Alt Left: Complete Deterioration of Literary Criticism in the Last 40 Years

I like to read literary criticism sometimes because it’s some of the hardest stuff out there to understand, at least for me. Forget philosophy. Don’t even go there. Lit Crit is different. With Lit Crit it’s hard as hell to understand and it’s incredibly smart and dense, but you can pretty much understand most if not all of it, so it’s worth it. I call it giving my brain a workout, and to me it’s similar to going to the gym for your body.

I recently read a couple of Hemingway’s best short stories. Then I found and read two Lit Crit articles about them. Lit Crit is very useful this way. If you haven’t already read the work, I’m not quite sure how useful it is or how much you would get out it. But if you’ve read it, Crit is often great for explicating the work and explaining deeper meanings, themes, etc. hidden in the text.

One was in a journal called Journal of College Literature from 1980. It was remarkably down to earth for a Lit Crit journal, especially the issues around published around that time. So I started going through a few decades worth of the journal.

I noticed that the Lit Crit from ~40 years ago was much different and frankly much superior to the gobbledygook out nowadays. It then focused on individual books and was fairly straightforward, simply looking for explications of the events, characters, plots, and themes in the book.

As I moved forward a couple of decades, everything changed. Now it was all postmodernism. Lit Crit about individual works were less common. The crit became ridiculously politicized with SJW and PC Leftist slants towards everything. Now I am a Leftist myself (albeit a weird one) but for the life of me, I do not understand why we need to litter our Lit Crit with Leftist political theory.

In addition to Marxism, there was also inordinate focus on women (feminism, mostly a joke field called Women’s Studies), gays and lesbians (from the lens of a ridiculous and bizarre field called Queer Studies), Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and other non-Whites (same thing- focus on non-fields like Black and Hispanic Studies), on and on.

Pretty much all they wrote about were these “oppressed minorities.” Cringey Queer Studies essays searched for and discovering non-existing homosexuality in perfectly straight stories (Did you know Moby Dick is a gay novel?) and secret homosexuality in completely straight authors (Did you know Shakespeare was gay?). It’s weird and stupid.

There was also a strange attempt to find some silly “woman angle” in novels where women were not particularly important to the story.
There was also a focus on older books written by women and minorities which are apparently good books merely because they were written by a minority or woman and not for any other reason.

Why Lit Crit has to be all about oppressed minorities is beyond me. Fine, some minorities are oppressed. We need a politics to address that. But why trash up Lit Crit with leftwing obsessions with minority groups? Last time I checked, straights, Whites, and men also existed. Can we maybe keep the politics out of our Crit and just talk about the books without turning everything into a political rally?

Another worse problem went along with this. The essays became dominated by postmodernism and were much harder to understand. There were references to philosophy scattered all through everything (particularly unintelligible Continentals like Sartre, Derrida, Lacan, Cixous, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Foucalt, Frankfurt School, DeLueze and Guattari).

That’s all fine and dandy but why can’t we keep unintelligible philosophers out of our Lit Crit? What do incomprehensible Frenchmen spouting nonsense have to do with the novels we read?

It is true that the essays became much more demanding, but there was also a lot of silly talk about things like the Body (?), the Male Gaze (!?), the Text, the Author, the Reader (Barthes), on and on with weird, silly postmodern concepts.

In addition, somehow they became strangely repetitive in that they obsessed over the same postmodernist tropes and views in essay after essay. After a while, it seemed like I was reading the same essay again and again and learning little about the actual books being discussed.
Finally, it became quite boring as a result of this repetition.

tl/dr: Lit Crit has completely deteriorated over the past 40 years. It’s now a swamp of barely comprehensible postmodernism and obsessions with women, gays and minorities. Leftist politics and incoherent Continental philosophers litter every essay, turning it from a brain workout into muddy slow trod up a mountain in the rain without boots or a poncho.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

He Wanted a Twin, Or Worse, a Reflection in the Mirror

My mother and father went to UCLA. My Mom for a mere year, my father til graduation. And came back later for a Masters in Counseling, after which he set about for the entire time I knew him demonstrating that he had learned almost nothing from those pounding years of hard core psychology classes. And the books in the world can’t penetrate a brick wall in the head.

I was supposed to go to UCLA, but I was as huge disappointment. I couldn’t pass Algebra 2, even with this Grade-A IQ of mine. Disappointment all around.

Why was I supposed to go there? He went there. What was I supposed to major in? History? Why? That’s what he majored in! What was I supposed to do afterwards? Teach school. Why? That’s what he did! Starting to get the picture? He didn’t want a son. He wanted a junior twin. Worse, an exact replica cutout from the mirror, 35 years too late.

Why do parents do this shameless bullshit? Yeah, I resented it. I’m not your toy or your reflection in the mirror, pal! I’m actually a real human being, separate from you. You know, a separate person, with my very own thoughts, feelings, desires, values, girlfriends, orgasms, bong hits, parties to go to, you name it, guy. I think people like that have an Object Relations problem. A lot of people have this.

Borderlines are notorious. The Borderline cannot see you as an individual person with your own feelings, thoughts, desires, sleep patterns, favorite foods, quirks and gifts, home runs and strikeouts. A lot of personality disorders share this.

This is one of the most important lessons you can learn in life – that others are completely separate from you. It’s painful in a way because we really want others, especially those we love, to be a part of us in a sense – to agree and disagree with us on everything, but it just doesn’t work that way, and thank God for that.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Janet Fiamengo, “Feminists Play Fast and Loose with Data Again”

Feminist messing with rape data and blowing the rape rate far higher than it actually is. The latest fake feminist study.

Ever heard the figure that 20% of women get raped at university? Sure you have. Well, it’s a lie. The definition of rape includes everything from guys grabbing you in sexual ways. Sorry baby, that don’t count. It’s not nice behavior, but it’s not rape.

So how many women really get raped at university? Try 2.3%

Ever seen the figure of how many women get raped over a lifetime? I forget the figure but it’s more fakery. What’s the real figure? Try 16%. That’s one out of six, but it includes date rape, the majority of rape, which, while nasty, isn’t the same thing and the stranger in a ski mask with a knife in his hand jumping out of the bushes and dragging you off to rape you at knife-point. That’s called stranger rape, and it’s a lot more dangerous.

How many rape claims are false? Feminist claim it is 2-8%, but no one knows where that data comes from. The question has only been surveyed twice in good studies, both in university towns in the Midwest in the 1970’s and 1980. The studies found false report rates of 42% and 50%. There you go. 46% of rape cases filed with the police are false. I don’t think we should persecute women who falsely report rape because we want them to admit it if they fake it.

You hear crazy figures like out of every 1,000 rape cases, only 6 result in a conviction and incarceration.

Well, I know a cop. He told me that in his city, they throw out 90% of rape cases women file immediately. In half of them, the woman can’t keep her story straight, so bye bye. The other half are cases involving live in or married couples where the woman is accusing the man of rape amidst a background of heavy drinking, drug use, or both. Those cases are all gone too. The cops just throw up their hands. Who can you believe?

There are also some fairly valid reasons why the rest of rape cases that are actually filed – 100 out of 1,000 – eventually filter down to 6 out of 1,000.

Actually most rapists are not particularly dangerous. The truly dangerous rapists are the sadistic rapists. Feminists will say all rapists are sadistic, but really only 5-10% qualify. Can they kill? Oh Hell yeah, and hurt you too. They don’t necessarily kill you, but they do threaten you and may well hurt you. These guys get off hurting, torturing and even killing other humans. Get off as in sexually.

There are other rapists, two categories having to do with power. One is called power reassurance. This man feels he is inadequate and rapes to make himself feel like a man again. These are often the “gentleman rapist” types. They really exist. They won’t hurt you and they often apologize to the woman after it’s over.

There is the power-anger rapist. This man is angry at women for whatever reason, which could be due to all sorts of things. He hates women or at least is very angry with them. They usually don’t kill but they can, especially if the woman puts up a fight.

In those cases, he can indeed hurt the woman and sometimes even kill her. If he kills her, he feels bad about and leaves soon afterwards. They often do hurt women though because roughness, beatings, etc. may accompany the rape due to his rage at women.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: “Some in Hong Kong Feel Frustrated as Their City Loses to Mainland China,” by Andre Vltchek

I am sure most of you have heard of the riots convulsing Hong Kong. The Western media is only providing one point of view about these riots – heroic rioters fighting evil Communist dictatorship for freedom and democracy and sugar and spice and everything nice.

I urge you to think again. I don’t support these rioters. There’s really nothing to support. Further, as I hope to show in future pieces, the rioters absolutely do not have majority support. If you go against them, they beat you with clubs, fists and boots. They are destroying public property all over Hong Kong for no particularly good reason.

These are the children of the rich and the upper middle classes. The working class of Hong Kong, the poor, and older people are nowhere to be seen. Go talk to some of them and they will all tell you that they oppose these destructive riots.

If there was a referendum tomorrow on what the rioters want, it would lose. The rioters represent a significant group, but they are not a majority. They only have 35-40% support, and 60-65% of the people are against them.

Your average working class, poor, or older Hong Konger is a fairly conservative person. These silly riots go against traditional Chinese values. Sure, China is revolutionary, and that involves chaos and destruction, but since when are contras revolutionaries? Contras are never revolutionaries.

The young rioters think they are citizens of something called Hong Kong that is not a part of China. The silent majority with their more conservative values are proud to be what they have always considered themselves to be: citizens of China and heirs to its great civilization.

The rioters don’t get it. Hong Kong is not some separate thing. Hong Kong is part of China. It always was part of China. Sure, the British stole it for a while (during the Opium Wars to boot), but it was still part of China even then.

Hong Kong is now back to China where it has always been. The rioters are citizens of China, not some fake thing called Hong Kong. They obviously lack majority support in China proper, where recent polls show ~86% support for the Communist Party.

The CP runs China. Almost everyone in China supports the CP. I hate to tell people to love it or leave it, but if these kids don’t want to be part of China, perhaps they might wish to leave. Macao is right next door. And then there’s Taiwan. Or just calm down and quit being tools of the West.

I would like to add that a century of extreme anti-Communist propaganda is also driving these riots. Most Hong Kongers are extremely anti-Communist. Except now they live in a Communist country. Maybe it’s time they made some adjustments. You can only push a rock uphill for so long. At some point, even Sisyphus wears out and becomes just one more victim of the Law of Gravity. Maybe some causes are doomed from the start.

Some in Hong Kong Feel Frustrated, as Their City Is Losing to Mainland China

Hong Kong is losing to Mainland China. Its poverty rates are high; it suffers from corruption and savage capitalism. It is now the most expensive city on earth. People are frustrated, but paradoxically, they are blaming socialist Beijing for their problems instead of the legacy of British colonialism. ‘Across the line’, Shenzhen, Shanghai, Beijing, Xiang and other cities are leaving Hong Kong behind in almost all fields.

When my dear friend and great concert pianist from Beijing, Yuan Sheng, used to live in New York, recording, giving concerts, and teaching at prestigious Manhattan School of Music, he told me that he used to cry at night:

“In the United States, they smear China. I felt hurt, defenseless.”

He returned to Beijing, gave back his Green Card and began teaching at Beijing Conservatory. He never regretted his decision. “Beijing is much more exciting than New York these days”, he told me.

It is obvious that Beijing is booming: intellectually, artistically; in fact, in all fields of life.

Yuan’s friend, who returned from London and became a curator at the iconic “Big Egg” (the biggest opera house on earth), shared her thoughts with me:

“I used to sit in London, frustrated, dreaming about all those great musicians all over the world. Now they come to me. All of them want to perform in Beijing. This city can make you or break you. Without being hyperbolic, this is now one of the most important places on earth.

Just under one roof, in one single night, we can have a Russian opera company performing in our big halls, in another there is a Chinese opera, and there is a Bolivian folklore ensemble in the recital hall. And ours is only one of Beijing’s theatres.”

When Chinese artists and thinkers are fighting for the prime venues with their Western counterparts, it is usually Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen ‘against’ London, Paris, and New York. Hong Kong is ‘somewhere there’, behind, suddenly a backwater.

While Hong Kong University and the City University of Hong Kong used to be the best in China, many mainland institutions of higher learning, including Peking University and Tsinghua, are now producing many more cutting-edge creative thinkers.

I spoke at all of these schools and can confirm that the young people in Beijing and Shanghai are extremely hardworking and endlessly curious, while in Hong Kong, there is always that mildly arrogant air of exceptionalism and a lack of discipline.

It used to be that the so-called “Sea Turtles” (students who went abroad or to Hong Kong and then returned to Mainland China), were treated like celebrities, but now, it is much easier to get a job with Mainland China’s diplomas.

Recently, while filming the riots in Hong Kong, I was told by a receptionist at one of the major shopping plazas:

“We do not treat visitors from Mainland China well. And they lost interest in Hong Kong. Before, they used to come here to admire out wealth. Now, most of them are avoiding this place. What we have, they have too, and often better. If they travel, they’d rather go to Bangkok or Paris.”

These days, the contrast between Xiang, Shanghai, Beijing, and Hong Kong is shocking. Mainland infrastructure is incomparably better. Public areas are vast, and cultural life much more advanced than in the former British colony.

While the Mainland Chinese cities have almost no extreme poverty (and by the end of 2020 will have zero), in Hong Kong, at least 20% are poor, and many simply cannot afford to live in their own city.

Hong Kong is the most expensive place on earth. Just to park a car in the city could easily cost over US $700 per month, and that’s just for working hours. Tiny apartments cost over a $1 million. Yet Salaries in Hong Kong are not higher than those in London, Paris, or Tokyo.

The city is run by an extreme capitalist system ‘planned’ by corrupt tycoons/developers. The obsolete British legal system here is clearly geared to protect the rich, not the majority. That was essentially why the “Extradition Bill” was proposed: to protect Hong Kong inhabitants from the unbridled, untouchable, as well as unelected de facto rulers. But after months of riots sponsored by the West, the Hong Kong administration scrambled the bill.

But there is also this ‘deal’ negotiated before Hong Kong was returned where it belongs – to China: “One Country, Two Systems”. It is an excellent contract for the turbo-capitalist magnates and for the pro-Western “activists”. And it is an extremely bad one for the average people of Hong Kong.

Young hooligans know very little about their city. I talked to them extensively during their first anti-Beijing riots in 2014, the so-called “Umbrella Revolution”.

Correctly, then and now, they have been frustrated about the declining standard of living and the difficulties of getting well-paid jobs and finding affordable housing. They told me there was no future for them and that their lives were going nowhere.

But quickly, their logic would collapse. While realizing what tremendous progress, optimism, and zeal could be observed in the People’s Republic of China under the leadership of the Communist Party, they still demanded more capitalism, the very thing which was actually ruining their territory. In 2014 and now, they are readily smeared the Communist Party.

Being raised on the shallow values of selfishness and egotism, they have now betrayed their own country, and have begun treasonous campaigns, urging foreign powers, including US and UK, to “liberate them”. All for a fleeting moment of fame, for a “selfie uprising”.

To liberate them from whom? China does not (unfortunately for Hong Kong) interfere in Hong Kong’s economic and social affairs. If anything, it builds new infrastructure, like the enormous bridge now connecting Hong Kong with Macau (a former Portuguese colony) and a high-speed train system linking Hong Kong with several cities in Mainland China.

Huanzhou high-speed train station, one of the biggest in the world

The more restraint Beijing shows, the more it gets condemned by the rioters and Western media for ‘brutality’. As more subway stations and public property get destroyed by rioters, more sympathy flows for them from the German, US, and British right-wing politicians.

For decades, the British colonialists humiliated  the people of Hong Kong while simultaneously turning their city into a brutal and by the Asian standards ruthless and fully business-oriented megalopolis. Now people are confused and frustrated. Many are asking, “Who am I?”

For Hong Kong, this is a difficult moment of soul-searching.

Even those who want to “go back to the UK” can hardly speak English. When asked why they were rioting, they mumble something about the democracy and freedom of the West, plus the evilness of Beijing. Brochures from obscure, extremist Japanese religious cults are distributed amongst the rioters.

It’s pure intellectual chaos. Rioters know nothing about Syria, Afghanistan, Venezuela, and other countries which are being ruined by the West.

Leaders like Joshua Wong proudly collude with the Western embassies. To praise Chinese socialism publicly is now dangerous – people get beaten by the “pro-democracy” rioters, for such “crimes”.

Highly educated and overly-polite Singapore is literally sucking out hundreds of foreign companies from Hong Kong. Its people speak both English and Mandarin. In Hong Kong, the great majority speaks only Cantonese.

Many foreigners in Hong Kong are also relocating to Shanghai. Not only big businessmen: Shanghai is now full of European waiters.

Even tourism is down in Hong Kong, by 40%, according to the recent data.

Absurdly, the rioters want precisely what the Communist Party of China is providing: a real struggle against corruption, a determined attempt to solve housing crises, the creation of new jobs, and the provision of more public services. They want better education and generally a better life. They want “Shanghai or Beijing”, but they also say that they want to be a colony of the UK or a dependency of the USA.

They loosely define communist goals, and then they shout that they are against Communism. In short, politically speaking, they are very confused.

HNKChina is now ready to celebrate its 70th Anniversary of the Founding of The People’s Republic of China.

Clearly, the West is using Hong Kong to spoil this great moment.

After leaving Hong Kong, in Shanghai, I visited a brilliant socialist realism exhibition at the iconic, monumental China Art Museum. The country under the leadership of President Xi is once again confident, revolutionary, and increasingly socialist, to horror of declining West.

It is a proud nation with great, elegant cities constructed by the people, for the people, and with a progressively ecological countryside. Its scientific, intellectual ,and social achievements speak louder than words.

China Art Museum, Shanghai.

The contrast between Hong Kong and Shanghai is tremendous and growing.

But do not get me wrong: I like Hong Kong. I have  more than 20 years of history with that old, neurotic, and spoiled lady. I can feel her pulse. I love old trams and ferries and out-of-the-way islands.

But Hong Kong’s charm lies in its decay.

Mainland China’s beauty is fresh. China is one of the oldest cultures on earth and one of the deepest. But it feels crisp, full of hope, and positive energy. Together with its closest ally, Russia, it is now working and fighting for the entire world; it is not selfish.

Hong Kong is fighting only for its vaguely defined uniqueness. Actually, it is not Hong Kong that is fighting, as most of people there want to be where they truly belong – in their beloved nation – China. It is a gang of kids with their face masks that is fighting. In brief: a relatively big group of pro-Western extremists whose leaders are putting their fame above the interests of the people.

Hong Kong has no “Big Egg”: no famous theatre where the greatest musicians are stunning the world. Its only art museum has been closed for reconstruction for years and will re-open only at the end of 2019. Its cultural life is shallow, even laughable, especially pathetic for the place that is branding itself “Asia’s World City”. There are no great discoveries made here. It is all business. Big, big business. And creeping decay.

Beijing could ‘liberate’ Hong Kong easily to give it purpose, pride, and future.

But young hooligans want to be liberated by Washington instead. They want to be recolonized by London. And they have not consulted their fellow citizens. That clearly reflects their idea about ‘democracy’. Not the “rule of the people” but the “rule of the West”.

Not only do they feel spite for their country, but they also scorn and intimidate their fellow citizens who only want to live meaningful lives based on Chinese values.

Andre Vltchek is philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He’s a creator of Vltchek’s World in Word and Images, and a writer that penned a number of books, including China and Ecological Civilization. He writes especially for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook where this article was originally published. 

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

PUA/Game: The Young, Rich College Coeds I Met at USC 1982-1983

SHI: I found the girls from the wealthy group superficial, flaky, and snobbish. No shit, that’s how they were raised. Their parents were assholes too.

Jason: But they are of course in massive denial of this. Well, I did get one to admit he was an ass – sort of.

Yeah, who knows? Who knows what those people think?

SHI is correct for rich Indian women, no doubt. But American rich women seem a lot different.

Although I went to USC and I met a lot of young women from wealthy families. I was in a teaching program, and those are full of women with only a few men. Stud’s paradise. The few guys around are often lame, cucked, repressed or autists.

I was friends with this Japanese dude who was almost too Beta to even get laid, though he had a girlfriend who wanted to fuck him obviously. But he was too scared – nerdy = autistic – to do it, and he would make an excuse and turn her down. He was nice but very conventional.

He was also a writer. I spent a lot of time over at this guy’s house in Torrance. I was “Duude.” That was actually my name to him. He thought I was a crazy, offensive, super-asshole, which is of course true. He just thought I was an outrageous “funny asshole.” He rather liked me.

There were also these aide types around in the administration of the teaching program. Almost all women, one dyke, a lot of the rest single, one man in the whole program, decent enough guy. I think he ran the thing.

So the office was full of these horny single woman staffers. Like 10-20 years older than me. I chased them too because I’m an asshole, and I don’t care. This one hottie I befriended. She seemed really uptight. Lived alone. But obviously liked cock.

I used to have breakfast and lunch with her. One time we were talking about gay men, and I mentioned that people say they hate women, but really they don’t. Most women think this is a thoughtful conversational topic. And then I said, “But I think to truly hate the opposite sex, you really would have to be a heterosexual!”

She fell out of her chair, and every woman I used this line with loved it. Because straight women sort of hate and love men, and straight men sort of hate and love women.

We are wonderful and horrible to each other. Men hurt women badly and vice versa. Both sides accumulate battle wounds and bitterness over time. Everyone knows this but if you mention it, the defenses like Denial come out fast. But women think that statement hits it on the head.

We used to go out to the movies. I was an alcoholic at that time, drinking 10 beers a day and doing student teaching. I was also a mental mess and was going insane. She lived alone near Beverly Hills and slept alone on a pad in the living room. I made out with her pretty good at the door but she stopped short of that and would not let me come in.

She wanted to fuck me but stopped herself because “she had been married and traveled all over and I had not,” so we had nothing in common. So no sex. No pussy. Plus she was 15-20 years older than me. Mommy type. Mommy-son dynamic. Weird but fun. Maybe.

I actually dated quite a few of those USC coeds. If anything, they were a bit uptight and not real loose sexually. It wasn’t real easy to fuck them. They were sort of inexperienced/prudish, but not in a bad way. Others were living with a boyfriend.

I became good friends with one, and I used to hang out at her house. She was Jewish. We never had sex but we used to talk about porn, and she knew the names of female porn stars. But I don’t think she was an easy fuck, or at least she never fucked me.

I met another one, totally hot, Sandra, who drove a late model Mercedes and lived in her own expensive house  in Pasadena. She was well known for being a slut ,and the other women hated her. She was nice and actually I probably could have fucked her as she gave off vibes like that, one day in particular, but I blew it.

I made friends with an extremely uptight Black woman named Betty. I guess she liked me but she was ugly and ultra-uptight. She eventually decided I was an asshole after blowing her off for many months.

There were other Black women in the program.  They lived in South LA but they were extremely civilized, nice girl, often really religious types.

I used to hang out with one in the library. One day she laughed at me and asked, “Boooob. Are you shyyyyy?” I never went out with her, but I probably  could have. But as she was a church girl, she probably didn’t put out. But she sure was nice. And in a Black people sort of way, she was rather hot.

I dated a Venezuelan woman but it never went beyond lunch dates. She wasn’t exactly an easy fuck either.

I dated a repressed Black woman who lived in Marina del Rey whose father was a physician.

We were working as aides at an elementary school, and we would meet at 8 AM and all have breakfast in the lounge.

I guess the Black woman liked me. One day we were talking about the football game, and she looked at me and said, “Damn I sure wish someone would take me to the football game!” And then she repeated that a few times looking right at me. Not being a total idiot, I got her number, and we made plans.

We went to a football game, and a bunch of White conservatives saw me with a Black chick and laughed at me in a very racist way, like sneering Southern rednecks treating me like an object of derision and hilarity.

Back then it was like if a White guy was with a Black chick, he was a fucktard because that meant he couldn’t get a White woman, so he had to resort to Black chicks. Because obviously they are bottom of the barrel, right?

I went out with her again at her apartment where she lived with her physician father, who I met. She lived in the Marina. I forget what happened but we went to some disco and went out dancing. Nothing happened in this relationship, not even a kiss. She was insanely uptight and apparently inexperienced sexually.

Later she hated me. Some weird guy was calling her up all the time saying sexual things and threatening her. She was convinced that this was somehow me. She also thought I was the biggest fucktard idiot total loser of a man on the face of the Earth. I have no idea why she thought that because she never acted like that on dates.

She was basically out of her mind. She told everyone that I was doing this to her, and I think even tried to get authorities involved. Just another land mine in the minefield called Women.

Women are dangerous.

There was this other very proper White woman who nevertheless usually spent the night at her boyfriend’s house. She ate breakfast with us every morning. So she was getting fucked all the time. Most of the others were not. Seemed like she and maybe a few of the others were the only women having any sex.

She actually seemed like she really liked me too.

Almost all those women had parents who were dentists, lawyers, or physicians. I carpooled with this super uptight women who was going to Dentistry School.

She was sexually repressed and uptight, and sitting next to her in the passenger seat, she would look at me and nervously touching her pussy while she drove. Like her pussy was all backed up, female equivalent of blue balls. Which actually exists. She wasn’t getting laid at all obviously and she probably was very inexperienced.

I have seen other young women who were not getting any sex and probably not masturbating either. They also seemed “backed up” with female equivalent of blue balls and touched their pussies a lot nervously.

There was also some older couple in the car with us, no idea, maybe her parents. I managed to piss all these uptight, conventional, extreme Normie people off by being my usual offensive asshole self.

That woman really hated me, and her parents thought I was pure scum, which is sort of true. I didn’t really care because they were just typical Normie White people fucktards, completely uptight, conventional, critical, with 1 million prohibitions and what you can say or do and be appropriate.

She seemed like she was interested in me sexually though, even though she hated me. Which is pretty typical for a woman anyway.

There was a seriously hot Black woman with a physician father. She was in one of my night classes, and she and I became quite close, had all sorts of great conversations, and spent time together. She was my best friend!

She was very, very nice and absolutely gorgeous, but rather uptight and seemed like she was sexually repressed or possibly just inexperienced. I simply blew it with her because I was completely insane at that point in my life, and it was sort of clear to anyone who studied me a bit. So like a fucktard I never asked her out. She sure liked me though. I mean a lot. A lot a lot a lot a lot.

There was also this Korean woman whose parents were doctors. She was also in the night class with the Black woman and she was also in one of my day classes with the blond sorority cunt.

She was the sweet, kind, loving, super-friendly, knockout gorgeous Asian woman of your dreams, straight out of all the stereotypes you ever heard about these women. She embodied them all, literally an animated and mortal human stereotype in flesh and bone.

She seemed like she really liked me. I mean like really really really really liked me, but like a moron, I never asked her out.

To tell the truth, she also seemed very sexually inexperienced, but not uptight or prudish, more in that strange Asian woman way where they aren’t getting any but it’s not due to being prudish because they’re not. Instead they are sort of normal and ok with it as this is what an unmarried woman is supposed to be like in their society.

I probably could have easily dated half the women in the program, but I simply blew it with a lot of them. And I did  date quite a few of them anyway. They were mostly repressed, uptight, and sexually inexperienced. But most were very sweet and nice.

Also keep in mind that I was at the peak of my looks, and women said I looked like Tom Cruise and Rick Springfield. I got offers to be a male model, which I turned down due to homophobia. In retrospect maybe I should have braved the fags and taken the jobs.

So maybe these women were just really nice to me because I was Chad. Had I not Chad’s looks, perhaps my experience would have been very different.

I also had good Game even then, so maybe that too. But I needed the Looks.

You got the Looks? Fine. Add the Game on top of the Looks, and now woo woo you’ve got a killer machine. It’ll teach you ev-ry thing.

No Looks? Add Casanova’s Game and it might just be worthless, or worse, creepy and dangerous.

YMMV.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

What Are the Differences Between IQ’s of 120, 125, and 130

Rahul: Lindsay, how the hell are you!? It’s been a while. In your experiences, what is the difference between somebody with a 120 IQ and a 130 IQ, or the different between a 120 and a 125 IQ?

In many to most cases, practically nothing! Honestly.

Let’s look at the scores of some of our co
and authors here:

  • Brian 135.
  • Petra (friend) ~130. But she has no interest in brainy stuff. She read my Turkic paper and she kept asking me, “Why would anyone even write a paper like that? What for? What’s the point?” But smart women are not into the airy world of abstract ideas.
  • My father 129. My father had some issues with highly abstract thinking. He just couldn’t seem to get his mind around certain things. I think I was explaining one of those weighed voting schemes to him and he never got it. Zen Buddhism made no sense to him. He kept pounding the table and asking, “What’s the point? What’s the point?” He was very stubborn-minded and closed-minded and rigid, and that can make you seem stupid about some things because you won’t open your mind enough to explore new subjects. Instead you reject them out of hand, say it makes no sense or you can’t understand it or whatever. But he read way faster than I do (he gobbled up a book a day), and although he did not display his ultra-intellect too often, when he did, he was extremely intelligent, especially in things like History and Political Science.
  • Shi 125.
  • Alan 123.
  • Wade 123.
  • Tulio 121.
  • My best female friend S. ~120. S. was not quite as intellectual as the rest, but she was also a heavy pot smoker and basically an alcoholic. One time I told her about some abstract concept I was thinking of (relating to the underlying mechanisms behind life on Earth or some insane crap) and said she probably wouldn’t understand it. She said, “Try me!” and I explained it to her, and she got it right away.
  • Phil 118.
  • Alpha ~115-121? She’s never told me and she probably won’t tell us, so this is strictly as WAG, and I could be way off, but in the conversations I’ve had with her on this, I am thinking it might be around this level. She was a graduate student in one of this country’s top universities. And whatever he # is, I assure you, Alpha is just as smart as I am.
  • Dota 117.
  • Matt 115. Very insecure about his score, but he’s as smart as I am.
  • Phil (friend) 115.
  • Betty (friend) 115. She originally got 107, but she retook the test and got 115 and recently took another one and got 140 on 1/2 of the test and a lower score on the other half. She always seemed to be just as smart as I am although she was much younger.
  • J.(ex-gf) 115. She was maybe not quite as intellectual as the others but she is a brilliant artist, actually a great artist. And I was definitely smarter than she was, but she was no dummy, and she was a very eager and attentive student to my professor role. I mean she deserves the term. She sells her stuff on the market for big money.
  • Forget his name former commenter 106. But he was just as smart as anyone listed above. I know, it’s crazy.

Most of those people above are about as smart as each other, and from what I can tell, they are just as smart as I am, and my score is 12-32 points higher than most of theirs. That’s 1-2 full standard deviations, and here on the ground, you can’t see much of anything at all.

For degrees, jobs, and prizes, you need these minimum IQ*’s, with averages in quotes:

BA  105 (average 115)
MA  108 (average 118)
PhD 115 (average 125)
MD  125 (average 130)
University professor 135 (average 145)
Congressman 135 (average 145)
Nobel Prize 150 (average 160)

*You can get those degrees, jobs and awards with lower IQ’s than the minimum, but it might require a lot of work. You’d have to work your rear end off, and you are going to struggle at least somewhat.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Language Rights in the USSR and Russia

James Schipper: On the other hand, it can’t be denied that there was some linguistic imperialism within the Soviet Union. There was no systematic attempt to Russify the entire country, but there was an encroachment of the Russian language on the others.

Yes, there were 14 that broke away. Those were republics. The Soviet Constitution was radically progressive in that it gave any republic the right to self-determination and independence if they so chose. That’s why they were allowed to break away, although the first to separate (Azerbaijan) were attacked. But the state soon gave up, and Gorbachev let them all go one by one when they voted to go out.

While the USSR initially started out as radically progressive in terms of mother tongue education and state support for all of the languages of the country (even some very small ones), that soon faded with Stalin’s paranoid crackdown on regional nationalism in the 1930’s, when state support was withdrawn from many of the smaller languages. Language rights retracted further under Khrushchev.

The main areas where there was an attempt at linguistic imperialism were in the Baltics, and even there, they failed pretty badly. The native languages in the Baltics are doing very well. I’m not aware of much linguistic imperialism anywhere else.

Keep in mind that every one of those republics had their non-Russian language as an official language. Government documents, books, newspapers, magazines, and journals were published and radio and TV was broadcasted in those languages.

You could elect to send your kid to school from K-12 in the non-Russian language, and in quite a few of those republics, there was university education in the native language also. Of course you had to learn Russian too, and everyone had to take Russian in grades 1-12.

Look around the world. Look at the US. Who are we to talk about linguistic imperialism? Would we ever allow any non-English language the same extreme rights here in the US? You see any public schools in the US where you get to go to school from K-12 in your non-English language? I don’t see any.

Even with some linguistic imperialism under Khrushchev, the USSR was still radically progressive compared to the rest of the world as far as language rights go.

And to this day, all throughout Russia, there are many official languages other than Russia in titular republics. In fact, almost all titular republics where another language is spoken widely have that language as an official language. In many of those republics, you can still get K-12 education in your native language. There are non-Russian language schools all over Russia.

The only exception is Karelia where for some reason, the Karelian Republic has refused to make Karelian an official language, though there are still ~50,000 speakers of the various Karelian tongues.

And many of the republics that split away to form their own nations have kept their Soviet-era policies, even savage Soviet/Russia-haters like Ukraine, where you can get an education in 5-10 different languages depending on what you speak at home.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: People Who Shouldn’t Be at University

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: The “Worthless Degree” Narrative Is a Rightwing Meme

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

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

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

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

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

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

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

Jason Y:

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

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

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

Look below:

           IQ   CT   Grit DG   R    WH   TT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

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

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

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

Is It Time for an Experiment?

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

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

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

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

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

Alpha writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

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

Sigh.

Color me exasperated.

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

Did you all even read the article?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discuss.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

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

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

Here it is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: About Those “Worthless Social Science Degrees”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

The Lie of the Incompetent Black Affirmative Action Professional

The racist argument – which I just saw again on Niggermania today (as I said you need to know what your enemies believe) – is that due to affirmative action and whatnot (which is a racist White Whale that barely exists anymore anyway), Blacks are held to a lower standard.

Well, they’re Black, so we don’t expect much of them, so we will pass them with lower grades than the Whites, and we won’t expect as much of them at work, we will not expect them to do as much work. and we will let them get away with more bad behavior.

I have no idea how true this is. Yes, some law schools do lower standards for Blacks at admission, but there’s no evidence that they grade Blacks at a different standards than Whites. Even if they can fudge a bit to get them in, Blacks in professional schools still have to do just as good as Whites to pass in class. No one’s cutting them any slack on law or med schools, at least not yet.
And if the Blacks really can’t cut it because they slid in on lowered affirmative action standards, they will flunk out anyway, especially at a place like Berkeley. So the lowered standards in a sense are a non-problem. A lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing if you will.
And even if they somehow do not flunk out, they still have to pass the bar. If a Black gets admitted to law school and graduates and then somehow passes the damned bar, they’re competent. It doesn’t matter whether standards got lowered for them to get in or not. The Bar doesn’t believe in affirmative action, at least not yet.
Medical school is the same thing. Ok, they lower standards of admittance, but 35% drop out anyway, and 7% out and out flunk out. So if they were admitting unqualified people, they will bomb out one way or another anyway. And if they do graduate, now they have to pass their boards. Boards don’t believe in affirmative action or not yet anyway.
Tests like the Bar and the Medical Boards are the Great Equalizers. If a Black person can get through law or medical school and pass the bar or their boards, Jesus Christ, how bad of an attorney or physician could they possibly be?
The Bar and the Boards are so difficult that they make it so that anyone who miraculously passes them is absolutely qualified at a minimal level to practice law or medicine. So the idea of all these incompetent Black  professionals everywhere that the racists bring up doesn’t pass the smell test. There simply cannot be lots of incompetent Black professionals as long as they have to pass murderous tests to get the job, and the workplace holds them to high standards.
The notion of the incompetent Black professional affirmative action hire lies in the dust.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: The Failure of the American "Try Hard" Hypothesis of Human Intelligence and Achievement

In the US, no one is smarter than anyone else. Most think there is no such thing as human intelligence and no one is smarter or dumber than anyone else. And anyway, there’s no way to measure human intelligence. All methods are flawed. So why don’t you invent another one? Doesn’t matter. All efforts to measure human intelligence are doomed forever to failure. I guess measuring human intelligence is like measuring quarks. As soon as you think you’ve pinned it down, it’s already scooted out of view again.
This “Try Hard” BS is a lie. My Mom worked for a clinical psychologist who gave standardized tests for employers. He gave IQ tests all the time. He tested me and he had to go back and check the score a few times because he couldn’t believe it was so high. He told my Mom that in thirty years of giving IQ tests, he had only had 10-15 people score as high as I did. And that was after the drugs and the resulting brain fry had long since set in.
He told my mother that when he started, he was agnostic on the IQ question. But after a while, over and over, he found that Asians scored higher than Whites, and Whites scored higher than Hispanics and Blacks. He scratched his head for a while and wondered if he was onto something.
He thought maybe people scored better because they tried harder, so he found Asians who had breezed through university with straight A’s. He assumed they got that way by trying harder, so he asked them if they studied a lot. He was shocked that they almost always said that they hardly studied at all. “Maybe a little bit a day or two before the test,” they would say. The people scoring the best at university were hardly trying at all! So much for the Try Hard Hypothesis.
Then he found people who scored lower on IQ tests and had struggled through university with C’s. He asked them if they had studied hard in college, assuming that they had slacked off and drank their way through college. Most of them said that they had studied very hard but that the material was just too hard for them. Try Hard Hypothesis failed again.
I printed out a paper with Richard Lynn’s paper in IQ variations among races and my mother, now a liberal Democrat (but always a race realist), had given it to him. He read it and was fascinated. He said that he had always suspected that something  like this was going on. He was a good liberal or even Leftist Democrat, so he always believed that there were no differences between the races because this was the liberal line he got taught, but he always suspected that it might be wrong. He eventually became a liberal race realist like my Mom.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Feminism in Academia and Social Work

Rod Fleming: The trouble is, they’ve infested academia, and the schools of education and social work were the very first to fall. Essentially, all teachers now are Postmodern, ‘intersectional’ feminists and all social workers believe the nuclear family is an abomination and the State is the only body capable of raising children. In other words, that they know better than parents do, how to bring up their own kids.
This is not new; the creeping infestation has been going on for decades. It’s just that the reaction to Trump’s election threw it at the fan and the secret is out. Google the Orkney child-abuse scandal.

Yes, they have infested the academy. They are mostly in the Women’s Studies program, although my field of Linguistics got taken over by the worst SJW’s a long time. Really all of the social sciences have gone SJW, and all universities are hotbeds of SJWism. However, I am acquaintances with two university professors, one in the US and one in Europe. Both of them hate modern SJWism. The American professor is so famous that he has a Wikipedia entry. They both act like they have to be very quiet about this or they might lose their jobs though.
Wait, Rod.
Your Reaction gets in the way of a lot of your otherwise decent theory.
3rd wave intersectional feminists do not want to get rid of the nuclear family. Some 2nd wave radical and other feminists talked about that. These were usually coming from a Hard Left Marxist POV.
You would be hard-pressed to find an “abolish the nuclear family feminist” anywhere now. They don’t exist anymore. And I don’t know anyone, no matter how leftwing, who thinks the state does a better job of raising kids than the family does. They didn’t even believe that in the USSR.
If you work in mental health though, you better be on board with modern feminism. If you’re not and your views get out, the feminists will try to get your license pulled. I could not believe how hard my male therapists sucked up to women. It was actually rather disgusting.  I want a therapist who’s a man, not some cuck.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Feminist Cancer Strikes Oxford, Soon Goes Malignant

Feminist poison strikes Oxford, turns many female students into man-scared and man-hating dykes or shut-ins, turns men into terrified incels. 
This is leftwing progress! The Modern Left is pathetic!
[By Damian Thomson, from The Spectator, 13 June 2015] Oxford’s New Feminist Hit Squad: Cute Tumblr. Scary Politics.
“We’re at the tail end of Trinity term at Oxford, when the university finally begins to look like the ‘city of dreaming spires’ depicted in the postcards. The dismal weather cheers up; the quadrangles are soaked in sunlight; and the students — just about to leave for the summer — grab these precious few weeks to do Oxfordy things like punting and slurping Pimm’s.
Even the swots and the lefties are filled with the spirit of Brideshead. Parties spring up on every available lawn; the chatter of gossip and teasing grows louder and louder until the sun goes down, people start throwing up and the college authorities herd the revellers on to the street.
But this year a group of undergraduates — mostly women — will be shunning all this. They will be staying in their college rooms, fingers flying across their keyboards as they scowl at the screen. They are the hard core of a feminist cult that has gripped Oxford and makes life miserable for hundreds of undergraduates across the university. The cult uses Facebook to snoop on students who aren’t ‘proper’ feminists. It tries to force young women to use its extreme rhetoric and denounces them if they don’t.
Its digital tirades can poison college life. One young woman told me that new friends she’d made at Oxford suddenly shunned her in the dining hall after the word went out that she held ‘incorrect’ views on women’s rights. (She was so worried about repercussions that she asked me not to mention which area of women’s rights she felt strongly about.)
I’m going to call the cult ‘Country Living’. That’s not quite accurate: it’s actually spelled without the ‘o’, a gynecological pun that’s the only evidence of a sense of humor you’ll find among its leaders. I reckon calling it Country Living will make them cross. Which, to be fair, is not difficult. These lasses are very, very cross all the time. If there was an Oxford blue for taking offence, they’d be champions.
Country Living is an internet cult that polices behavior both online and offline. Its manifesto can be read by anyone who visits its page on the blogging platform Tumblr, which is mocked up to look like a 1970’s student magazine. Here we learn that anyone can become a C-word, which is a badge of honor, not a term of abuse. Those four letters have been ‘reclaimed’ by the group. (Like feminists everywhere, Country Living does a lot of reclaiming.)
But to earn this honor you must pass tests as severe as the binge-drinking initiation rituals of an all-male Oxford dining society. You must promise to ‘accept that gender is a social construction and embrace its fluidity’. You must ‘recognize your place and privilege within intersectionality’.
And if you fail to do these things, Country Living wants to know. It has spies all over Oxford. They’re not necessarily ‘members’ of the group — as with many religious cults, it’s not clear who is and isn’t a member, and fellow-travelers are often the most snoopy zealots.
A student can be chatting with friends in the Missing Bean, an espresso bar in quaint Turl Street, and say something ‘problematic’ — the Country Living buzzword, meaning anything that deviates from its rigid feminist doctrine, obsessed with transsexual rights. The Country ladies are ferocious earwiggers, and if the student is on the cult’s radar, the remark will find its way back to HQ. Which, bizarrely, is not an office but a Facebook group.
This is where Country Living rules on the correct ideological approach to any current issue. Its Facebook pages are designed as a ‘safe space’ for feminists — meaning an unsafe space for anyone who deviates from the line. As with many sectarian outfits, the smaller the deviation, the bigger the hissy fit. ‘The ultimate crime is not being a Tory man, but being the wrong sort of feminist,’ explains one woman student who, like everyone I talked to, asked not to be named.
The Country set love shutting down debates on their pages. Just after the general election, whose result came as a nasty shock to them, their Facebook administrator Shaina Yang announced that ‘I can’t allow these discussions [about the Tory victory] to continue until we release a clarified statement of what CL rules say is okay and isn’t okay on this topic.’ No wonder that, according to a survey by the Oxford Tab newspaper, a third of Country Living Facebook members were ‘too nervous’ to post in the group.
Such nervousness isn’t confined to Facebook. ‘The influence of CL goes way beyond its membership,’ says one male undergraduate. ‘Girls who come up to Oxford as mild feminists pick up the message that they have to take offence at anything that might be considered misogynistic. So boys have to monitor their own language, pretend to be worked up about trans issues, if they’re to stand any chance of getting laid.’ Something similar happened during the early Seventies heyday of old-style feminism, when guys would denounce patriarchy in order to get laid. But they didn’t have an internet Stasi to worry about.
Adds another student: ‘You see members of the college rugby club glancing around anxiously to see if there are any women present before they can tell a joke. Ironically, they’re the ones who need a safe space.’ I ask him how he can tell the difference between Country sympathizers and the hard core. ‘Weirdly dyed hair is one clue,’ he says. ‘But a better one is “problematic”. The hard core insert it into practically every sentence.’
All this is Oxford at its worst. The university has always been a playground for egomaniacs and control freaks, unlike milder, more studious Cambridge. Although there are Country members in other universities, its origins are no accident.
‘We insist that grammar and spelling are elitist and don’t matter because of a hundred years of linguistic study showing that. When people who insist on hyper-patriotism get language wrong, we use the errors in their language to suggest they aren’t qualified to judge complex matters.’ That’s a comment by one Alyson Cruise on a financial website, bearing the same photograph as the Country Facebook admin Alyson Cruise, a trans woman at St Catherine’s College (who didn’t respond when I contacted her).
If they’re the same person, then it’s bit rich of Cruise to judge errors in language, since her own grasp of syntax on Facebook is pretty rudimentary. But the urge to correct the grammar of the lower orders is very Oxonian. No other university is so intellectually snobbish. Even the Bullingdon Club is at times — look at the proportion of Firsts and future power brokers among its members. Country Living would hate the comparison, but they and the Bullers are both elitist, secretive and enjoy ridiculing people on the basis of linguistic clues. Among the Oxford social elite, letting slip a lower-middle-class word such as ‘lounge’ is what the hyper-feminists would call ‘problematic’. ‘I’d love to see a fights between CL and the Bullingdon,’ muses a student. ‘The feminists would scratch their eyes out before they’d thrown their first chair.’
Unlike the 235-year-old Bullingdon, however, Country Living is unlikely to become a venerable Oxford institution. A backlash is under way. Louisa Manning, an ex-member, has broken ranks to denounce its ‘patronizing, self-righteous tone’ — and revealed that as a mixed-race woman, she had been instructed by the group ‘to identify as white when talking to people of color’. She also accused the administrators of ‘Facebook-stalking members’ profiles’ to determine whether they were ‘legit feminists’.
She also accused the group of spreading a version of politically correct racism. People of mixed race — like herself — felt they were being ‘erased’ because they didn’t fit neatly into an ethnic category. She wrote: ‘Being half Latino, whenever I’ve become involved with threads discussing race, I’ve been accused of “passing privilege” and have been instructed to identify as white when talking to people of color.’
Imagine if allegations of racial bullying were made against a Tory drinking club. The Oxford University authorities would investigate immediately. But Country Living is left-wing, so it is left alone.
Fortunately the group is unstable and beginning to divide into factions. Ordinary undergraduates are finally summoning up the nerve to tease them. The chances are that Country Living — like thousands of cults throughout history — will tear itself apart in an orgy of name-calling, finger-pointing and accusations of heresy. But not before its fanatics have succeeded in spoiling university life for other students — and themselves.”

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: How the Feminist Cult Brainwashes Its Adherents

Absolutely superb article by a woman showing exactly what feminism has become – a cult no different from Scientology or the rest of them that brainwashes its members into believing a whole stack of lies and seeing the world in a brand new bizarre way. Women leaving feminism nearly need deprogramming to undo the brainwashing that feminism did to them.
And incidentally, being a Gender Egalitarian is a great thing to be. The problem I have with women calling themselves feminists is that feminism is all about women. It’s not about us men at all. In fact, many feminists say they could care less what happens to any of us men. So the feminist cult member ends up walking around the world constantly asking, “What about the women? What about the women?”
But that’s no way to look at life.
That’s no different from the White nationalists running around saying, “What about the Whites? What about the Whites?” White nationalists are always going on about Black crime against Whites, especially White women. After a while, I realized that this was very offensive. Why should I only care about Whites or White women victimized by Black criminals? Why should I care more if a White woman is attacked by a Black criminal than if a Black woman was attacked by the same type of person. I thought about this a while. Of course it should not matter who to me who got violated by the Black criminal. It was incredibly offensive that I should only care about the White victim and not about the Black victim. The victimization of either was equally bad! 
We’re all human, dammit. The only sensible way a concerned and progressive person should look at the world is, “What about the humans? What about the humans?”
[From Spiked, 10 February 2016, by Catherine Johnson, writer and student] Originally published in Spiked as How I Became a Feminist Victim. An Oxford Student Explains Why Feminism Fails Women.

How I Became a Feminist Victim: An Oxford Student Explains Why Feminism Fails Women

As a female student in a nightclub, I expected to get some unwanted attention. What I didn’t expect was for feminism to turn me into someone so terrified of unwanted attention I stopped going out. In the past, someone groping me would only annoy me for a minute – that would be the extent of it. If they were being really pushy, I’d go to my male friends and stay with them because they’d enjoy making it clear that the guy’s attentions were unwelcome. And yes, other men were more likely to listen to my tall, imposing male friends than me – a shy, skinny 18-year-old. You could call it male privilege, I’d call it the benefit of self-confidence.
And that was all fine. No harm, no foul. That was, until I discovered the (now-infamous) Oxford feminist group Cuntry Living. It was a big thing in Oxford; everyone was talking about it and, curious, I joined. I read the posts, I contributed, and I engaged in discussion about everything from rape culture to misogyny in our curriculum. I learned a lot, and slowly, I transitioned from a nervous, desperate-to-please ‘gender egalitarian’ to a proud, full-blown feminist.
Along with all of this, my view of women changed. I stopped thinking about empowerment and started to see women as vulnerable, mistreated victims. I came to see women as physically fragile, delicate, butterfly-like creatures struggling in the cruel net of patriarchy. I began to see male entitlement everywhere.
The experience also changed my attitude to going out. I would dress more cautiously and opt to stick with female friends in clubs. And, if the usual creeps started bothering me, I became positively terrified. I saw them, not as drunk men with a poor grasp of boundaries and certainly not as misguided optimists who might have misread my behavior but as aggressive probable rapists.
If I was groped by someone, I didn’t give them a scathing look or slap away their hand, and I certainly didn’t tell them to fuck off. Instead, I was scared into inaction. How could I countenance such a violation? How could I possibly process something so awful? After the event, I would go outside and cry.
And then I would leave – feeling traumatized. I saw the incident, not as some idiot being a bit too handsy, but as sexual assault – something scarring to dwell upon. It was something to whisper to friends in a small, hushed voice – something to preface with a trigger warning. And the appropriate action of friends, upon hearing this, was never to question how upsetting the incident had really been. It was to sympathize, express shock and horror, and say things like ‘I don’t know how you coped’. Not support, but pity – anything else would be tantamount to victim-blaming. Any suggestion that such incidents weren’t really that big a deal (and shouldn’t be treated as trauma) was repellent to me.
Victim feminism taught me to see my body as inviolable – any action visited upon it was violence. Eventually, I stopped going out. It wasn’t worth the risk. It took me a long time to realize what had happened. Feminism had not empowered me to take on the world – it had not made me stronger, fiercer or tougher. Irony of ironies, it had turned me into someone who wore long skirts and stayed at home with her girlfriends. Even leaving the house became a minefield. What if a man whistled at me? What if someone looked me up and down? How was I supposed to deal with that? This fearmongering had turned me into a timid, stay-at-home, emotionally fragile bore.
Thankfully, I learned a lot from the experience. Teaching women that we exist as probable victims (to the probable attacks of men) is not freeing or empowering. Modern feminism trains us to see sexism and victimhood in everything – it makes us weaker. It is also anathema to gender equality. How are we to reconcile with our male ‘oppressors’ when we view them as primitive, aggressive beasts? How are we to advance female agency when everything from dancing to dating is deemed traumatic?
The answer to the problems we face as women is not to submit to the embrace of victim feminism but to stand up for ourselves. We must throw off the soft, damp blanket of Safe Space culture and face the world bravely. If we do not do so now, we will consign any prospect of real equality to the ash heap of history.
Catherine Johnson is a student at the University of Oxford.
 

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: On Brett Kavanaugh, "Gang Rape," and High School Girls Pulling Trains in the 1970's

Regarding the sexual misconduct charges detailed against Brett Kavanaugh below, I am proud to say I’ve never done anything of these things or anything close to them. I’ve done a lot of bad things in my life, but I have never raped a female or even come close to doing it. I like to sleep well at night, and I have to look myself in the mirror every morning.
This horrible man is now facing a third sexual misconduct charge.
The first one involves a charge by a woman, 15 years old at the time, that the then 17 year old Kavanaugh and his creepy friend Mike Judge corralled her into a bedroom at a party while Kavanaugh tried to rape her. Brett threw her down on the bed, tried to rip her clothes off, and put his hand over her mouth to muffle her screams.
His buddy Judge was laughing the whole time. She literally fought Brett off and thereby prevented herself from getting raped. This was an actual crime called 2nd Degree Sexual Assault, a misdemeanor that calls for 1-3 years in prison. The statute of limitations ran out three years after the crime. I would be inclined to let him off on this considering he was a minor, but I hate him so much that I don’t care what sort of BS they use to hang him from his own petard with.
The second charge, which just came out, is from his time at Yale. Brett was a hard-partying guy, a member of a fraternity subsequently discovered to be a very creepy and rapey organization. This fraternity has been accused of so many sexual assaults that they were actually banned by the university at one point.
Brett was said to be rather shy but could get quite aggressive when drunk. These men are called “mean drunks,” and it is a known type. I have known men who were very nice when sober but quite mean when drunk.
A woman who was a classmate of his at Yale charges that in 1982 there was a drinking party in a dorm. She was there with several young men. I am going to say right now that she was a damned idiot for going to a drinking party with just herself and five or six sketchy, rowdy college boys. What did she think is going to happen? At least bring a girlfriend along, for Chrissake.
Anyway, these boys started whipping out their penises and pointing them in her face and daring her to touch them. The antics also involved the use of a fake penis at one point. The woman was a good Catholic girl at the time, and she said she had never touched a penis before. Well, there’s no time like now, baby! Ah, just kidding, sorry.
Anyway she tried not to touch them, but they kept shoving them in her face. They grabbed her hand and put it on their penises. One of the men who did this to her was Brett Kavanaugh. The woman was traumatized by this and confided in some of her friends. This is legally sexual assault, but no DA will prosecute on a BS charge like this. It is a dick move though, and dick moves deserve a punch in the face in Man World.
The latest charge is that Brett, Judge, and a group of other boys threw regular parties when they were in high school that involved targeting a girl, feeding her enough drinks to get her completely wasted, and then getting her to pull a train or do a gangbang. These are being called gang rapes, but that’s not the way I remember them.
I was around back then. This happened at parties all the time when I was in high school. You would hear this at parties, “She’s pulling a train!” Or they would point to some girl and say she pulled a train at this party last weekend. It was a pretty regular occurrence. My understanding was that all of the girls pulling these trains were drinking of their own free will. I was at many parties like this, and I never once saw boys or men feeding these girls booze. They didn’t need to. The girls went there with the expressed intention of getting wasted on alcohol.
I never participated in one of these trains. The idea was always frightening to me, and I didn’t have much sexual experience in those days. Plus I had performance anxieties.
A high school girl would get drunk off her ass, then get in bed with some guy. I guess they would ask her if she wanted other guys. These were high school girls who wanted to get gangbanged, so they would get drunk in order to have an excuse to do this without being called sluts. Other guys would come in, and the girl would say, “Bring it on!” I never heard that one of these trains was non-consensual or that they were anything resembling gang rape.
I heard that if you went in there at your turn in the train, you would find some ravenous cum-drunk high school in there, her vagina soaked down to her knees along her inner thighs, panting like a dog in summer heat, and flopping around on the bed like a possessed Jodie Foster in The Exorcist. She would be saying something like, “More! More! More cock! More cock! I want more cock!” If you got on top of her, she would look up at you and ask, “A new one?” And then, “Fuck me! Fuck me! Fuck me dammit!”.
Females who are this sexually crazed are obviously getting raped, right? Oh, Hell no. No female acts like that unless the sex is consensual.
Back in those days, just because some horny as Hell high school was pulling a train in some bedroom, that didn’t necessarily mean crap. In no way was it synonymous with gang rape. It was just some high school girl living out her fantasy of getting gangbanged.
Now if Kavanaugh was actually targeting certain girls and deliberately feeding them drinks in order to gangbang them, that was sleazy. But that’s not rape either. No male ever goes down on rape for sex with a drunken female. No DA ever files on a bullshit charge like that. It’s only rape if she’s passing in and out of consciousness, and even then, it’s hardly ever prosecuted. One case that was prosecuted recently was the Steubensville case with a high school girl which was videotaped. The only reason those boys went down was due to the videotape.
If she is so drunk she is literally passed out, yes, it is rape, but hardly anyone goes down on that either because there’s usually no evidence. Sadly, this bullshit happens all the time. Girls and women! Don’t drink yourself black out drunk or even worse passed out drunk. You may well get raped and you have no one but yourself to blame for that.
This is what the college athlete Brock Turner went down on. 95% of the sexual activity he and the girl had was consensual, and it was not sexual assault until she passed out. At that point he was supposed to get off of her, and it became sexual assault as soon as he started messing with her passed out body.
Also it was sexual assault, not rape, due to digital penetration. That woman was another idiot who got herself black out and passed out drunk and then got assaulted. She was with Brock at the party for a long time before they left, and people said she was all over him, practically having sex with him in the main room in front of everyone. When they left and went outside, same thing, she was practically raping him.
I’m just saying that at least in Brock Turner’s case, there is sometimes a lot less to some of these cases than meets the eye.
On the other hand, Kavanaugh and his buddies definitely did what I would call a dick move by feeding these girls drinks and then frankly preying on them when they were wasted. It’s a dick move, not rape. The punishment for dick moves like that in Man World is a punch in the face. That’s exactly what this creep and his friends deserve for pulling this stunt.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Why Emphasizing the Exceptions Over the Rule is Dumb, Lacks Self-Awareness, and Gives False Hope

Thinking Mouse: Also, why do you use the Feynman example as a minimum? He’s an ultra exception?

Didn’t he get a Nobel? Well, if he did, he is interesting because I suppose that is a threshold effect. But bringing him up over and over to prove some point is dumb.
You must understand that Feynman scored the highest score ever on the Physics entry exam to his university. A number of his other tests in physics were completely off the charts. So Feynman was like a 190 IQ in Physics. Feynman was weak on verbal. People who have access to his notes have observed frequent spelling, punctuation and grammar errors.
So using the Feynman example that “any 125 IQ person can win a Nobel” is just stupid. Can a 125 IQ person win the Nobel Prize? Sure, maybe in Physics. But all you need is a 190 IQ when it comes to Physics. How many 125 IQ people have that? Zero? That’s what I thought.
And it gives false hope to a lot of people while de-emphasizing the importance of intelligence to others. To allow a 100 IQ person to go to university without telling them or at least knowing yourself that they will have to work very hard is irresponsible. To allow someone with an IQ below 115 to even entertain the possibility of getting a PhD or an MD is the height of irresponsibility. I mean it’s hard to tell people these things, but you can always let them go find out for themselves and learn the hard way. But giving people false hope is stupid, cruel, and a waste of time and resources.
The Greeks said, “To know thine own self is the rule.” One of the purposes of life is to know yourself or finally understand yourself, your strengths, your weaknesses, the whole nine yards. Not understanding yourself and always overestimating how good you are at this or that is ridiculous.
Most people I know do not know themselves well at all, even far into their 50’s. This is ridiculous. “I am good at this” or “I am not good at that,” takes a lot of bravery that most folks just don’t have. This is a problem because always overestimating what you can do leads to a lot of time and effort wasted on useless projects and further leads to a lot of frustration and depression when you inevitably fail.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

How IQ Limits You in School and Life

Rahul: Robert, there are professors with IQ’s in the 90’s out there. There are scientists too, and many other professions.
You are being very IQ deterministic. IQ does carry some merit, but it’s not the only thing. Also, intelligence can span from many different things. Intelligence is the ability to learn. People with Low IQ’s are very street smart, more so than high IQ folks. Musical intelligence exists too, many low IQ blacks are excellent rappers. Mechanical intelligence, not every high IQ fella can fix shit with their hands.
There’s this article on Grey Enlightenment on illusory superiority. It’s a phenomenal article.
Also, you can increase your IQ, it’s not fixed at all. Just because most people don’t increase it doesn’t mean that it’s impossible. Some people get pretty big gains too.
For a degree, you only need an average IQ.
For a masters too, only an average.
Even for a PhD, you only need average.
Hell, for the Nobel, you probably don’t need a monstrously high IQ either.

There are almost zero university professors with IQ’s in the 90’s. I dare you to show me one university professor with an IQ at that level. With an IQ in the 90’s, you will have a difficult time getting a BA, for Chrissake.
Show me one “scientist” anywhere with an IQ in the 90’s. One.
You don’t realize that IQ is intelligence. By attacking IQ, you attack the very concept of human intelligence itself.
Street smarts, musical and mechanical knowledge alone won’t get you through university or a job as a professor or scientist. As an aside, most very good musicians are quite intelligent. We think Blacks are stupid, but I have read interviews with great Black blues musicians who no one would ever think would be smart, and I was shocked at how smart they were. I read an interview with Miles Davis, and it almost knocked me on the floor. He’s at least as smart as I am.
I am always shocked at how smart auto mechanics are. They’re not book smart intellectuals, but I haven’t met a stupid mechanic yet, and I’ve met more than I can count. We think they are just stupid grease monkeys, and they don’t act all that smart, but those guys are wicked smart. I saw a chart once and I was shocked at how many auto mechanics had IQ’s of over 130. That will literally put you in the gifted program at school.
I met a man the other day whose job was fixing the slot machines in gambling houses. I was stunned at how smart he was. I could tell he was smart very fast just by looking at his eyes, listening to his speech and just seeing how sheer fast he was.
After age 18, IQ doesn’t go up much at all. Nor does it lower much either. IQ is even preserved in alcoholism, believe it or not. It can damage your brain, but IQ is typically preserved somehow.
Show me one person who got an over 15 IQ gain in adulthood. I would even like to see someone who got 15 points. I’ve heard it’s possible, but I’ve never known anyone who did that.
An average IQ of 100 will not get you a BA. You will struggle a lot, and you will simply not be able to understand a lot of the material. Many 100 IQ people will drop out of the university. You need a minimum 105 IQ to get a BA. You need a 110 IQ to get one relatively easily.
I definitely don’t see how you easily get an MA with an average IQ. I have known people who seemed to do it, but they were schoolteachers getting more or less bullshit Education MA’s, the easiest MA’s out there. And this woman that I knew had to have her attorney mother write most of her papers for her, otherwise she would never have passed.
I was in a Master’s program and there didn’t seem to be a lot of average IQ folks in there. Some of them were smarter than I was, or at least they were better at the material. For a Master’s, you will ever struggle at a 105-107 IQ. You won’t understand a lot of the material, and you will have a high likelihood of dropout, assuming you can even get in anyway, as you have to pass the GRE, and it is hard to pass the GRE with average intelligence. I would want a 115 IQ to get a Master’s degree, and even then it will be hard.
You need a minimum 115 IQ to get a PhD, and even then, you will not understand a lot of the material and you will have a high tendency to flunk out. You want a 125 IQ to get a PhD. If you have an IQ below 115, in all likelihood you will simply not be able to get a PhD unless you have an extremely lopsided IQ.
Most Nobel Prize winners have IQ’s of over 145. They’ve been studied.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

All the Ways That IQ Is Relevant to Society

Intelligent Mouse: By “relevant for society” i meant relevant for economics. IQ can matter for many reasons, like for example just being interested in any form of scientific rigor in understand behavior could make it relevant to an individual as the person would seek for all (or at least most) alternatives in models.
But lets investigate some of the potencial usage of intelligence meassurments and see how IQ tests meassure up.
Measuring potential school performance:
Some small amount of years in school will already give the teachers or parents ample information about their prospects, but also traits that make IQ more productive in synthesis:
https://books.google.se/books?id=SCyEAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=Layzer+(1973:+238)&source=bl&ots=9Rf9sy0Jd6&sig=WjWMXZsLTGLGy7SS7JSZQ9RLmNE&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjl0q7t78fdAhUQpIsKHXb7AFsQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=Layzer%20(1973%3A%20238)&f=false
Job performance:
Well, IQ correlates around 0.3 with job performance, but the measurement is subjective so it might capture some things that correlate with social-class and therefore IQ.
Eugenics:
Pleitropy and polygenic structures makes eugenics by swapping SNPs impractical. Breeding programs can only do so much without further molecular biology knowledge. Twin studies seem kinda ridiculous:
Twin Studies, Adoption Studies, and Fallacious Reasoning
And i also agree with:
Behavior Genetics and the Fallacy of Nature vs Nurture
and (which is what GWAS interested behavioral geneticists like Steven Hsu agree on):
Height and IQ Genes
making eugenics very hard. If we already knew the mechanisms behind
Testing mental health:
This is actually the best use of IQ, as decreasing IQ is indicative of loss in brain stuff.
Criterion validity and correlation:
I also think that IQ´s criterion validity lies on shaky grounds when its founded on correlations that are only tested in narrow environments, essentially just creating the same correlation again and again without testing the methodological validity by testing the correlation appropriately. to test correlation appropriately would find anomalies in the pure environmentalist approach (or any level of conviction to environmental explanations) or finding causal IQ relationships (which Environmentalists have done).
I’m not really an IQ denier though, i think there probably is an range of IQ that any given person can inhabit, but the fact of individuals sticking around the mean makes it hard to know who could be where, especially in such large and genetically similar groups like economic classes and races. Some people are obviously extreme, but as previously stated, we don’t need IQ tests to know that.
And whats to say that smart people have high IQ? IQ is contingent on G, but all of my criticisms on IQ are pretty much equally (for better or worse) valid against G.
I see no use in IQ if not for future developments. Its an unfinished project at best.

 
I do not think that people realize what they are criticizing when they attack IQ. For IQ is simply the best measure we have for measuring intelligence in human beings. No better test has ever been devised. So when you criticize IQ as a concept, you are actually criticizing human intelligence itself. Do you IQ critics who say IQ is not that important really want to say that human intelligence is not important for human beings? Because that is exactly what you are saying.
You realize IQ correlates very well with all sorts of things, right?
Percentage of country that are college grads. % of college grads rises with rising IQ.
Grades in college, SAT. Good correlation between college grades, SAT scores and IQ.
Wealth of society. As IQ rises, societies tend to become more wealthy. As IQ falls to a low level, you can end up with extreme poverty, a lot of crime and chaos, rampant disease, and sometimes even a failed state.
State of the infrastructure of society. Infrastructure of society improves as IQ rises. People and society are more likely to maintain things. When IQ falls to a low level, people often do not know how to fix broken infrastructure and there is a tendency to jerry rig or do temporary quick and dirty fixes to problems that last for a bit but then fail again.
Civilizational level of society. As IQ rises, societies appear more civilized. As it drops to a low level, countries can appear downright barbarous.
Crime rate of society: As IQ rises, the nation’s crime rate falls.
Whether or not you will go to jail or prison and how long: As IQ falls,  you are more likely to be imprisoned and for longer.
Whether you will go on welfare programs. As IQ falls, welfare use increases.
Whether you will get an advanced degree. As IQ rises, advanced degrees become more common.
Income (up to a certain level). Income rises in tandem with IQ up to 125-130, after which it falls
Accident rate. As IQ falls, people get into many more accidents, some fatal. Includes car crashes, recreational accidents, accidents at home, etc.
Hospitalization rates. As IQ rises, people are hospitalized less often.
Rates of alcoholism and serious drug abuse. As IQ rises, rates of drug and alcohol abuse fall.
The environment you create for your children. As IQ rises, parents create better environments for their children.
Stability for chaotic nature of your surroundings. Even if you look at it on a neighborhood level, as IQ rises, the neighborhood becomes calmer, sometimes nearly to the point of being boring. Yet only three miles away, a large group of apartment complexes housing many low wage workers has a lot of noise, a general chaotic atmosphere, frequent police calls, a lot of yelling and screaming coming from homes, more frequent and more chaotic parties, more violence, more residential crime, and more drug and alcohol abuse.
Domestic violence rates. Domestic violence falls precipitously as IQ rises. Men at the highest IQ levels seldom beat their wives. As IQ falls down to a low level, domestic violence becomes commonplace to the point where most men are beating their wives.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

A Look at the Chinese Model of Communism – Market Socialism

You are starting to see a lot of articles in the capitalist press bashing China now, saying their economy is not as good as they say, that it cannot be sustained, and that it is headed for crash. They base this on a comparison to other Communist countries, but those economies fell behind far before China’s did.
China has sustained Communism under various forms, including presently under market socialism, for 70 years now. That’s as long as the Soviet Union, and the Soviets started stagnating a long time before that. China is an example of a smashing success for a Communist country, and the capitalist press is freaking out because that shows that their anti-Communist propaganda has been crap for all of these years.
Incidentally, Deng Xiaoping emphatically stated that he was a Communist. Deng’s idea was to create “a rich Communist country.”. In an interview in 2005, a top party official was asked if China was still committed to spreading Communism all over the world.
“Of course,” the minister beamed. “That is the purpose of the Communist party (CCP).”
Incidentally, China still has 5-year plans and the whole economy is planned. The business sector has to go along with the plan, and if you do not go along with it, they can confiscate your business. A party committee sits on the board of all large corporations. The government owns every inch of land in China. The state invests an incredible amount in the economy and also overseas where it makes vast investments. This is because some Chinese government companies are very profitable. A number of Chinese government companies are on the list of largest companies in the world.
Capitalists in the US openly complain that they cannot compete with Communist Chinese government  corporations, crying that they get subsidies so it’s not fair. So here we have US corporations openly admitting that they can’t compete with Chinese government Communist state-owned companies.
45% of the economy is state owned and it is very profitable. 87% of all investment in the economy is made by the state. This figure includes all Chinese private investment and all foreign investment.
Much of the state sector is owned by small municipalities, and this works very well. Further, cities compete against each other. For instance, City A’s steel mill will compete against City B’s steel mill, and both will compete against a private sector steel mill, if there is one. Successful enterprises bring in a lot of money to the city, which it uses to upgrade the city, which results in more workers moving there, which grows the economy more with more workers and more demand.
There are also still a number of pure Maoist villages in China that are run completely on a Maoist line. Everything is done as it was right out of the Mao era. I understand that they do very well, and there is a huge waiting list to move to those villages.
I did a lot of research on China recently, and the party is literally everywhere you look every time you turn around. The party itself still runs many enterprises all over the country, especially in the rural areas. There are party officials in every village and city, and they take a very active role in developing the municipality in every way, including culturally. They have an ear to the ground and are typically very popular in the villages and cities.
Party officials lobby the state to try to solve any urgent problem in the area. The government is always spending a lot of money all over China on public works, on fixing various environmental problems, or on really any societal problem or issue you can think of. This of course includes economic development, which tends to be state-led. I read synopses of many dissertations coming out of Chinese universities, and most were on how to deal with some particular societal problem or issue. Many others dealt with technology and industry. So a lot of the research on technology and industry that is driving economic development is coming straight out of state universities.
Instead of leaving it up to the private sector to deal with the problems in society, create public works, and even plan the economy, the government does all of that. Incidentally, the way the US leaves the planning of the economy, such as it is, up to the private sector is insane. All sensible economic planning in any nation will always be done by the state with a view towards allowing the country to prosper. Capitalists have no interest in whether the country profits or not, so they engage in no economic planning at all. Leaving economic planning up to the whims of the capitalists is economic malpractice.
There are 1,000 protests every day in China. Yes, there is corruption and there are government abuses, but if protests last long enough, the party usually gets alarmed and tries to do something about the problem because they don’t want serious unrest. This is party that does everything it can to serve the people and try to remain popular with citizens by giving them as much as they can and doing as much for them as possible. The party spends every single day of its rule literally trying to buy off unrest and keep its citizens satisfied.
It’s illegal to be homeless in China. If you end up homeless in China, they will try to put you in a homeless shelter, or if they cannot do that, they will send you back to your village because most homeless are rural migrants who moved to the city. The state is now investing a vast amount of money in the rural areas because these places have been neglected for a long time. The state still wants to own all the land because they want to keep the rural areas as a secure base where rural migrants to the city can always return if they fail in the city.
How can a government in which 45% of the economy is publicly owned, 87% of investment is done by the state, and every inch of land is owned by the state possibly be called as capitalist country? No serious political economist anywhere on Earth considers China to be a capitalist country. The only people who say that are ideologues and liars, which includes almost all political conservatives and most businessmen.
The state spends an unbelievable amount of money on public works all over the country all the time. Many projects that in the US have “conclusively proven” to be too costly to be implemented have been done in China quickly and easily. And China’s per capita income in less than 10% of ours.
Most ethnic minorities are still allowed to support their culture, and in most cases they are allowed to have education in their native language. In these areas, the native language is co-official with Mandarin.
In recent years, the Chinese government has begun to support a lot of the Chinese dialects, of which there are over 2,000 main ones, many of which are actually separate languages. Cantonese is still an official language in Hong Kong, and it is widely used in Guangdong. The other major Chinese languages or macrolanguages still have millions of tens of millions of speakers. Lately the Chinese government is telling people they can preserve their dialect as long as they also speak Mandarin. Many schools now have classes in the local dialect.
Cheap medical insurance is available and it covers 85% of costs. State medical centers are still very good. However, if you have a serious medical condition in China, you will quickly run out of money with no recourse.
This is a serious problem but it is much better than earlier in the Deng Era when millions were dying from lack of health care. However, the state still need to cover everyone. They got away from universal coverage  when they moved away from Maoism early in the Deng era. In addition, tens of thousands of schools, many of which were built during the Cultural Revolution, were closed early in the Deng era.
The introduction of a market had a lot of problems in the early days. The capitalist press was cheering wildly as thousands of schools were closed all over China, medical care was cut off from or reduced for hundreds of millions of people, while millions of Chinese died from lack of medical care. This was all cause for celebration! Isn’t capitalism wonderful? What’s millions of humans dying from lack of health care as long as a few rich people can buy ridiculously expensive, useless items that they don’t even need?
A recent good survey done by a Western polling firm found that 87% of the population supported the Communist Party.  The excesses of the Mao era, especially the Great Leap and the Cultural Revolution, have been widely discussed and the party has admitted that many errors were made and resolved not to do this again. These excesses are being blamed by the party on what they call “ultra-Leftism.”
The economic model of China is called Market Socialism and a lot of modern day Leftists and even Communists support it and agree that this is the way forward for the left and Communist movement. Like all words, the word Communism has no inherent meaning. It means whatever people who use it say it means. So the definition of Communism can clearly change with the times as Communists update their definitions of what the word means.
China cannot be called capitalist in any way. Their model is far more socialist than anything in any European social democracy. It also goes far beyond the US in the New Deal and of course beyond beyond the social liberalism and its more left analogue in Canada, not to mention beyond social democracy in Australia or New Zealand.
Interestingly, Japan is not a capitalist country. They don’t have neoliberalism. That country does not operate on the capitalist mode of development. Instead the resemblance is, I hate to say, to Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany also did not have a capitalist mode of development. I’m not sure what you call it, but it’s not capitalism. For instance, in Japan, the commanding heights of the economy, including almost all of the banks, is owned by the state.
The state still plans the economy. They plan the economy together with the business community and the state allocates a lot of funds and loans to areas of the economy it wishes to develop. There is probably a similar model in South Korea, which also is not capitalist and instead operates on a series of monopolies that are owned currently by large corporations and the government. The South Korean economy is also planned, and the plan is worked out by the government and the business sector working together.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Intersectionality Is Itself a System of Power

An absolutely essential piece by Ernest Everhard from the Alternative Left website sums up perfectly an Alt Left position on SJWism, Intersectionality or Intersectional Feminism. It’s a bit hard to read, but I understood 90%+ of it, so maybe you can understand a lot of it too. This is us. This is really us. This is an immaculate summary of exactly what the Alternative Left is all about. Please feel free to comment on this: this is a very important topic in this great movement we are trying to build here.

Intersectionality Is Itself a System of Power

Intersectionality is itself a system of power. It upholds the status quo and protects the powerful and privileged.
Recognizing this is the key difference between the alternative left and other current forms of political thought.
A fan of the Alternative Left Facebook page recently posed this question to me:

Have you considered that you might be postmodernist? The actual meaning of the term, not Peterson’s ridiculous conflation and confusion of it. It seems as if a lot of your philosophy relies on the rejections of meta-narratives.

At a glance, this seems an absurd question. Isn’t rejection of postmodernism integral to the alt-left? Doesn’t all that deconstruction and bafflegab distract from the hard and real work of class struggle? Isn’t a return to some semblance of economic realism, if not historical materialism, what we’re all about at the end of the day?
Not so fast. While I don’t think postmodernism is a tenable philosophy long term, it does make some good points. It’s like nihilism and other forms of radical skepticism. They’re nice places to visit, and doing so is a sign of intellectual growth, but you wouldn’t want to live there.
My quarrel with postmodernism is how it tends to be cherry picked by the intersectional left, the feminist theorists in particular. They’re quite good at using deconstruction to pick apart the texts of their opponents, and will exploit other postmodernist concepts such as “the death of the author” – the idea that textual interpretation by authorial intent is flawed – to license their tendency to simply read their own narrative into ideas that threaten them.
They use such notions as science being a western, patriarchal “way of knowing” as a legitimizing excuse to handwave otherwise proven claims of some biological basis in gender differences, for example.
Deconstruction, cognitive framing and other advanced linguistic concepts are devastating ideological weapons against those who are not aware of them. Intersectional theorists get a unique education in these concepts in the academic institutions wherein their views dominate. Institutions that are not cheap to attend and require significant baseline intelligence to be successful in. They’re therefore able to win debates against their less privileged opponents simply through framing and linguistic and cognitive gimmicks of this nature.
Ultimately, however, feminist theory’s apparent embrace of postmodernism is self serving pretense. Notice how their own theories are presented as if they were eternal truths, universally binding on all people under all circumstances. Cultural relativism is fine when it’s used to impose multiculturalism and diversity upon western cultural spaces, but has a funny way of disappearing when similar demands of tolerance are made of feminist theorists in turn.
Fixed and objective meaning of text based on authorial intent is not authoritative, since the author no doubt lives in a network of socially constructed systems of which he is barely aware. But not so the feminist critic.
Her views, and her views alone apparently, somehow transcend the context of the society that gave rise to them, and so are above questions of this nature and constitute an ultimate authority on par with divine revelation. No one is faster to declare epistemic superiority for their own points of view – standpoint theories so called – than college feminists who’ve studied the poststructuralists closer than anyone. If feminist theory is not a metanarrative, you tell me what is.
Who deconstructs feminist theory, one must ask?
Yeah, it’s a dirty job, but someone’s got to do it.
Herein lies a very central tenet of alternative leftism: that the brands of postmodern critical theory so prevalent on college campuses and that are the underlying ideologies of the SJW’s are actually conservative, not radical. They are in fact themselves systems of power, like the very notions of patriarchy and colonialism they so love to deconstruct.
This is quite naturally a counter intuitive concept when first exposed to it. Feminist theory, queer theory, critical race theory and so on – Intersectionality serving as a kind of one ring to rule them all and thus a useful term for referring to them collectively – is interpreted either as official party line and not to be questioned, in the case of the mainstream left.
Or else condemned as “Cultural Marxism” and taken at face value as advocacy for an artificial egalitarianism, in the case of the right. Neoreaction comes quite strangely closest to the truth in its denouncing of progressive ideology as “the Cathedral” – a vast Matrix like social construct comparable to the Christian church in the middle ages – the state religion to which everyone must pay homage, hence the term.

The Cathedral: It doesn’t challenge the aristocracy.
It is the aristocracy.

Neoreaction’s flaw, however, lies in the irony of its denunciation of progressivism in those terms. Isn’t a medieval form of social organization exactly what they want? The Church of the middle ages, far from being an institution for egalitarian social leveling, had a long history of supporting the aristocracy and running interference on behalf of the status quo, despite a good portion of what Christ actually taught, which may be where the confusion arises.
So it is with intersectionality. Despite its pretenses, and despite what were likely genuinely radical critiques at one time, current year intersectionality does not challenge privilege. It upholds privilege.
Do not misunderstand me, dear reader. I do not condone racism towards minorities, misogyny and homophobia. The left spearheaded the fight against those things for all the right reasons. And not merely because prejudice undermines working class solidarity, thought that is reason enough. To be left is to value equality, to some degree or another, and fair treatment regardless of what one is by accident of birth. Intersectionality itself was intended to be a manner of looking at how various different forms of oppression reinforce one another. This is not in itself a bad idea.
The problem is that intersectionality has evolved into something does not actually promote real social justice. Its lack of tolerance for dissent made it vulnerable to abuse on part of the unscrupulous, who were thereby attracted to intersectional feminist spaces.
They’ve co-opted social justice movements, and used them as tools to oppress people. It’s like Marxist Leninism 2.0 – a popular movement is appropriated and exploited by an elite vanguard professing to represent the interests of marginalized people, and using that to consolidate their own power. Cultural rather than political power this time, but the underlying mechanisms are quite a bit alike.
It’s also quite different from Marxism in one key aspect, and this is often overlooked by those on the right who equate intersectional ideas with Marxian leftism: intersectionality’s lack of emphasis on political economy. It is not merely that they simply don’t care about or are ignorant of the internal workings of the international economy or the political machines of the G7 nations.
Intersectionalists are rewarded by capital for framing privilege in terms of racial and sexual identity rather than in terms of wealth and political power. These rewards include expansion in academia, access to agenda setting mass media and favorable policy service. Ideological systems that truly threaten the status quo do not enjoy universally favorable media bias, moderator bias on major corporate social media platforms and an exalted status in academic institutions.
The state religion does not advocate for the truly marginalized within the polity.
It’s important that you divest yourself of the notion that intersectionalists truly represent the underclasses, including most women and people of color. They occupy a very different world than that of working single mothers or unemployed minority youths in the ghetto, or on their way to prison.
They occasionally will use real oppressions suffered by women and minorities while making the case for an increase in their own influence, but that is the only reason for which they ever seem to do so. If one takes their standpoint theories at all seriously, the plush halls of the academy and major media outlets are not the places we should be seeing credible voices of the oppressed and marginalized. Those voices are kept quite intentionally silent, because their demands will be for redressment of their economic hardships and lack of political representation.
Women who are turned off of men and family as a result of feminism, and men who are turned off of religion, community and nationalism as a result of anti western critical theory find themselves completely atomized and without an identity. This is central to the alt-right’s critique of modern liberalism and the abolition of borders.
But the real question is: who is the real beneficiary of all this? The far right will tell you that this is “cultural Marxism” and is necessary in order to groom the populace for the embrace of socialism.
That’s not what happened. If you do not believe that, observe how neoliberalism increased apace just as this so called cultural Marxism did. The emergence of political correctness coincided with Reagan in the US and Thatcher in the UK. If the idea was for feminism and multiculturalism to precede socialism, they could not have failed more miserably.
Atomized individuals turn to careerism and consumerism to fill the void, and they’re more easily replaced when cheaper cogs for the machine are found. So they’re more obedient and easily used in the workforce and more responsive to consumer trends. When other vectors of identity are removed, do the brands we work for and consume become the way we identify ourselves?
This seems to me to be the triumph of capitalism, and quite in line with the manner in which Marx believed capitalism would progress, abolishing relations based on kinship and reducing all human interaction to commodity exchange, rather than the triumph of Marxism itself that it’s so often described as by reactionaries.
Hard Fact: Social liberalism is the handmaiden of capital, not of revolution. And so capital became socially liberal when national economies became fully saturated and capital had to go global in order to keep up its expansion. The alt-right is hated in the capitalist press because capital must always seek new markets, and it was therefore in capital’s interest to globalize and promote diversity.
Observe one of the methods whereby Intersectionality preserves its hegemony: by seeking to get people who disagree with them fired from their jobs. Often with no recourse or due process whatsoever. In what world does leveraging the power of capital over labor so flagrantly and directly constitute anything that could be at all called left wing?
This is what was done to socialists and trade unionists back in the bad old days of blacklisting. This isn’t to say that removal of an offensive or hateful person from a workplace isn’t sometimes appropriate or necessary, but to use the threat of employment loss as a means of enforcing ideological conformity more broadly is something the left should not be supporting. We can question the rationality of workers supporting conservatism all we want. It won’t seem quite so irrational now that this ugly tactic has been normalized.
Another hard fact: Intersectionality relies on the absolute power that capital has over labor and consumers in order to successfully impose its will on the population, as it’s doing in geek culture, for instance. The capacity for populations to resist cultural and moral relativism imposed from above would be greatly increased if cultural and economic as well as political institutions were democratized and under some or another kind of social ownership.
Intersectionalists are a safe and nerfed form of “leftism.” One that attacks white male “neckbeards” and “dudebros” in places like 4chan while leaving the State Department, the military industrial complex and Wall Street lobbyists unscrutinized.
Activists and even radicals who truly want to challenge the status quo find their anger and vigor channeled into safe outlets that do not truly threaten the powers that be. Offensive statements by white male celebrities are made front page news by an intersectionalist movement that’s presented in the headlines as being radical and subversive – the resistance, so called. Offensives launched by the US military on the other side of the world in defense of petrodollar interests are kept more safely out of the public eye.
Intersectionality is a tool used by an educated elite to police the culture of the underclass, and to undermine the solidarity of that underclass by dividing it along racial and gender lines. We’ve seen this done time and again now: with Occupy Wall Street, with Bernie Sander’s campaign for the White House, now with the Democratic Socialists of America. Most leftist spaces on social media are completely overrun by intersectional dominance, even ones that profess to be Marxist or anarchist.
Intersectional activists have a curious way of coming to dominate leftist spaces, and maintain their power through dividing the left against itself and redirecting popular anger towards other segments of the left. Sometimes the target is white male leftists – brocialists, so called. Sometimes it’s white feminism, or TERF’s or straight feminism. Sometimes straight black males are called the white people of black people.
Sometimes cisgender gay males are driven out of LGBT spaces. Some or another activist has run afoul of the intersectionalist overlords and is publicly shamed, like in a Maoist struggle session or the young kids being banished from polygamous fundamentalist communities for the most trivial reasons.
But the real reasons aren’t so trivial: to maintain the power of the leadership over the flock. Ceaseless purity spiraling destroys the cohesiveness of the left. J. Edgar Hoover and his COINTELPRO could not have done a better job if they tried. Perhaps the FBI still is, and that’s what all this really is.
Like a puritanical religion, intersectionality promotes a guilt based morality that ceaselessly berates its followers for their ideological and lifestyle shortcomings. Theories of inherited privilege based on what people are by accident of birth become a moral burden comparable to original sin. People with a lot of internalized guilt do not take action to challenge their leaders. They punch down, not up.
Nearly any action a person may commit or even a thought they might think can be construed as oppressive in some way or anther. That combined with intersectionality’s taboo on questioning claims of oppression made by its activist leadership – who are above any kind of ethical or moral standards due to their supposed “marginalization” – results in a near cult like atmosphere in intersectional spaces. Not surprisingly, most people want nothing to do with this and thus nothing to do with the left overall. Who does that benefit, in the long run?
As mentioned previously, considerable education is needed to really understand their theories, and the intersectionalists themselves conveniently have a near hegemony within the academy itself. Hence, the relative absence of working class people in these self styled radical movements.
Which in turn makes the whole of the left easy for the right to denounce as “limousine liberals”, “champagne socialists” or the like. No more effective means of turning the working class off of the political left could be contrived. This makes McCarthyism look clumsy and amateurish. People who are rightly put off by intersectionality then defect quite willingly to conservatism as a protest against it. One almost wonders if this wasn’t the intent all along.
The problem is not with education itself, which is perfectly fine and good. But rather with the co-optation of education to serve elite interests. Something that the left was much more willing and able to call out prior to the capture of the humanities and social sciences by intersectionalists.
The ideology of intersectionality itself is constructed to be a closed system of thought, wherein disagreement with it is likened to actual oppressive behavior against a marginalized person. Allegations of racism or sexism – made with the backing of powerful media outlets – against lone individuals without recourse and no due process are effective and currently socially legitimate ways of marginalizing people. It’s a good way of removing someone who’s bringing up facts and ideas that the truly powerful don’t want publicly legitimized.
Far from emboldening the resistance, intersectionality keeps protest culture in line and ensures its continuity as a controlled opposition. One that allows the powers that be to claim that they allow and legitimize dissent – so long as it doesn’t really threaten them. One oligarch or another might get thrown under the bus due to his alleged racism or sexism here and there.
The oligarchy itself is thus made safer, for it submits itself to the appearance that it really is held to scrutiny and made accountable for its abuses. Surely the absurdity of a racist or sexist comment ruining a CEO while his abuse of his workers, defrauding of his shareholders and pollution of the environment as a matter of course going completely unnoticed highlights the absurd nature of intersectionality as a form of radicalism.
With leftism like intersectionality, who needs conservatism? It’s the ultimate metanarrative, and if the postmodernist techniques of deconstruction can be turned against it, that can only be a good thing. An essential thing, as a matter of fact.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

When Victims Rule: The History of the Jews

Ha. Jews don’t play victims. This is truth. Take it as fact. Jews ARE victims.

I know Jews and they are great. I’ve had sex with many Jewish people and I know for certain what they are like.

Yeah. Me too. I had a Jewish girlfriend for 6 1/2 years. She agrees with me 100% about Jews too. Many of my parents’ best friends were Jews, so I grew up around these people all my life.
And I will grant you that Jewish women are good fucks. They just don’t have that Catholic/Christian hangup about sex unless they are Orthodox, in which case their hangups are worse than Catholics/Christians. Assuming that the author means Jewish women when he said Jewish people? Yikes. I wish I could report whether Jewish men are good fucks, but I have no data. Maybe when I come back as gay in a future lifetime I will be able to give you a report.
Jews have twice the per capita income of White Gentiles. Jews are victims!
Jews, 2% of the population, have 28% of the income. Jews are victims!
Jews run Hollywood, the fur and diamond trades, and dominate retail trade, the media and finance banking. Jews are central to Wall Street. 45% of professors at top Ivy League universities are Jewish. Jews are victims!
Jews, 2% of the US, are vastly overrepresented on the Supreme Court and in the House and Senate. 60% of Cinton’s Cabinet was Jewish. Jews are victims!
There’s almost no accepted anti-Semitism in the US and it’s absent from mainstream culture and polite society. No country has ever been friendlier to the Jews. Instead of antisemitism, Americans suffer from Judeophilia, which is about as crazy though not as evil, but is nevertheless very dangerous (see 9-11 attack). Jews are victims!
Jews called neoconservatives run our foreign policy in the Middle East and in other places. Israel is the 51st state or maybe the only state in the US. Jews are victims!
Jews have the fourth largest military on Earth and for all intents and purposes cannot be attacked, invaded or defeated. Jews are victims!
Instead, Jews are an imperial power that dominates, controls and oppresses all of its neighbors, occasionally attacking them, killing their soldiers and government officials, flying over their countries, bombing their countries. It has stolen land from all of its neighbors, so it is also a major colonial power in the Middle East. They have settled many of these lands stolen in Nazi like wars of aggression, so that makes them one of the last settler-colonial states too. They came into the neighborhood and immediately declared war against all of their neighbors and many other nations too and it’s been like that ever since. Jews are victims!
Granted Jews have suffered and been victimized tremendously in the past and in some places, this goes on even today (see France). However, they are not victims anymore. Instead, they are rulers. They rule over the rest of us. Or it is a case of “when victims rule” which more or less sums up the history of the Jews for a long time now.
Whatever you want to say about Jews here in the US, and you can validly say many things about them good and bad, they’re certainly not victims. The very idea that they are at all is comical.
But boy, Jews sure love that victimhood, don’t they? I knew a guy, an older man, who was a critical Jew. One time he said,

Don’t ever try to take away the victim status from a Jew. Nothing is more important to the Jew than his vicitmhood. Most Jews would nearly kill to keep their victimhood status. It’s that important.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Game/PUA: No Means No? Not Necessarily

Amidst all the #metoo and the affirmative consent idiocy, we keep hearing that “No means no!” Be that as it may, even that is not good enough anymore. Why? Because women are stupid. They are too dumb or scared to say no when they are having unwanted sex with a man. How’s the man supposed to know she doesn’t want to have sex if she’s not saying no or trying to push him off of her? He can’t!
So women were too dumb to even make “No means no” work, the feminists had to up the daffynition of consent once again. Now there have to be affirmative and enthusiastic consent. I would think that a lot of consensual sex would be considered rape under this standard. At universities now people who want to have sex have to act like two awkward virgins trying to have sex for the first time.
Man: “Can I kiss you know?”
Women: “Yes.”
Man: “Can I touch your boobs now?”
Women: “Yes, um, no, I mean yes, I mean, let me think about it.”
Man: “WTH?”
 
Yeah. Every time we have sex, we are supposed to act exactly like this. If you don’t do this, it’s rape. How many men will actually go along with this “Mother may I?” nonsense? Many women now are openly admitting that men asking for permission like this is a huge turnoff. What is this? Is it a shit test? No Alpha will ever go along with this asking for permission BS.
A lot of Betas and especially Omegas will fall all over themselves asking women permission for everything. They will probably even ask women permission to breathe so they can stay alive. If this is a shit test then women will use this asking permission silliness to weed out the Betas and Omegas. Once a man starts asking for permission, he will out himself as a Beta. Any man who refuses to ask permission may well be Alpha enough. At any rate forcing men to ask will weed out a lot of the Betas.
You will never understand women until you figure out that a lot of their incomprehensible behavior boils down to simple shit tests or fitness tests. Women test men’s fitness all the time.
But back to “No means no.”
Generally no means no, but it just so happens that women say no when they mean yes all the time. If she is saying no but it sounds like she’s having an orgasm when she’s saying it, I generally just plow right ahead. If she’s forceful about it though, I just stop.
In Russia, if you stop when she says no, you will die a virgin. The women there are expected to say no, and the men are expected to just plow through the no’s until she breaks down. How you tell that apart from rape, I have no idea. I suppose eventually she consents after you keep plowing through the no’s. But if you are a male in Russia, thinking no means no means you will never get laid.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Most Women Do Not Support Feminism (Only 14% of US Women Say They Are Feminists)

Sisera: A lot of women don’t identify as feminist because of the baggage it carries.
They want to impress men, but actually believe feminist ideology 90%+.
I would’ve thought you were smarter than to take what women say at face value 😉

That’s not true. Do you hang out on feminist pages at all? Well I DO. In fact, for the last few days I have been hanging out on a radfem page. I also hang out on We Shot the Mammoth (WSTM), Blue Pill, and even Jezebel.That’s not true. Do you hang out on feminist pages at all? Well I DO. In fact, for the last few days I have been hanging out on a radfem page. I also hang out on We Shot the Mammoth, Blue Pill, and even Jezebel.
Trust me when I say that your average feminist on WSTM and radfems in particular does not sound ANYTHING like your average woman. Your average woman buys into about 0% of what those feminists want and sounds nothing like them at all. All feminists are crazed SJW’s and most average women don’t care about that. Most average women don’t care about “predator” men, in fact, since they are Alphas, they mostly want to fuck them.
They think boys act awful, but they think it is funny. Feminists think womanizers abuse women, but most women just think they are hilarious and want to date them. Feminists think seduction is evil. Most women laugh about seduction, realize what it is all about and mostly just think it is funny. They are wise and they figure it is just a game where they have to go head to head with men.
Most women don’t care that most guys just want to fuck them. When they get 40-55 in fact, they think that’s pretty awesome. I know 18 year old girls who are very happy that some boy was staring at them in a club. They thought it was “hot.” A feminist would call him a sexually harassing creep. This same girl went to a dance club and did not care that some guy put his hand on her ass. She thought it was a bit weird though.
Most women just think PUA’s are funny if not hilarious. Women tell me that women need a Game for Women. They are fascinated to hear how seducers operate and female friends of seducers will often introduce these men to their girlfriends in hopes of fixing them up with the seducer. His female friends will give him all sorts of seduction tips and will even help him out on dates to try to get the woman into bed.
Most women think seducers are hilarious. This includes females of all ages, even teenage girls all the way up to elderly women.  Even elderly women think seducers are hilarious. Most women know that seduction is a scam but they don’t care will just laugh their heads off if you tell them all the tricks you use on women. Most women will say men are basically just pigs who will fuck anything but that they love men for that. They generally say that men cannot be fixed and just are the way that they are and that’s that. Even women on Jezebel think that P
Feminists say there are almost no good men at all – radfems are especially adamant about this, but your average woman will tell you that she has met many very good men in her life who were very good and kind to her. Most women are addicted to cock and love sex and men. A lot especially radfems have given up on men or gone over to political lesbianism.
A lot of feminists openly admit to hating men and say they have a right to feel this way, I suppose because we are evil. Others like on Jezebel are very angry at us, often furious. That is the difference between feminists and non-feminist women. Most non-feminist women do not say that they hate men. They openly admit that they love men or they even take pride in loving men.
They don’t man-bash and you don’t hear them going on about how bad we are. They don’t even complain about us much. You don’t hear regular woman saying, “Men are always _______!” They just don’t bitch about us much at all. They will definitely bitch about certain men, but they usually don’t generalize it out to all of us. To normal women, there are good men and bad men.
In addition, most normal women do not go on and on about how oppressed they are by men or patriarchy or how victimized they are as women. They don’t think the world is out to get them as women.
Many normal men place very high priority on men in their lives and in fact many revolve their whole lives around men, getting men, dating men, sex, etc. I have talked to women all over the world and it seems to be quite normal for women everywhere to revolve much of their lives around men, getting a man, keeping a man, dating men, sex with men, being in love, relationships with men, etc. It’s all just men, men, men. They may voice some frustration or even laugh at us – one woman I know laughs at us and calls us “silly men.” Another told me that most women think men are idiots. She laughed when she told me that.
Most normal women think sex with men is fun and think men are good at sex. Feminists tend to think men are lousy in bed and sex with men is no fun. Feminists also often say that all of their relationships with men have been lousy. Surely this is why they went to feminism in the first place.
Normal women don’t say that. They often talk dreamily over wonderful love affairs they had in the past, lovers, boyfriends and husbands of the past, sex with men they had in the past. I have had girlfriends who regaled me with wild tales of their sexual exploits, having s ex with their husband’s friends, having sex with two men at once, having sex with a woman, on and on. They smile when they talk about these sexual experiences and have fond memories of them. Feminists often think all of their sex with men has been crap and wonder why they should keep doing it anymore.
There is a deep sense of grievance with feminists. Feminism is a politics of grievance, grievance and revenge. Normal women do not have a deep sense of grievance about them and they usually don’t want revenge. Normal women tend to be pretty satisfied with their lives, while feminists are often unhappy.
Feminists have some crazy prescriptions for men.  Some want to reduce our population to 10% of all humans. Others want to put us in detention camps until we can learn to behave ourselves in society. Others recommend sex-selective abortion to reduce the number of men. I have seen radfems on a forum talking about how much they wanted to murder their sons.
Normal women don’t want any such things. Normal women know very little about feminism. If you ask them about feminism, they act confused and shrug their shoulders. Most normal women say, correctly, that feminists are nothing but a bunch of short-haired man-hating dykes. This is largely true and it is quite unappealing to your average woman. Feminists tend to be deeply unhappy and dissatisfied people. That is why they are in feminism in the first place. Normal women often say that they are happy or fairly happy with life.
Feminists want to ban porn. Normal women don’t care about porn and most even watch it sometimes. If you ask them if they like it, they usually say they do even if they do not like it much.
Feminists want to get rid of prostitution and say all prostitutes are victims. Normal women don’t seem to care much about prostitutes other than that they do not want to be one.
Feminists say that porn stars and prostitutes have horrible lives. Normal women will  say that many porn stars are happy and a lot of prostitutes, especially call girls, are doing what they want and making a lot of money in the process. I have had normal women who  told me they had considered being call girls.
Normal women hardly ever bring up the pay gap. Feminists can’t stop talking about it. Normal women do not talk about getting more girls and women into engineering and math because they don’t care. They don’t care about Title 9 either. These things are the obsessions of feminists.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20