believe that many other things experienced in childhood cannot but cause horrible lifelong damage.
I doubt if that is true. If you grow up in a society that normalizes this or that behavior, outside of extreme perversion, aggression, and sadism, it’s probably seen as normalized and shrugged off. In other words, the damage of most of these things is relative and depends on the degree to which your society condemns or pathologizes the behavior.
However, for small children, the true victims of child molestation, it is quite different.
Granted, the victims were interviewed when in college so the abuse was a long ways away. Conceivably if they had interviewed them earlier as minors, they would manifested more damage. The findings were shocking:
Rind et al found that the long-term effects of child sexual abuse were typically neither pervasive nor intense, and men reacted much less negatively than women. Ritter et al also found that less than 10% of victims were traumatized. The most common effects were shame, blame, and confusion.
To explicate that further, the effects were shame about having been abused, blame for themselves for allowing it to happen to them, and confusion about the abuse itself.
The confusion may manifest in various ways. A female friend of mine from 10 years ago was molested. Of course she absolutely hates my guts now, but that’s not an unusual reaction for women who get involved with me in some way or another. I’m used to it.
She told me that she was molested by a pedophile in her church group when she was 8 years old. The molester was a young man and he does appear to have been a pedophilic or preferential molester. She told me, “It’s confusing because it feels good but it’s wrong.” This is part of the thinking behind the confusion that kids experience after being abused.
She also told me that she had completely gotten over it by age 50, but she seemed to have gotten over it much before then. I knew two other women (I actually got involved with these two whereas with the other one it was more email and hot phone conversations) of the same age who were sexually abused as girls, one by a probable pedophile and the other by her opportunistic teenage older brother. They both told me that they had gotten over it by age 50 but implied that they had gotten over it much before then.
The shame, blame, and confusion are apparently short-term effects in most victims, and at the very least have dissipated by college age.
The implication is that children or minors may experience those effects for some time in their youth, but these effects mostly go away by adulthood, and there is no lasting damage in almost all (90%) of cases. The study also found that where the molestation was consensual or non-coerced, there was little if any long-term damage. However, when coercion was involved, damage was much more likely and could easily last into adulthood or perhaps an entire lifeftime.
Unfortunately, pedophiles have gotten a hold of the Rind et al study and like to wave it around to try to push for legalization of child/adult sexual relations.
That’s not my intention here. I don’t care if most victims get over it. Good for them. I’m happy that they are not damaged in the long term.
Nevertheless, this behavior still needs to be outlawed because I don’t want to live in a society where adults are allowed to have sex with young children below age 13. I don’t have to have a reason. I just don’t like it. That’s all the reason I need.
When I was working as an anthropologist for a local Indian tribe, I had to go through all of the anthropological literature about the tribe. This took quite some time. There was quite a bit of hostility from the Indians towards the anthropologists, which is stupid, sad, and mostly just ignorant.
The legend had grown up among many of the Indians that the anthropologists who had come through were the “enemies of the Indian people.” I researched the folks who had come through and it didn’t seem to fit.
We are talking some of the biggest names of all like Alfred Kroeber. Kroeber and his wife loved the Indians in a time at the turn of the century when Indians were not so popular. The legend continued that the crafty Indians, in order to fool the wicked White men, had concocted lies to tell the anthropologist.
Anthropological field work is hard enough without having to deal with this kind of crap, but it does come up at times.
Fieldwork manuals will tell you, first of all, that you need to develop a strong sense of cultural relativity if you are going to do fieldwork.
You have to decide that whatever it is these folks do in terms of their culture and values, no matter how weird, stupid, horrible, or noxious, it’s ok. You aren’t going to make any judgments about it.
You want to chop off little girls’ clits? Ok, no big.
You put grandpa on an ice floe when he gets old? Understandable, I’d do the same with my own Dad.
You treat your women like shit? Hey, I can understand, in dating countless women over a lifetime, I’ve built up a nice boiling witches brew of hatreds and grievances myself. Keep them ball-breaking bitches down! You go, guys! Show them cunts who’s in charge! Damn right they better put out or else! They owe us! We rule!
I think you get the picture.
This sort of thing may prove difficult for many folks.
In fieldwork, you need to do this to get along properly with your subjects. If you don’t accept their lifestyle with “unconditional positive regard,” it’s probably not going to work very well. You get subjects lying to you like they did with Margaret Mead and all sorts of stuff.
I actually spent a lot of time on this agonizing question, and I called up famous anthropologists all over the country in trying to solve this empirical question. Had the evil White anthropologists really been had by these crafty noble savages, fresh out of Paleolithic?
Turns out they probably had not. Further, I uncovered a lot of data that suggested that all of the anthros had a good relationship with their informants.
Another thing you can do is go through all of the old data and see how well it all lines up. Turns out that all of the data I had from 1873 through 1970 lined up very well.
There were times when I spotted some lying. Indians said that wild horses and buffalo used live in Central California, and they used to hunt them. The last wild horses lived here 10,000 years ago, and buffalo never did. The anthro himself wrote in his field notes that he thought they were lying to him.
There are several ways to test this. One thing you can do is to interview informants over a period of time, say weeks or months. You can work with a single informant any number of times over that period. You can ask the same question over and over a few times and see if the answers vary.
Another thing you can do is go around to different informants and ask the same question. If only one informant says, yeah, we ate vultures for breakfast, and the others say, “Hell no, we did not, he’s lying,” then vulture-eater is probably lying.
You can interview informants alone and with others, changing the others around, and see if their stories change when they are with various others compared to what they say when they are alone. You can shoot questionable material to others and see if they back it up. In fact, you need to try to back up all of your data. One informant is pretty shaky.
It all rests on the sort of relationship you have with your informants. Bad relationship = possibility of poor data. Good relationship portends good data.
I decided that there was some tragic reason why the Indians harbored this hatred for the anthros. Obviously, the anthros just represented Whitey.
Plus many of them had this crazy idea that all the anthros had used the Indians, gone back to Berkeley or wherever and used this illustrious knowledge to write famous books about the Indians and got rich. The anthros got rich, and the Indians never saw a dime. It’s not true, but it felt good to them.
There was a sadder aspect to this anger. All of the great stuff on these Indians had been written by White people. Everything on the language, the culture, everything.
Why couldn’t the Indians write down about their language and culture themselves? The suggestion is that they are too stupid to do that, so they have to have the Smart White Man come and do it for them, and that’s totally humiliating. A reaction to humiliation is rage.
I went through Sylvia Broadbent’s Grammar of Southern Sierra Miwok as part of my work. One informant, who worked as some sort of “House Indian” in Yosemite National Park, was well-known for being a showman, liar, and teller of tales. He also knew a lot of language, but he threw in lots of other words that other informants had never heard before. She ended up rejecting a lot of his data as spurious.
As you can see, this is not exactly hard science. Where do you think “physics envy” comes from? It gets hard to get mathematical proofs of much of anything in the social sciences, which is why the physicists sneer that our sciences are “soft sciences”.
So much of our judgments in these tough cases in fieldwork is play it by ear, seat of the pants, I know it when I see it intuitive stuff.
Unfortunately my project floundered over some of the Indians’ rage at the anthropologists. I had gathered this data and was set to write it up, and the whole thing got shot down.
Because elders said that the Indians had lied to the anthros, every word of the notes was up for grabs. There were known knowns, known unknowns, and worst of all, unknown unknowns, the last category being what the otherwise non-empirical Indians deemed the notes.
I was on a salary anyway, so it really didn’t matter. One of the amusing things was the sort of things that they disputed. They were livid about the notes that reported that these Indians tole the anthros that they used to eat skunks, rattlesnakes, and gopher snakes.
Their rejection of this food, of which the rattlesnakes at least are proven to taste precisely like chicken (of course), is based on a primitive but common mode of thinking. Rattlesnakes are poisonous, so they are evil, so they should not be eaten. The suggestion is that the meat is poison too. Only an idiot would eat poison meat.
Skunks smell horrible when you piss them off, so obviously their meat must taste like their horrid odor. Someone else opined that their meat is “probably pretty oily.”
Turns out, according to the New York Times in 1913, skunk is one of the delicacies of the woods, right up there with possum, deer, and bear. The main obstacle in the way of proper enjoyment are the speed bumps of human psychology. As long as you associate the meat with skunk-stink, it might taste pretty bad. Convince yourself it’s really fillet mignon and you can dig in for a hearty meal.
Tender eating, skunk meat tastes like either chicken (obviously), goose, duck, or rabbit, depending on your powers of dissociation. You really need to figure out how to dress skunk meat properly in order to keep the stink away from the choice cuts. Baked skunk recipe here.
As I feel I’ve been figuratively eating skunk most of my life anyway, I may as well take the plunge some day. If it’s really as good as they say it is, I assume it will be coming to Chez Panisse or Spago anytime now.
The gopher snake was also rejected as food, but I have often wondered what they tasted like. A while back, I was catching them by the side of the road a lot. If they were near dead, I’d bring them home and throw them on the lawn for my cats to play with, or drag them around on the lawn and let the cats chase them.
Of course I washed the snake blood off my hands and my car. People who saw me doing that still think I’m a really weird person.
After the gopher snake died, I brought it inside and seriously thought about figuring how to cook the sucker. I finally gave up and threw it out in the woods in back. One cool thing about living in the woods is any small dead animal you toss into the woods will always vanish within 1-2 days max. Carrion doesn’t stick around long in nature; it’s the feral equivalent of dumpster-diving.
I later asked some people how to slice up and cook a gopher snake, and everyone thought it was one of the most outrageous things they had ever heard. I guess they still think I’m weird too.
Anyway, the Indians insisted that they never ate gopher snake. “Ugh!” One Indian said, “They taste like dirt. It lives in the ground!” He curled up his nose.
I’m told this is more erroneous thinking, and the guy’s probably never chowed down one anyway. This cognitive error states that a thing tastes like what it lives in. Gopher snakes spent a lot of time in subterranean mode pushing up daisies but living to tell about it, so therefore, they must taste like dirt. It lives in dirt; it tastes like dirt. Probably not. By this logic, pork tenderloin ought to taste like mud, and it doesn’t.
Of course, inquiring minds the world over (Well, at least me anyway) are dying to know the ins and outs of how to hunt, kill, and skin skunks. Forget the kitchen for now. Procurement and dressing are tough enough.
Try here. Turns out skunks may be trapped, shot, killed by bow and arrow, drowned, or asphyxiated with car exhaust. Clearly the trick is to kill em without getting sprayed. This ends up being quite the challenge. Skunk dressing is so involved that colleges ought to offer six-month courses for certificates in it. The first story here is quite amusing. It’s pretty much skunk-skinning gone wrong about every way it could. I got a kick.
In a lot of cultures, no one particularly cares what postmenopausal women do. They are often allowed to drink and take drugs, while this may have been banned earlier for obvious reasons.
And perhaps the sexual prohibitions come off because once a woman can’t have kids anymore, who the Hell cares what she does sexually, right? Control of female sexuality is all wrapped up in paternity and childbearing. Briefly, you always know who your mother is. Not so with your Dad! Your Mom might be pointing the finger at the wrong guy. Men are loath for obvious reasons to invest time and money taking care of some other guy’s kid, so they really want to make sure the baby is theirs. Hence the strict controls over female sexuality in post-hunter-gatherer societies.
Incidentally, a man who is with a woman who has a child by another man is ~70 times more likely (!) to kill the kid than if the kid was his. Typical situation is man hooks up with woman who has a kid by another guy. Then he kills the kid. You’ve got to think there’s some caveman logic working there.
Male mountain lions and possibly grizzly bears will often kill any kittens a female lion or bear had with another male. The female goes along with this – just lets him murder her kids and then hooks up with him for sex and babies. I guess something similar may have happened in caveman days. You wonder why women love serial killers so much?
Furthermore, we evolved in brutal times. Many times in tribal warfare the conquering tribe would kill many if not all of the men and teenage boys of the other tribe. Then they would enslave all the women and children. So the women would all become sex slaves of some maniac who just murdered their husbands and son(s). Women apparently just went along, though you wonder how they could. Perhaps many women could not tolerate this and escaped or suicided out to avoid the situation. Here we come to our selection.
The women who remained and had kids were ones who could tolerate some maniac coming along, murdering her husband and her son(s), and then turning her into a sex slave for life. If you want to know why so many women are attracted to BD/SM dom/sub sex slavery and being owned by a “master,” this may be why. It’s a mystery to me and I think the whole thing is sick.
But some sort of masochism or even love of degradation seems to be inherent in the female sex drive. There are women who hate this sort of thing, but I can’t tell you how many women I’ve met who expected or demanded this sort of treatment. Of course I take requests, so it was no big deal. Not into hurting them physically though, and you’d be shocked to know how many of them request or demand even this. Spanking is fine (and you’d be shocked at how many women love this) but beyond that, yuck.
So the women who survived were ok with murdering sex slavers and the men who survived (remember, the defeated men got murdered) were not only serial murderers but were willing to murder women’s husbands and kids by other men (sort of like lions and bears) and sexually enslave her and enslave her kids. Not very nice guys. So we men are descended from sadistic, raping, murdering, enslaving, sexual psychopaths and women are descended from masochistic sex slaves who love murderers, rapists, slavers, sex slavers, and sexual psychopaths.
If you know much about that BD/SM scene, it is overflowing with male “doms’ who proudly describe themselves as sadists. Of course they are sexual sadists, but many men are a bit, no? But it’s beyond that. They’re just sadists period because once you get into the “dom owns her as a slave” thing, it’s 24-7, which almost all of this scene is. It’s almost all 24-7 dom/sub, master/slave nonsense.
Well, the number of men who leap at the possibility of being sadistic sexual maniacs with willing women is shocking, and it’s enough to turn you off to the male gender. I’ve been studying these relationships for some time. The males are, well…a lot are more pleasant than you think, but the women…they seem like battered women.
They almost all have terribly low self-esteem. In fact, these sadistic men deliberately seek out women with low self esteem as easy prey. If they’ve been raped or molested before, this makes them easy targets, as apparently this sets them up for further abuse because women tend to sexualize everything.
And after women have been raped, I hate to say it, but many of them sexualize the rape and start wanting very rapey-type sex. And they incorporate the rape into their masturbation repertoire. That’s not PC either but I’ve seen it happen so many times that I know it’s true. It’s weird, but women are weird. And there is nothing weirder than female sexuality. It’s a mystery wrapped in an enigma.
If you study these SM/BD relationships, it looks exactly like an abusive relationship. Precisely. Down to the letter. So BD/SM is simply an abusive relationship. However, it is a consensual one.
So a lot of men are apparently more than willing to get into a relationship where they can abuse the woman like Hell and not only get away with it but have her enjoy it. And a lot of women apparently really enjoy the battered woman role. The former statement may not be controversial but the latter is surely not PC. Nevertheless, it looks like it might be true. Not that woman abusers are good men. And not that battered women who don’t like it don’t deserve our sympathy. But as is common, things are more complex than they seem.
Furthermore, I know people who study these relationships and they say that all women who come out of these relationships are damaged. And the damage looks exactly like…yep. What a battered woman or a woman in an abusive relationship looks like. So this crap isn’t as innocent as everyone thinks.
Black Males and Testosterone: Evolution and Perspectives
Repost from the old blog. Interesting stuff.
Development of agriculture in modern Blacks also seems to have led to high testosterone levels. Groups with the highest testosterone in the world today are primitive agriculturalists.
Hunter-gatherers tend to have lower testosterone. This is because in hunter-gatherer society, women need men to survive. So they grab one pretty quickly and get married.
In primitive agricultural societies, women do not need men, since they can farm on their own. So they can afford to be choosy. These societies have tended to develop in a polygynous way, where a few high-ranking males monopolize most of the females, and the rest of the guys get none. It’s kind of like high school, except it keeps going for your whole life.
Sub-Saharan Blacks are highly polygynous, and this resulted in intense competition for fewer women and selection for very robust male body types. SS Blacks are more robust than Whites on all variables. In Namibia, the polygynous Kavango have much higher testosterone than the much less polygynous !Kung.
Young Black males have higher levels of active testosterone than European and Asian males. Asian levels are intermediate to Blacks and Whites, but Asians have lower levels of a chemical needed to convert testosterone to its active agent, so effectively they have lower levels. Androgen receptor sensitivity is highest in Black men, intermediate in Whites and lowest in Asians.
US Blacks have the highest rate of prostate cancer on Earth, and the levels in African Blacks may be just as high.
Blacks do not retain high testosterone throughout life.
Blacks have much higher testosterone levels than Whites from age 7-24. After 24, the difference starts shrinking, and by the early 30′s, it is gone. In later years, White men have higher testosterone than Black men. This makes it very difficult if not impossible to explain differing behavioral variables, including higher rates of crime and aggression, in Black males over the age of 33 on the basis of elevated testosterone levels.
Higher testosterone levels are linked to violent behavior. High testosterone results in lower IQ in males but better fighting and mating skills. Interestingly, the black male IQ is 83 and black female IQ is 87.
By the same token, Black females earn 99% of what White females earn when they are employed, implying either than White racism is minor in the US against Black females, or whatever racism exists is being effectively countered by diversity goals, affirmative action and whatnot.
Testosterone is an interesting hormone. A little extra testosterone makes a man – good visuospatial skills, etc. Lots of extra testosterone is too much of a good thing – it lowers IQ.
In the UK, young Black females have higher IQ’s than young Black males. However, Black females also have higher testosterone than White females.
Black boys’ exposure to high testosterone begins in the womb. Black mothers’ wombs have higher testosterone, and this feeds to the fetus.
Assuming that higher Black testosterone levels are a causative agent in Black crime, aggression and lowered IQ, experimental interventions could be tried: two pills – first one pill to lower testosterone to Black fetus’s brains by 20%, and possibly another pill to lower Black infant testosterone by 20% – could be beneficial. Such an intervention could possibly raise Black male IQ and decrease Black male crime.
Of course, in our insane PC anti-racist society, such interventions are banned now and forevermore as “racist.”
Repost from the old site. Great stuff. Theorizes that the birth of the modern Black race only goes back 6-12,000 years and speculates on how it developed in conjunction with primitive agriculture. Also suggests that Black Africans were probably the first agriculturalists on Earth.
The Development of Agriculture in Africa
Hang out long enough on White Nationalist fora, and after a while you will be amazed at how many White racists actually believe that Black Africans were Stone Age people who had no metalworking, no agriculture and no civilization of any sort by the time the Europeans contacted them.
It’s true that Africa is not known for its incredible cultural achievements. But it wasn’t exactly a complete backwater either. The White Nationalist line that Africans were a Paleolithic people with only stone implements and no agriculture is surprisingly widespread. Too bad it is horribly wrong.
First of all, agriculture comes to the Sahel as early as 9000 BC. It comes to West Africa around the same time. Later it goes to Southern and Eastern Africa. The “Niggers are too stupid to grow food” line, appalling in its stupidity, continues to retain a lot of currency. Africans have been growing food for 1000’s of years.
The latest permutation has to do with Zimbabwe. Ruined by US and UK sanctions that have completely shut the nation out of the international trade and banking system, the economy is imploding and people are starving.
Instead of blaming imperialism, White racists blame those dumb niggers for overthrowing White rule and confiscating White farms where 5,000 White farmers had 50% of agricultural land and all of the good land. With the Whites thrown off the land, the narrative goes, these dumb niggers were too stupid to even figure out how to grow food.
They need Homo Blancas Superiorus to show them how to plant seeds and hoe rows. Without White Johnny Appleseeds to grow the food for them that they are too stupid to grow for themselves, the dumb niggers in Africa will all starve to death.
All over Africa, there are hardly any Whites left. Blacks are growing food all over Africa, in every country, in vast numbers. Black Africans are surely smart enough to figure out how to grow food to eat.
In order to look into this story in greater depth, we need to look at the development of Blacks in Africa from an anthropological point of view. The story of Stone Age Africans with no agriculture until Whitey shows up is nonsense.
White Nationalists counter that African Blacks, even over 10,000 years ago, were too stupid to figure out how to grow stuff on their own, so they had to learn from superior Caucasian North Africans. This theory is humorous because in general, White Nationalists refer to North African Caucasians (Berbers and Egyptians) as non-Whites.
Furthermore, at over 10,000 years ago, I’m not sure it matters how Black Africans got agriculture. Cultural diffusion occurs everywhere, and true innovation is pretty hard to pin down. Finally, there is not a lot of evidence that North African Caucasians innovated agriculture at such an early date themselves. As a result, the whole discussion is rendered academic as just another way for racist Whites to kick the Black man while he’s down.
First of all, the original Africans looked like Pygmies or Khoisan (Bushmen). From 6,000-12,000 years ago, Pygmy-Khoisan types traverse from archaic types to the modern Blacks we know today. Modern Blacks are a young race. Pygmies and Khoisan resemble our oldest human ancestors. They have light brown skin and gracile, child-like bodies.
Modern Blacks mostly speak languages related to a huge family called Niger-Congo. During the transition from archaic to modern Blacks, modern Blacks developed agriculture. Blacks had agriculture or proto-agriculture possibly as early as 10,000 years ago when Proto-Niger-Congo first started breaking up.
This means that Black Africans were actually some of the first agriculturalists on Earth. Sango Region hunter-gatherers were the first Blacks to develop agriculture. At first they protected wild grain fields, and then made clearings for wild yams and oil palms. At 12,000 years before present (YBP) they were already using hoes that they made, and at 8-9,000 YBP, they were tending pili nut trees with agricultural implements.
There are agricultural terms in reconstructed Proto-Niger-Congo from before 10,000 YBP, so they must have had some form of agriculture. Mande is a branch of Niger-Congo. Proto-Mande speakers inhabited the Niger’s headwaters at the Mali-Guinea border near the modern city of Bamako, and they were the first group to break off from Proto-Niger-Congo.
The Fouta Djallon Highlands in Southeastern Guinea, source of the Niger River. This is probably where Black African agriculture, cultivated by Proto-Mande speakers, began over 10,000 years ago.
Modern Black Africans are associated with the spread of agriculture in Africa at this time, and this agricultural spread is also located at the headwaters of the Niger, because this is the cradle of the Sudanic Food Complex.
Also, agriculture independently evolved in West Africa (African yams, kola nut) and Ethiopia (coffee, tef) during the period of 4,000-9,000 YBP.
Animal husbandry was widely adopted, and by 7,200 YBP, the Sahel had a full array of food production (cultivated crops, animal husbandry) before this full array was developed in Egypt. So the movement of agriculture in its full array from North African Caucasians to Sahelian Blacks is shown to be a lie.
It’s true that Africa south of the Equator lagged behind, and White Nationalists love to go about this, but the truth is that there were no animals to domesticate down there, nor were there any plants to domesticate either.
It’s doubtful that the Sahelian Blacks were any smarter than the ones south of Equator. They were just better positioned to receive animals for husbandry from Southwest Asia, and they had plants that could be domesticated.
Development of agriculture in modern Blacks also seems to have led to high testosterone levels along with more robust body types. See the prior post for more on that.
The first real classical Black Negroid skeleton dates to only 6,500 YBP. Before that, at 12,000 YBP, they look more like the San or Pygmies. Within 6,000 years as Africans moved to agriculture, Blacks changed from gracile archaic types to robust Negroid types. At 6,000-7,000 YBP, the agricultural transition was full.
In contrast to Afrocentric hokum about Black Athena and Black Egypt, modern Blacks do not appear in Egyptian paintings before 4,000 YBP. Before that, the Blacks in northeast Africa, Nubia and Ethiopia were more gracile San (Bushmen) types.
Modern Blacks reach the middle Nile by around 4,000 YBP. At 3,000 YBP, the Bantus spread from Cameroon all through East, Central and Southern Africa, of course bringing agriculture, and yes, iron-making, with them.
Nubians do not obtain their modern Black appearance until 2,700 years ago. Before that, the Nubians and presumably the Hamites look like today’s Egyptians.
Black populations in Africa do not bode well for Philippe Rushton’s R-K Theory. The oldest African populations of all, the Pygmies and the San, with presumably some of the lowest IQ’s (the San have IQ’s of about 54), are very highly K-selected.
They have low fecundity (are not very fertile) and very long intervals between births. This is normally what is expected of a super-K-selected group such as NE Asians, and is said to be associated with high IQ. Yet in the San, it is associated with the lowest IQ’s on Earth. Rushton’s theory does not smell right.
Polar Bear: Of course, letting women dominate men is worse. Men should play the role of loving father to women but be damn sure not to let her hold the reigns.
Men have to dominate. Or at least they have to be seen as dominant. Or at the very least, as masculine. One thing I will never do is seriously insult a man’s masculinity. I won’t call a man gay either. I never do that. I don’t call men faggots, even if they are. If they are, it’s just mean, and I don’t torment homosexuals. If they’re not, no matter how wimpy they are, they might attack me. Any man, if you call him a homosexual or attack his masculinity and say he’s not a man, is liable to hit you, or perhaps worse. It’s a perfectly natural, normal, logical, and sensible reaction.
That it’s illegal doesn’t matter. A lot of perfectly normal and sensible reactions are highly illegal. Quite a few of them might land you in prison for life. That’s why you don’t act normal and sensible all the time. At times we must submit to a higher law or at least a higher level of logic. Of course it’s logical to assault or even kill a man who attacks your masculinity or calls you gay! What could be more reasonable than that? On the other hand, if we do that, then a higher level of logic comes in – the logic of the law and society.
And in this case the logic of the law and society trumps the logic of the primal man of which we are no longer. The higher logic says that if we do that, we will probably get caught and sent to jail or possibly prison, maybe for a long time. So in this case, the higher logic predominates.
Probably the main difference between civilized societies and less civilized or uncivilized societies is that the more civilized societies, men tend to defer to the higher law more often.
In a more primitive society a man simply acts on his whims as the primal man inside of him demands. There are few or no higher orders of society or law to constrain him. This is why you see so much crime, violence, homicide, and general disorder in such places. Too much primal, low-level thinking and not enough civilized, higher-level thinking.
This also has to do with impulsiveness. In less civilized places, people are more impulsive. One of the best things that civilization brings is a decrease in impulsiveness. Instead of just getting an impulse and acting on it, people in more civilized places tend to think it over, at least a bit, before they decide whether to act on it or not.
They think, “Suppose I act on this impulse, what will happen then?” If something bad will happen to them if they act on the impulse that is worse than acting on the impulse, then they often will not act on it. This is called forward thinking, thinking ahead, planning, or thinking for tomorrow.
The less civilized people are, the less they think of tomorrow. They can think maybe 24 hours ahead and that’s it, if they can even think for that long. Increased forward planning and thinking ahead is associated with more civilized peoples. Perhaps the most civilized people on Earth, the Asians, think ahead not just in terms of years or even decades, but in terms of centuries or even millennia! Compare that to an Amazonian jungle tribe, perhaps the least civilized people on Earth, where no one thinks beyond the next 24 hours, if that long.
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.
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.
When kids are molested, most of the time they are not traumatized. This is another giant myth. A woman psychologist wrote a book called The Trauma Myth about this very fact. She found that only 8% of molested kids were traumatized by the experience.
The thing about child molestation is the kid generally just goes along with it.
If they don’t, it’s child rape, and that is not common in typical molestation cases. This creates quite a scene and sooner or later others in the house will find out. In Satanic Abuse Rings, yes, the children are absolutely raped. Child rape is more of a stranger crime by a misophile and often involves kidnapping and the use of a weapon. It can be extremely harmful for the child, much more harmful than run of the mill molestation, and the damage can definitely extend into adulthood.
The general emotion that molested kids feel is confusion. This is because, yep, it feels good. Little girls are capable of orgasm from an early age even if they have no sex drive, so sexual stimulation can be very pleasurable to them. I knew a woman who got molested at age 8 by a church youth leader. She told me,
It’s confusing because it feels good, but then it’s wrong.
The girls often enjoy the physical aspects of the molestation, and the fact that they enjoyed it is the cause of a lot of guilt later on. Forums for adults molested as children are full of women feeling guilty over this, and this is one of the main problems to be dealt with in therapy later on.
People who were molested do tend to feel guilt. They often feel that the molestation was their fault and that they were somehow to blame for it.
Adults molested as children also feel a lot of shame over the experience.
These are the three dominant emotions that these kids feel: confusion, guilt, and shame.
Often the full effects of the molestation are not felt until adulthood when the adult begins to think over the child abuse and have second thoughts about it. Whereas younger people up to university age are often apathetic or noncommittal about being molested, as they get older, it often starts to bother them. They start thinking that the molestation was not ok after all, that a very bad thing was done to them, etc. And then, yes, the psychological harm occurs.
Actually this happens all the time, especially with teenage girls.
In days of old, teenage girls had sex with men, mostly young men but sometimes older men, and not a thing ever came of any of it. I lived all through the 1970’s and never heard of one teenage girl being specifically harmed by having sex with an adult man. I suppose if there was coercion involved, she might not like it, but even in the Roman Polanski case where he actually raped her, she got over it right away, doesn’t care about it now, and doesn’t even want him prosecuted.
Teenage girls back then were no more likely to be harmed by sex with a man than with sex with a teenage boy. There was this cultural idea that teenage girls having sex with men was not specifically harmful in and of itself, so most teenage girls simply consumed that message and decided that they were not harmed.
In cultures all over the world before 1900 and even in the last century to today, teenage girls often married men. In fact that’s been the way of mankind for almost all of our existence. No specific harm was ever reported to the teenage girls from any of this, and I have been over all the old records.
Before 1900, there was no notion that teenage girls were harmed by these relationships. In societies that allowed this sort of thing, no specific harm was ever recorded from teenage girls having sex with men. I have also studied anthropology extensively, and I have never found a single society anywhere on Earth that used to allow this sort of thing but gave it up because it harmed the teenage girls.
And even in the US through the 1970’s, this was the case.
Now, where the teenage girls were manipulated, abused, or there was a lot of sleazy lying and coercion involved by the men, sure, the teenage girls will get harmed by these relationships, but teenage boys do this to teenage girls too, and men to all of this to adult women. Females who are manipulated, abused, lied to, cheated on, etc. with the use of sleazy and coercive techniques in relationships with males seem to get damaged. Age has nothing to do with it. It doesn’t matter if it’s a teenage girl or a woman or a teenage boy or a man.
Anyway, nowadays there is this attitude that every time a man has sex with a teenage girl, a “child rape” or “child molestation” of all things, has occurred. The teenage girl never had sex with the man – she’s always just abused no matter how much she was fond of or loved the man. It’s always harmful to the teenage girl, even if the man was 18 and the girl was 17. The vast majority of American idiots actually believe this nonsense.
This is backed up by all sorts of non-facts such as:
“Teenage girls are ‘children’ and hence are not able to consent to sex.”
Prove it. Why can’t boys consent either or can they? If they can’t consent, how about arresting the teenage girls who “take advantage of”, “rape”, “abuse”, and “molest” these poor horny as Hell teenage boys? How can teenage girls consent with teenage boys but not with men?
“Teenage girls’ brains are not fully developed yet.”
Neither are teenage boys’ brains. Brains don’t finish developing until age 27, so let’s ban sex til then, right?
“It is an inherent imbalance of power, and all imbalances of power are abusive and harmful.”
Prove it. Life is all about power imbalances. Many unbalanced relationships have been recorded all through the history of man, and they were not harmful at all.
“It is inherently abusive and harmful for the teenage girl.”
Prove it again. Why would it be? And wouldn’t people have gotten rid of it a long time ago or at least talked about how bad it was if this were true?
“It robs the teenage girls/young women of their childhood/teen years/youth.”
This BS gets extended all the way into adulthood to where a woman who spends her twenties with older men supposedly “destroys her youth” – how this occurs is never explained. It’s not much true for teenage girls either. Why the teen and young adult years must be spent amongst one’s idiotic peers is never brought up.
Obviously the girl or even young woman is going to mature much faster with a man than with those her age. He is giving her a jump-start on life by teaching her all about life, wisdom, mental health, personal growth, social skills, and maturity/immaturity, not to mention the wealth of knowledge he will impart to her.
It is beyond me how her peer friends who have to blindly tumble through these tunnels on their own with their clumsy peers and take much longer to figure these things out (assuming they learn them at all) are somehow better off than this girl or young woman who is getting a massive jump start on life with an older man.
The upshot is that teenage girls weren’t harmed by this sex in the past, and they’re not harmed by it now. There’s nothing specifically harmful about this type of sex for humans. Any harm that occurs is socially constructed.
So you tell teenage girls that this sex harms them. They go ahead and have it, find it’s a lot of fun, and they’re confused. Then they become adults, and they think back and get regret-raped and “realize that it was really abuse all along.” Then they get some truly insipid time-bombed trauma from this new realization that it really wasn’t fun after all and really it was abuse and rape all along. A lot of completely unnecessary and uncalled for damage then results. I’m sure all of this manufactured pathology is great for therapists though. More crazy people means more business.
If you get involved with any legal teenage girl as an older man, you really have to be careful of this nowadays. If you get with any legal girl under 18, there’s a very high chance of this bullshit happening, so be forewarned.
I am a bit worried myself that some of these legal teenage girls (18 and 19) I dated recently are going to get regret-raped later on from the brief affairs they had with me and will come back to me later railing about how I destroyed their life no matter how much fun and pleasure we had when we were together.
The point is simple. If something is not inherently harmful (as most things are):
If you tell people it’s not harmful, no one gets harmed because they consume the cultural message that it’s not harmful and feel like idiots if they tell people they got harmed by something that’s not harmful.
If you tell people it is harmful, many people who would have been unharmed in the past now get automagically harmed simply because they were told it was harmful, so they essentially create harm and damage out of the experience and impose it upon their psyche.
Bottom line is that a lot of “interpersonal harm” is simply socially constructed, or in many cases, simply “made up” altogether. Not a whole lot of things are scientifically proven to be inherently damaging to the psyche.
It sounds cruel, but in many cases if you got harmed by some experiences, frankly it is because you chose to experience it as harmful because you wanted to see it that way. Because you needed this to be harmful, you deliberately created a lot of harm from the incident (basically simply “made it up”) and then imposed it on your psyche because you needed to feel hurt by this for whatever reason.
In that sense most of us humans probably have a masochistic element to our psyches which is much more pronounced in females than in males, as if that weren’t obvious to anyone.
CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: Are the Australian Aborigines really that bad?
Oh God. They make American Blacks seem like choir boys and Rhodes Scholars. Total clusterfuck. Sort of like the US Amerindians in that I feel that they are what I would call a “defeated race.” They have that “defeated” quality about them like the US Amerindians do. And they’re such huge fuckups and frankly depraved monsters when left on their own that the state has had to come into their autonomous zones and supervise them as if they were children. Dangerous, depraved children.
If you want to feel really good about US Blacks, go visit one of these “supervised villages” in Australia. You will come back shouting how lucky we were to get US Blacks instead of those awful Aborigines. I would even call them a “cursed race.” They’re frankly barbarians. They live in a state of what I would call barbarism. No way can they adapt to the modern world. Just forget it.
They’re just savages. I mean humans were savages as hunter-gatherers, sure, but the modern world is just not fit for that sort of savagery that they are adapted to. We’ve moved beyond that type of savagery and barbarism. They’re a human anachronism.
CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: A Chinese-Australian I knew would criticize Americans for being so racist against Blacks.
Considering that US Blacks act about an order of magnitude better than Aborigines, I almost don’t blame her.
CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: Yet she would describe the Aborigines as hopeless drunks lying the street.
Yep, most can’t, don’t, or won’t work. They’re charity cases at best. Drugs are a problem too, often glue sniffing, which is the worst of all. Juvenile delinquency is rampant and they’re real bad delinquents, too. Yes, many are just drunk homeless bums on the streets. A lot of these types are picked up by cops on alcohol offenses or the petty crimes that they commit obsessively, hence the jails are full of Aborigines. They’re vastly overrepresented in the country’s jail system.
CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: I thought she was just an anti-White hypocrite. But maybe not.
Go over there and check them out in the wild, and you will see what she was talking about. I forget if it was Darwin or Marx, but one of them said that the Aborigines are simply not fit for the modern world, and perhaps they would be better off if they just went extinct. It’s cruel and I don’t think we should help them along, but they’re doing a pretty good job of racial suicide anyway, so he was seeing into the future.
Polar Bear: Whites and Blacks have qualities not measured in IQ. From the redneck inventing in his garage to a Black street musician freestyling.
I’ll say this for Whites and Blacks, they top the racial scales on immeasurable qualities.
Aren’t those both sort of winging it, jerry-rigging it, putting a lot together with a little, freestyling…in a word, improvisation? Jerry-rigging, etc. is simply a form of improvisation, and in that sense, it is immensely adaptive and even a form of genius. Improvisation is also a form of “pure creativity.”
Look at the Black jazz musician noodling away, winging it so to speak, improvising. What sort of cookbook or lesson plan is he following? None. It’s as good as the surrealists’ automatic writing. That’s why I would call that sort of improvisation “pure creativity.”
Another way of describing jerry-rigging or improvisation would be “designing a solution to a brand new problem that one has never encountered before.” That’s absolutely a form of genius. And Blacks are great at that. For a couple of reasons, I think.
Blacks no matter what we think of them, are adaptive. Jesus Christ, they’re adaptive as Hell. A Black can live anywhere. Throw him into one of the worst environments on Earth and he not only survives but thrives. Look at Africa.
And Blacks are survivors. Blacks can survive in anything. They tried to enslave the American Indians, but they either refused to work or somehow or other they all died off. The Blacks weren’t happy with it, but they did survive.
But almost all primitive peoples are experts at winging it, jerry-rigging, or improvisation. Improvisation, in a word, is about nothing less than immediate survival. About putting something half-assed but “good enough” together so you can make it to live for at least another day.
Some animals are showing signs of jerry-rigging or improvising, even making their own tools. It’s pretty interesting.
You don’t actually believe that Africa is somehow better off than India?
Yes, I absolutely do. Less outdoor shitting, lower malnutrition and starvation, fewer women dying in childbirth. I was appalled. India is even more fucked up than Sub-Saharan Africa! Talk about pathetic. You need to stop defending your shithole, man. Face it, it’s a shithole. SHI is right. Embrace the fact that it’s a shithole, drop out of Indian society, and be done with it.
Many Africans haven’t even come out of the hunter gatherer lifestyle
This is absolutely false. The White Nationalists (in other words, the nigger-haters) say this all the time. I went and did some research on it, and nope, there are only a few hunter-gatherer societies left in Africa. Almost all sub-Saharan groups are agriculturalists, either tending small plots which is the norm or growing crops on large plantations.
Africans in fact may have been the first to invent agriculture 12,000 YBP in the Gambian Highlands. As with so many things human, once again, Africans did it first. Africans have had plantation agriculture since 1,100 YBP. It started in East Africa around Tanzania and places like that.
Africa overall, may also have more land but probably has less habitable land than India, so putting all these things into perspective, I don’t see how India could have a higher rate when there is no open defecation in South India, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, and Uttarakhand, there may be very little in Jammu, none in Kashmir/Ladakh, and very little in Northeast (I’m assuming Assam is the only one where it may be common).
They do. 60% of Indians shit outdoors. Highest rate in the world.
Dude, stop. Defending India is a fools’ errand that leads nowhere, and you end up lying all the time because the only way to defend India is with lies. Come to think of it, that’s pretty pathetic right there.
I would also like to know where these stats are from and how did they actually manage to conclude that this number of Indians are openly defecating.
A while back when organizations were promoting the war on open defecation, I did the research. And yep, India was worst. 60%. Pakistan had 34% though, which is also pretty bad. Indonesia also had a pretty high rate, surprisingly.
And when I did my research, not only was Africa lower (I think 25-30%, though it seemed to vary), but African people and governments seemed to think that open defecation was a bad thing. The people themselves seemed embarrassed and disgusted by it. This made me think a lot of better of the Africans. At least they think it’s messed up!
In contrast when I looked into India, I found that a lot of Indians simply didn’t care or else actually preferred to be streetshitters. I don’t know what to do about India. Sometimes I think India needs Maoism. Total Cultural Revolution. Not The Cultural Revolution , which definitely had issues, but the cultural revolution that the CCP initiated as soon as they got in and which they pursue to this very day.
I am so sorry. But when you are actually more fucked up than Sub-Saharan Africa, of all places, man, you got problems. When even some of the worst failos are beating you, man, that’s fail with a capital F.
And while it may be difficult to have pride if you are a Sub-Saharan African (though I think they should anyway), Black Africans can at least take pride in the fact that so many of the biggest milestones in the development of Homo sapiens that left us able to be this civilized were actually initiated by Africans.
All the way up to agriculture. Yep, Africans did it first once again. They started smelting iron awful early too. In fact, Africans were smelting iron even before Europeans were 2,900 YBP! Sure, Africans didn’t advance much beyond that, but still, being the first to reach so many of humanity’s milestones is pretty cool. And Africans can also be proud of the fact that they are more socially advanced than Indians!
Polar Bear: I wonder if Hmong ruled before Han. I have no clue but Ancient Hmong were said to have many fair heads, which is an interesting visual.
The Hmong never ruled the Han.
But if you go back far enough, the Hmong go ultimately back to Xinjiang long ago, the home of the Uighurs. I recall that Queera post the poster linked to the other day claiming that the Hmong homeland was in the Yangtze River Valley, but anthropological studies imply that they were in Xinjiang before then.
I know this because I read a thorough 300-page ethnography about the Hmong written in 1953, and it went over the homeland issue extensively from an anthropological point of view.
I believe Xinjiang was much wetter back then. It has since very much dried out. I read a report of a British expedition to Xinjiang around 1906 and it was fascinating. Even back then, Xinjiang was seriously drying up. I’m not quite sure the reason. Since then, it’s gotten even worse. There are vast lakes there that are dry or drying up, along with a lot of dry of intermittent watercourses.
The Uighurs are half Caucasian and half Asian, even split. Some look as White as I do; others look Chinese. There has long been mixing between Caucasoids and Mongoloids in this part of the world, going way, way back even 15-20,000 YBP.
This is the “Caucasoid” in Siberians and Amerindians. It’s not really Caucasoid genes. It’s ancient Caucasoid ancestry, and those ancient Caucasoids in that part of the world didn’t look like White people. As best we can tell, they looked like the Amerindians of the Washington coast. So ancient Caucasoids didn’t look like us. They had a Mongoloid appearance.
Keep in mind that the Tocharians, a certainly-Caucasoid Indo-European group, also lived in this area. Remember the mummies that have been found in this part of the world dating back thousands of years? A number of them have been found with blond and red hair, and their genes indicate that a number also had blue eyes.
Yes, any Hmong will tell you that a very Caucasoid looking baby will at times pop up in the Hmong world, the legacy of some old recessive gene no doubt. There are many stories of blond, blue-eyed Hmong babies, and I actually have some pictures of some of them that I can put up if you wish.
I asked the Hmong I knew whether these people had recent Caucasoid ancestry, and they were adamant that they were pure Hmong. So this is an ancient trace of Caucasoid-Mongoloid mixing in the Proto-Hmong-Mien homeland of Xinjiang thousands of years ago.
Polar Bear: Some PUA guys on Youtube were triggering my gaydar. Not that big of a deal. Even in the most ideal European societies, there will be flamers and hillbillies. Even in the strict Middle Eastern countries, there are gays, as you detailed.
Think about it. PUA’s devote their entire lives to getting laid, getting pussy, seducing women, dating and fucking women. That’s all they live for. Exactly how many gay men would such a lifestyle appeal to? About zero. Don’t you realize that a lot of straight men set off people’s gaydar. If I had a dollar for every straight man I’ve known who many people thought was gay, I’d be a rich man. You can’t go on behavior.
Polar Bear: Geez, wonder how Omegas fare in a wolf pack.
I suppose there is room for Omegas in a wolf pack, if they even have Omegas. Maybe they don’t. Maybe they just have the Alpha and his Beta followers.
Polar Bear: Wonder if married men are Beta. By the time they have kids many seem whipped. In The Departed, the Alpha married man, Alec Baldwin, says, “A wedding ring lets women know your cock still works.” The Alpha single man, Jack Nicholson, responds, “You get your period yet?”
Statistical Betas and behavioral Betas are not the same thing.
Behaviorally, yes, a lot of married men are behavioral Betas as you describe. Once they are pussywhipped, they are behavioral Betas all the way.
And most men period are statistical Betas. Probably 65% of all men are statistical Betas. Most men are neither statistical Alphas nor statistical Omegas. There’s nothing wrong with being a statistical Beta. Your father, mine, your brothers, mine, yours and my uncles and male cousins are mostly statistical Betas. They used to do all right, but the sexual contract is fraying.
I am thinking there can never be more than 20% statistical Alphas in a society. Think about it. Will you ever have a society where more than 20% of the men are slayers trying to break Wilt Chamberlain’s record. Everybody can’t be a winner. Life is like a footrace. There’s winners and last place losers and a lot in between. Every straight man cannot be a super-stud. It doesn’t work that way. Maybe in the gay community they can, but women are not so easy
Now we are getting to the point among young men where 30% are statistical Omegas. I doubt if more than half of those are behavioral Omegas though. Most are just normal guys getting shut out by increasingly picky women in the age of female hypergamy. It’s supposed to be only 15%. So that’s weird. That’s what the whole incel and PUA phenomena are all about – dealing with that reality of female hypergamy.
On the other hand, you have societies such as Latin America, the Arab World, North Africa, Iran, Turkey, the Mediterranean, Eastern Europe, Russia, maybe Africa where most of the men are behavioral Alphas. Those societies are not ideal but have you noticed that sexually they seem pretty good for men?
Personally, I think that most men could probably benefit from behaving in a more Alpha manner. Some are already doing it, so they don’t need help, but for a lot of men, it should help them with women.
Do you all follow me on the difference between statistical and behavioral Alphas, Betas, and Omegas?
If you study primitive peoples, you find that their traditional knowledge says this or that about whatever aspect of human biology or behavior. It’s based on their observations over centuries, knowledge of which traditionally rested with the elders. Hence why elders are so respected in these cultures.
And you will notice over and over that their traditional knowledge lines right up with what modern science, psychology, or medical science has discovered, except these folks figured this out way before science did. We think those people are stupid, but they’re not as dumb as you think.
An interesting sidelight. Many to most modern cultures have pretty insane attitudes about teenage sexuality or even the sexuality of young adults. Basically, it’s banned in most human cultures, and it’s even banned to a great extent in our own culture. My mother is still opposed to premarital sex to this very day. I’ve always been resentful of that, but that’s how she was brought up, so hey.
But if you study primitive cultures, you often find that they have very sane attitudes towards sex and young people. Typically, girls may start having sex at age 13-14 in most of these societies, and they often choose boys that age to have sex with.
However, they can choose older men, usually younger men but sometimes quite a bit older. In traditional Blackfoot culture, the typical initial marriage was between a 15 year old girl and a 35 year old man. I believe the world’s oldest man in the Current Year is a Somali man who is over 115 and recently acquired yet another wife, a 15 year old girl! Three cheers for the old dog!
In prior eras, no teenage girl or boy in the history of mankind was ever harmed by having sex with an adult. The notion that such things are harmful or damaging to young people is a new idea, and frankly it’s a conceit because it goes against thousands of years of human knowledge.
Coming of age ceremonies in many of these cultures take place around age 15. You complete the rituals of your gender, and then at age 15, you are either a man or a woman and are expected to behave like one. Our notion of adulthood at 18 or 21 or whenever is obviously completely arbitrary.
In the Middle Ages, children were seen as “little adults” and treated as such. They often did adult work and chores. I’m not sure if they acted any more mature than they do now, but if you expect a kid to act like an adult, he might act a lot more mature. Hence we had strange things like boy kings and whatnot. Romeo and Juliet were both only 13 years old.
Getting back to the Hmong, these people, unlike most modern civilized people, figured out that young people are horny as Hell and are not going to be satisfied with mere masturbation. They realized that young people desire independence and wish to be away from the parents. Modern societies continue to resist this notion.
Hence the Hmong allow young unmarried people aged 18-20+ to go off away from the village in the evenings. They have little places in the jungle where they gather and have whatever fun they wish to have among themselves.
The Hmong realize that at least some of these young people will be having sex in their evening hangouts, but unlike many modern cultures, they’re ok with that. Sex is completely allowed in these circumstances, but if a pregnancy occurs, the couple must get married.
If you have ever looked at teenage girls very much (and I know all of you perverts have, quit lying now) you will notice something interesting. Girls from age ~16-~18 have very interesting bodies. In male fantasy, these bodies are absolutely perfect.
For it is mostly in girls this age that you see the male dream of a girl who is quite thin with the most outrageous curvy body! Normally it just doesn’t work that way. Small body, small tits. You want the big tits? Fine. Resign yourself to a big lady. Big tits come on big women. Big tits don’t come on skinny women except if she has plastic surgery, but then she has created a type of human that does not exist in nature other than in the teenage girl.
These girls look so great because their bodies are completely abnormal! Those bodies are not adaptive at all. Forget it. That body is very poorly adapted to womanhood. This simple reason for that is that a girl in that age range still has a somewhat immature body, believe it or not. Most believe that we quit growing around age 17, but while that’s true for height, it’s not so true for development. Because a 16-18 year old girl has a body that is poorly adapted for pregnancy!
Yes, a 16-18 year old girl has hips that are not wide enough yet to carry a baby to term properly. This is one of the reasons for the increased rates of pregnancy complications among girls this age.
And at ages 18-19, a girl’s hips finally widen to the proper width of a grown woman’s. Only now is she fully adapted to carry a baby to term. So you see what turns us on so much is a body that is not even really normal for a human being! It’s immature and completely non-adaptive. We are being attracted to an illusion, an impostor, a fakery.
I have always marveled at the intelligence of primitive peoples. I did a lot of ethnographic work on the Hmong at university. In fact, I read an entire ethnography (cultural history) of the Hmong – ~300 pages. An ethnography is to anthropology what a grammar is to linguistics. A grammar is a complete record of the language of a people, and an ethnography is a complete record of the culture of a people.
A lot of the work was done in the 1950’s. At this time the Hmong had almost no exposure to any sort of modern anything. They still lived very primitive lives as hunter-gatherers and swidden agriculturalists. Most of their knowledge of people and even medicine was traditional.
According to Hmong tradition, pregnancy in women is best delayed until ages 19-20. Before that, the Hmong feel that the pregnancy is more likely to have problems. What is fascinating about this is that this is exactly the age at which a woman’s hips widen enough to properly carry a baby. Before those ages, as noted, a female’s hips are not wide enough to properly carry a baby.
I doubt if the Hmong figured out about the hips widening, but they had figured out via the wisdom of the ancients (knowledge of which is now completely trashed as bigoted and stereotypical by SJW’s) that it was better to wait until 19 or 20 to have a kid versus before those ages. Ancient knowledge of which has now been conclusively proven by modern medical science. But they figured it out on their own.
Tradition exists for a reason. Tradition is the human behavior, morals, norms, values, and wisdom that have withstood the test of time.
Our ancestors were experimenting. Experimenting with human nature and the human condition. Trying to figure out how to run society in the best way possible, given our nature. Tradition is the stuff that was proven to have worked over centuries.
The new stuff that the Cultural Left throws in the face of tradition is the stuff that tradition always maintained didn’t work, a notion they came to no doubt by trial and error. The human experiments, social engineering and wars against nature go on.
This is one great thing I love about conservatism. Classically, conservatism has noticed the endless social experiments of the Cultural Left dubiously. “Ok,” the conservatives said. “You all go off and do your experiments. Just leave us out of it, ok? And hey, after you do it, let us know how it goes, ok?” But now they’re dragging everyone else along for the ride. We’re donkeys and their pulling us by these damned bridles they forced on us. As usual, it’s not working.
In a sense they are noble, these starry-eyed people of the Cultural Left. These are people who see the ways of nature as limited and backwards. They long for a better world, an engineered one, crafted with pure human intelligence and spirit, adorned with slogans, and enforced with the usual goodhearted social bullying. But one thought is important: these are people who dream of a better world.
These things go on for a bit, and then the reaction sets in, and everyone throws up their hands and wonders why humans keep going backwards. But they’re not going backwards.They’re going home.
You can go to the far ends of the Earth, run as far and hard as you can to escape from the cruel finality of nature, you wake up in Timbuktu, Bangkok, or the heart of Amazon, and it hits you. The crushing disappointment, as heavy as a heart attack. There, rising with the sun to the east, greeting you so horribly, is that fatal reminder: wherever you go on Earth, you’re always back at home. Your home called Nature.
The fact that Players are typically treated as heroes in most societies by both genders and across age groups is another reason why feminism goes against human nature.
That is why this new feminist reaction that somehow Players are evil, scumbags , pedophiles (!), creeps (!), losers (!), criminals (!), and deserving of contempt and increasingly arrest and imprisonment for the crime of being a male mammal is bizarre. Feminists are part of the Cultural Left. As usual, the feminists, as part of the SJW Left, are trying to destroy human nature.
They are acting like 100,000 years of human history of continuous biological behavioral trends either never happened or are irrelevant. You hear feminists say over and over, “But we are modern now. We have decided you can’t be that way anymore,” about this or that. Feminists, like all SJW’s, are trying like the Communists to create a New Man, in the Communists’ case free of capitalism and selfishness and in the SJW’s case liberated from 100,000 years of evolution.
We are supposed to shrug off a hundred millennia of biological habit as if it never occurred. We are supposed to create a New SJW Man torn free from the roots of his past.
Feminists are also trying to create some New SJW Woman or at least they are lying about the basic nature of women, which is extremely consistent across thousands of cultures and over millennia of written record.
According to feminists, and the Cultural Left in general:
Everything your grandfather taught you is wrong.
Every human society that ever existed was wrong.
The New Feminist Woman is not working out. Women are simply being women just like they always have in spite of the feminists. Feminists are reacting to the intractable nature of female behavior by both denying it is happening now and denying that it ever existed in the first place.
In other words, feminists are lying like all SJW’s and IP types. Since all SJW’s and IP types are about denying everything negative about whatever identity they are about, all SJW and IP movements are characterized by constant lying of nearly tidal wave proportions.
The new hatred and even criminalization of Players goes against 100,000 years of human evolution and ultimately shows that Female Rule fails, probably because Female Rule ends up being utopian and based on universal justice when unfortunately, there is no such thing.
At least in any normal society, that is. As in, every single non-feminist-fucked society on Earth.
A Hero among Men
If the Player is very humble or even acts embarrassed of his success, other men will respond very well. In Man World, Players are often treated as sort of heroes for some reason.
This goes for men of all ages and even boys, teenage boys, and even prepubertal boys. And it goes for all ages of men – young men of course, but also middle aged men think Players are hilarious and heroic figures. Oddly, even elderly men fall into convulsive laughter over the Player’s exploits, pat him on the back, and treat him like a hero.
In fact, humor is a typical reaction to the player. Males of all ages will roll on the floor laughing at the antics of the Player. For some reason, he’s absolutely hilarious.
And a Hero among Women, Too
Many adult women also treat Players this way. A lot of women think Players are funny. They burst into laughter when they meet one or hear of his exploits.
Girls, even prepubertal girls, act rather amazed, amused, and giggly about the Player. This applies especially when they are 10-12, when they are starting to get a bit curious about boys. Younger girls don’t understand male-female dynamics very well.
Married women chuckle and think he is funny. Oddly enough, most old women also find him absolutely hilarious. Once again, as we see with men, the Player is an object of comedy and hilarity. Why?
A Hero in Most Traditional Cultures, Too
I figure that this is the normal way that any society treats the Player. Traditional societies apparently are a bit in awe of him, and the men quite possibly treat him as some male hero figure. The women are stunned by him, some want to date him, and most think he is humorous or hilarious. This seems to be the natural, normal way that most human societies treat the enigma known as the Player.
Keep in mind that Players are basically Alphas by default. On one Manosphere site, one man said if you have had sex with 100 females, you are an Alpha period – no ifs, ands, or buts about it. If you have a high enough lay count, you cannot not be an Alpha. That’s probably correct. Only 6% of men have three-figure laycounts. I would wager that most if not all of them are Alphas.
Furthermore, I doubt if there are many Beta Players out there. The nature of the Beta seems to imply that he’s usually not a Player. An Omega Player is literally not even possible due to the nature of the Omega. Alphas are 15-20% of male society, and that’s probably the maximum number of males who are Players in any age group.
You can’t have a society where every man, or even a majority of men, are Players. Well, you could. That would be gay male culture. But I do not think that straight society will ever resemble gay male culture. If anything, it’s the opposite, as the growth of hypergamy and the damage left in its wake such as incels show us.
It’s Human Evolution Talking – the Voice of Hundreds of Thousands of Years
The normal society reaction to the Player is probably rooted in evolution. See the elephant seal, buck, or stallion with his harem. Get it? It’s evolution in action. The Player is a male two-legged ape with a harem. We are mammals after all.
If you really want to understand human males and females, study those female deer, elephant seals, and sheep. Study those male elk, seals, and horses.
I have learned more about human males and females by studying the so-called lower mammals than from studying humans. Everything starts to add up and finally make sense. We are doomed to be mammals no matter how hard to we try to escape the bestial trap.We cannot not be mammals. As with everything else, when it comes to mammalian behavior in humans, Nature bats last.
All Identity Politics groups divide the world into followers of the IP (the good people) and opponents of the IP (the haters or traitors). They are extremely quick to throw people into the hater/traitor group because like all forms of IP, they are paranoid and see enemies everywhere, even though 80% of the people they say are enemies are innocent.
You see this even in Jews, and in fact, most Jews practice what boils down to Jewish Identity Politics. Some might say that Jews were the original IP group. I doubt that because I believe all IP is just tribalism. All IP also resembles any nationalism or ultranationalism, and that is why when IP groups get extreme, people start calling them Nazis.
All IP is really just tribalism, and that’s why all IP resembles nationalism or ultranationalism because all nationalism is just tribalism, and all ultranationalism is just fascism. To the extent that it is human nature to be tribal, we are all nationalistic in one way or another, and many to most of us probably have fascist tendencies.
Because most indigenous human tribes were extremely racist and were frankly fascists. The tribe’s rules are there are the good people (us and may be a few allies) and everyone else is an enemy. All the other tribes and the non-tribalists in your own group, who are called the traitors.
Starting to see how feminism, etc. looks exactly like nationalism and tribalism? Starting to see how all forms of IP look like ultranationalism and tribalism? Since tribalism and ultranationalism are two of the plagues on the human race, why on Earth should any decent human or especially anyone on the Earth support IP at all? They shouldn’t.
If you oppose tribalism and ultranationalism (fascism) as any good person on the Left should, then you must also hate all forms of IP.
This is where the antifas who hate fascism and ultranationalism don’t make sense. Sure they hate ultranationalism and a few forms of IP such as the IP of the “enemies.” So they hate White IP, Men’s Rights IP, and even Straight IP if it exists. Those are all evil and must be wiped off the face of the Earth. They’re all “fascism.”
Nevertheless, all antifa support feminazis, gay Nazis, tranny fascists, Black fascists, etc. They hate Jewish IP but Palestinian or Arab IP (Arab nationalism) is just fine, when really those are just two types of fascism, Jewish fascism and Arab fascism. So some fascists are ok (the marginalized or oppressed fascists) and other fascists are evil and must be exterminated (the ruling or oppressor fascists).
Obviously this is incoherent. A fascist is a fascist. A true antifa would hate all forms of ultranationalism and also all the fake nationalisms or IP’s (Identity Nazis):
Gay Nazis. Many of the anti-gays are remarking that the Gay Politics types are increasingly acting like fascists, and they are correct.
Jewish Nazis (Zionists).
Black Nazis (Black separatists, Nation of Islam).
White IP (White nationalists are obviously real Nazis).
SHI: Dude, you’re facing discrimination issues because of your age. It’s plain and simple.
Yeah. All this crap is due to age, possibly. You mean if I were younger and said that, they wouldn’t have freaked out about it? I must say, those kids they hire in those Fagbucks store have given me nothing but trouble for years now. They tried to throw me out of three different stores. I’ve never been thrown out of any establishment anywhere for any reason in my entire life, and I’ve done a lot of crazy stuff in every place you could imagine, but no one ever gave a damn, honestly.
But these kids tried to get rid of me three times in 12 years. If I am really such a monstrous creep, how come only their shitty establishment, out of all of the establishments of every type I have been to in my life, have banned me? Do I act good everywhere else and then only act bad in Gaybucks? And if I am a creepy monster, why haven’t I been getting thrown out of all sorts of establishments my whole life?
Honestly it seems like they don’t like me very much due to my age. They are at that “I hate all old fogeys/old geezers” age. Also, here in the US, young people have no respect for elders at all.
The traditional view in all societies has been that younger people must respect their elders. Failure to do so would cause considerable social stigma. People would chew you out. Traditional societies still believe in respect for elders from what I can tell. Based on their behavior here, Arab, Indian, and Pakistani societies still practice major respect for elders. I suspect the ones who are born here will gravitate towards American disrespect-for-elders grotesqueness.
Granted, we don’t need to respect our elders anymore here in the US. The traditional reason for respecting elders was because elders were the source of all knowledge and wisdom for the group. This was before books, dictionaries, encyclopedias, and the Internet. But something seems terribly wrong with a society of bratty, lousy young people with no respect for their elders.
It’s like an essential part of the tapestry of human society has been torn apart. The whole of society seems a bit broken as a result – like “go ahead and disrespect rules, and no one has to respect anyone.” Respect is the glue that holds society together. Get rid of it and you end up with chaos just as you get under Female (Feminist) rule and other forms of “organized disorder.”
I know people at other stores around here who are immigrants from other lands. This includes Punjabis, Pakistanis, and Arabs. The young Pakistanis, Punjabis, and Arabs (all born in the old country) are often though not always respectful of me (some of the Punjabis are bad this way but this is due to general Indian hostility towards all non-Indians. They call me sir and it almost seems like they are trying to get underneath me when they talk to me. Like they are deferring to someone with higher status.
The older Punjabis, Pakistanis, and Arabs are often extremely friendly, too (though once again, it’s the Punjabis who are the outliers). I’ve been going to those places forever now, and I’ve had few problems. One place I have been going to for 11 years with zero complaints.
Also, Hispanics, if they are born outside the US, don’t give me any problems at all. The men give zero fucks about anything, and the women defer to men and act like they don’t want to cause any problems with me because I am a man, and women are not supposed to start stuff with men, especially male strangers and acquaintances.
The ones born here are another story. A lot of the young men and all of the older men are great. That’s one of the great things about a patriarchal society. You are automatically induced into the Eternal Brotherhood of Men simply on the basis of your biology. The young women are another matter and are often perfectly horrible, but young women are horrible everywhere and at all times even in the best of all possible worlds. They’re practically female psychopaths.
You have two choices. Either Feminism in power (Female Rule) or patriarchy. Keep in mind that patriarchy could be extremely benign and kind to women. We could even have women in power running this benign patriarchy.
I don’t object to women in power in society. You can have as many women in power in society as you wish – it’s fine with me. I just don’t want them imposing feminism is all.
You really can’t let women run loose and run wild. Feral women destroy logic and reason and the societies that are based on such. In its place is law and rule by emotion and unreason. Society becomes ruled by feelings and emotions instead of steady, cold, objective logic and reason.
I figure most societies probably tried Female Rule that at some point and realized that it causes nothing but chaos. That’s why patriarchy is and was the norm all over the world.
My Mom says, “Why have men ruled almost all societies? Men are bigger, men are stronger, so they just lorded it over women.” That’s an interesting theory, but we men are also lazy as Hell. A lot of us would probably like to let the ladies take over so we can kick back, have a beer, watch the football game, and become part of the couch.
Letting women run the show was probably tried in the past in most societies, and the results were the same every time. Patriarchy for all its faults is at least a functional system. Female Rule doesn’t even work. You get something that almost looks like societal failure or societal collapse.
All around the world almost all societies were ruled by the laws, rules, mores, values, and thinking styles of men. Logic and reason were valued over unreason and emotionalism. There’s got to be a reason for that instead of just “Evil men were mean to women!” I’m not really buying that.
Modern society makes it clear that Female Rule always fails, and only rule by male values and rules, logic and reason allows for a functional society. We think we are so much smarter than our ancestors, but that’s a conceit. They were about as smart as we were, especially about basic things like that.
At some point in most of our ancestors’ history, Female Rule may have been tried. The guaranteed result every time is going to be failure and chaos. So Female Rule was revoked and patriarchy was imposed.
Although the question could be bigoted, it doesn’t have to be. On the contrary, it’s an excellent philosophical question.
I realize that almost all gay men and even most lesbians are biologically generated, and at least the gay men cannot change at all. Most lesbians will have a hard time changing. I have no reason to attack anyone who gets wired up any particular way through no fault of their own. It’s like beating someone up for having green eyes or blond hair.
But nevertheless, it’s painfully obvious to me that homosexuality is simply not normal. Obviously the species would have gone extinct if this were the norm.
Let us consider briefly one excellent argument for the abnormality of homosexuality: If homosexuality were normal, why would homosexuals habitually mimic heterosexual relations?
Gay men split themselves into males (tops) and females (bottoms) both globally and in relationships.
If you look at a lot of lesbian relationships, it’s obvious that a lot of the time, one is the man, and the other is the woman.
If homosexuality were normal, it wouldn’t mimic heterosexual relations. The fact that it does so habitually implies that it is heterosexuality is the human norm, and homosexuality is just the abnormal variant mimicking the norm, as many abnormal variants do.
Nevertheless, homosexuality is “normal” in the human sense in that most all human societies will have at least a bit of homosexuality.
1a. Abnormal as in uncommon: Everything only existing a small percentage of humans is abnormal like this. This usually but not always implies that it would not be workable if the majority were like this.
In this sense, sorry, but blue eyes and blond hair are abnormal unless you’re an Estonian. And of course left-handedness is abnormal. But one could argue that those three things are also harmless. Abnormal things could be either harmless or even positive (blond and blue above).
1b. Normal as in an always-present part of the human tapestry. In this sense, child molesting, rape, wife-beating, murder and all sorts of nasty things are “normal” in the sense that they are simply part and parcel on the human experience. On the other hand, we want to keep this sort of thing at as low a level as possible due to the moral aspect of it (it harms innocents) and the social chaos dimension (high levels of any of this cause a lot of chaos).
Second definition: Workable versus unworkable.
2a. Abnormal as in unworkable for the majority. In this case, the human behavior works on when only a few humans do it, but it might not work well at all if a majority of people were like this. I will give examples like this below.
2b. Normal as in workable for the majority. In this sense, left-handedness and blond hair and blue eyes would be both normal and abnormal at the same time: they are all rare so they are abnormal per se, but if the majority were left-handed or blond and blue, this would not only be workable for society but it might even make the world a better place. A world full of Swedish women sounds like an upgrade, at least to me.
Let us point out that geniuses, retards, murderers and saints are abnormal in the 1a sense for better or for worse.
Abnormal and bad (1a-2b type): On the other hand, neither killers nor retards are normal in the other sense. You can’t really have a human species where most humans are murderers. Granted tribal societies like this exist (the Yanonamo), but it wouldn’t be healthy in larger groups.
In the US 110 million men would have murdered a man by age 40. You really think that’s sustainable. Killers get locked away forever in prison. You’d have millions or tens of millions of men locked away for decades. Not to mention the total societal chaos that would ensue.
Could you have a human species where most people are retards? Not going to work either.
Abnormal but good (1a-2a types). The good but abnormal things are different. Geniuses and saints are both normal and abnormal. They’re a normal part of the human experience, but only a tiny percentage of humans are either, so it’s abnormal de facto – anything practiced by only a tiny percentage of humans is obviously abnormal.
This also shows that there’s not necessarily wrong in the abnormality of tiny behavioral minorities. It takes all kinds to fill the freeways. And geniuses and saints both have contributed immensely to our species and our accomplishments.
But could you have a society of geniuses? I’m not sure. Probably no one would ever get laid for one thing because genius men at least are the worst at getting laid because they’ve left their bodies and swim in their heads all the time. Most Normies notice that and think it’s weird if not nuts.
That’s part of why genius men often find it hard to get laid. As IQ rises, men have less and less sex, girlfriends, wives, etc. and their likelihood of being virgins in their early years rises. So does their poor performance at sports. The awkward, dorky nerd genius who can’t get laid is more than a stereotype: there’s something to it.
And geniuses don’t hook up with each other very well either, but maybe the female geniuses could seduce the male geniuses. A lot of female geniuses really like to fuck and have great success at dating and relationships. Genius doesn’t seem nearly so tied in with painful introversion in women. Female geniuses are often strikingly extroverted.
A society of saints? I’m going to go out on a limb here and say it won’t work. We’re not meant to be pure good and especially purely self-sacrificing. We’d all die trying to be heroes and protect other people. A lot of us would probably deny ourselves to death as saints are wont to do so – check out how many saints and saintly types died of sheer starvation. Not to mention they like to starve themselves in other ways, as in sexually.
Saints seem prone to masochism and no-fun ethics – if it’s fun, it’s bad; if it makes you suffer, it’s good. So there would again be a lot of celibates – volcels this time – whereas the genius males would be incels.
I would also argue that it’s not healthy for us to be pure good. A little bit of rough makes the world go round. I don’t like bad people, but I’m not against being a little bit bad. Hell, I’m not against being a little bit evil for that matter. I like to stir just a tiny sprinkle of evil into my coffee every morning. Gives me that nice bad boy edge to go out and conquer in a hostile world.
I’ve had girlfriends remark that I’m a little bit evil. That’s just fine. As far as I can tell, it’s helped me get laid. I have had girlfriends even flat out admit that to me – they have told me that I am dangerous and scary, but that that turns them on like crazy. For that reason one was rejecting a “boring old man” in favor of me, about whom she remarked:
You’re scary. But scary’s hot.
Danger in men revs up the female sex drive. Take note, boyos. Score one for Bad Boy Game.
If they said I was real evil, I might get worried.
Perhaps being a little bit bad or evil is an essential part of the human experience for most of us.
After all, what humans say is evil is simply normal survival type behaviors for most mammals. In other words, if most mammals aren’t at least a bit “evil” they’re probably going to die or go extinct.
Want to feel good about yourself? Fine, be a saint. On the other hand, want to survive? Maybe you’ll need to be just a bit bad.