Narcissism and Psychopathy are on Continua Too

Very good book.

I just finished reading this book.  It it titled The Psychopath Inside: A Neuroscientist’s Personal Journey into the Dark Side of the Brain

Author is a well known neuroscientist who discovered while looking at his brain scan that he is a psychopath himself! His scan looks exactly like that of a criminal psychopath. He is what is called a prosocial psychopath. These types or even a lot of the antisocial noncriminal psychopaths types are everywhere in politics, business, law enforcement, the military, law, and medicine. Psychopaths are attracted to all of those fields and all of these areas of work are swarming with those jerks. Most antisocial noncriminal psychopaths never spend one day of their lives in a jail or prison. They are what I like to call legal criminals, always skating  just on the edge of the law. Our government (see Mr. Trump) and many corporations are full of these “legal criminals.” I don’t think too much of them honestly.

I’ve met a few apparent antisocial criminal psychopaths in my life. The last one was a 23 year old woman! You really need to stay away from them.

Every psychopath who entered my life ended up harming me. For the most part, they all stole from me. You won’t be able to befriend these people without getting used and harmed because that is exactly what they do to most if not all other humans. Nobody emerges unscathed from befriending a psychopath. You’re not going to get away with it!

Psychopathy is also a continuum, just like…everything! The PCL scale ranges from 0-40. 0’s and 40’s are not common. For instance, I assure you that I am absolutely not a 0! But I am not a psychopath either, although my score is  for sure somewhat elevated above that of  goody-goods, cop-lovers, authoritarians, and choir boys.

On the other hand, I don’t really victimize innocent people, unless you count women, but that’s debatable as all’s fair in love and war! Sexual relationships are generally outside of morality. They can be immoral but they have to be pretty bad to get to that point. Players, pump and dumpers, easy women, etc. are generally not behaving immorally.

30+ is a psychopath and 20+ has serious psychopathic traits. Even in 0-20, if you score a 6 on the scale, and someone else scores a 12, they will appear more psychopathic to you. If we look at the scale that way and pick out everyone who clearly has elevated psychopathy, we are talking about 10-20% of the population or maybe more. Maybe a lot more.

Most everything else in the world that is a subjective quality  is a continuum too. Philosophically, qualities and objects are different things. Objects are objective and generally are not on a continuum. An object either exists or it doesn’t, 100 or zero. There’s no such thing as part of an object or an object that is only there a little bit but not completely there.

For instance, all humans are narcissistic and you can score that on a scale too. Narcissism and self-esteem mean the same thing! So low narcissism means low self-esteem. And high narcissism means high self-esteem, which is considered to be normal and is actually thought of as good mental health, although some folks might find people with big egos like this a bit much.

Here we are into people who are vain, conceited, self-centered, etc. but nevertheless normal. None of those three things are indicative of narcissism.

Sure narcissists have all of those in spades, but narcissism goes far beyond that. Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is pathological narcissism (Trump), and if you have been around anyone like that, trust me, they are real bastards and get on your nerves real fast if you are reasonably sane.

They are very annoying people and actually they are rather mean, ugly, and hostile in many ways. NPD’s are not very nice people!They are also profoundly selfish. They really don’t care about you! It’s all about them. What’s all about them? Everything. Face it, you’re either a taker or a giver in life. Narcissists are takers, not givers. They don’t necessarily take from everyone, but they definitely don’t give to much of anyone either. All of their stuff, material and otherwise, is for them.

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

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

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

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

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

Extreme Polarities of Game in Nabokov’s “Lolita”

by Dana Sala

Abstract:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M. Couturier, 1993: 257

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nabokov, Lolita: 5

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

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

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

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

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

Nabokov, Lolita: 18

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

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

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

Nabokov, Lolita: 66

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nabokov, Lolita: 17.

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

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

Craig Raine, Afterword: 322

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nabokov, Lolita: 17

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nabokov, Lolita: 62

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

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

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

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

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

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

Works Cited :

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

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

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

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

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

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

8chan Is Still Up

Here ya go, folks.

8chan.

And you can even see the notorious pol board which has everyone so up in arms.

pol/.

I’m not sure how many boards either 8chan or 4chan have. I thought at one time that 8chan has ~1,800 boards, but I could be wrong. The main thing is that there is no such far rightwing board called “8chan.” No such thing. 8chan, 4chan and the rest simply host scores or hundreds of boards ranging over every possible subject you can think of. All of the problems are coming from one of those boards, pol/, which stands for Politically Incorrect, not politics like Net “experts” say.

So really the whole problem is with one single board, which is indeed a White nationalist / White Supremacist / Nazi board.

There are some other boards like b/, which stands for Random. There are some Nazi and White Supremacist posters on there, but a lot of their enemies are on there too, and there are many people talking about things that have nothing to do with that subject. b/ is not some radical rightwing racist board. It’s just a board where anyone of any ideology or belief can post whatever the Hell they want to.

But there are other boards dealing with everything under the sun. In addition, there are quite a few Leftist or liberal boards, and they absolutely hate pol/ and want it shut down. But if you shut down 8chan, you shut down all those anti-fascist Leftist boards at the same time. Get it?

Even pol/ is rather misunderstood. Yes, posts have been made announcing attacks on there, but posts have also been made on Facebook announcing attacks. I suppose you can announce a coming attack anywhere you wish on the Internet.

All such posts are taken down by 8chan quickly, and this post was taken down 15 minutes after it was posted. 8chan also cooperates fully with law enforcement in terms of turning over IP’s of anyone doing anything seriously illegal on there. That was a condition of them staying up. 8chan is run by some guy in the Philippines who has no particular politics at all other than hating the government and an absolute commitment to free speech.

I saw the post that was taken down. There were several responses, all attacking the poster for his post announcing the attack. Most responses were saying “Hello FBI” or calling him a Fed.

There were a few pol/ threads after the attack that I looked over. Probably 80% of the responses were either condemning or criticizing the attacker or calling each other feds or Jews. ~20% were supporting it in some way or another, but often in a rather subtle way, like, “A Jew killed 20 Mexicans. I think I like Jews a lot more now.” This was based on a mistaken idea that the shooter was Jewish.

Criticisms of the attack included people saying that they opposed murder, that the shooter killed 20 “nobodies” when he should have been killing those responsible for replacing the White race, how stupid it was for a 21 year old White man to throw his whole life away on something this stupid, how this will backfire and just result in more deplatforming and and victories for the other side, how they should be trying to convince people of their argument rather than murdering people, etc.

There were a few posts saying, “Kill feds. Kill Jews. Kill Muds.” These posts were generally mass attacked as being posted by either feds or Jews.

Others were saying, “Hey look, we are in a war now whether you like it or not. You need to pick a side. You’re either with us or with our enemies.” These posts got a lot of criticism.

This wildly conflicted and somewhat subdued response was in marked contrast to Brandon Tarrant’s shooting at the mosque in New Zealand  which killed 47 Muslims. The pol/ response to that attack was wide cheers.

As you can see, the responses to these attacks even on the virulent pol/ board are all over the place, and the vast majority either condemn the attack or call other people feds.

8chan went down a few days ago, but then it came back up for a while. What you see now is a somewhat archived version of 8chan, as the last post on any board was 8 AM August 5, not quite 48 hours ago.

They will obviously come back just like The Daily Stormer did. Incidentally, the Daily Stormer has a new policy that anyone directly advocating violence gets an instant ban. It’s still a ferociously racist site, but it’s not openly calling for any violence.

To me shutting down these sites is a fool’s errand. These people are under the mistaken impression that you can kill an idea. It should be obvious to anyone that you cannot kill an idea.

Speaking philosophically, ideas are not even objects, a constant source of discussion in philosophy. So they’re not even real, actual things that you can see, hear, touch, hold in your hand, etc.

One wonders if ideas even exist at all. They are simply these nebulous things, not even objects, that float around in human brains, often going from brain to brain. They’re not even on the level of an electron or quark. We can actually see that those things exist on some level.

We have no idea if an idea even exists unless some human with a brain tells us it does. Can you see, hear, touch, or hold an idea in your hand? Nope. In fact it is very hard to tell if an idea even exists at all except that someone tells us they have one in their brain, and there’s no way to prove even that, as they could be lying.

I really want to know exactly how these people are going to go about killing an idea. Do they have machines that search inside the brains of all of us humans, machines that can spot all of these nebulous idea-things floating about in our heads, reading and decoding them, somehow isolating the bad ones, and then zapping the bad ones with some laser ray?

What else are they going to do? Are they going to put people in jail for having an idea? They can’t. Are they going to put people in jail for propagating an idea? They can’t do that either, thank God.

If they shut one site down, ten more will pop up. They will end up with an endless game of wack-a-mole. The sites will move to the Dark Web (when you go to Daily Stormer, you are going to the Dark Web), and there’s no way to shut down anything down there or even to tell who’s running any site or who anyone posting anything even is. Even the FBI can’t crack the Dark Web, as it’s un-crackable.

There are quite a few bulletin boards up all over the Net that support the Islamic State and other Islamist guerrilla groups. People working against these organizations have chosen to leave these sites up so the groups can be easily monitored. You enemy’s not going anywhere just because you want him gone, and the number one rule of warfare is to know your enemy. That goes all the way back to Sun Tzu.

How do you kill an idea? You don’t. But you can fight an idea, and no you don’t fight an idea by shutting down everyone who has it. You fight an idea by countering its message with the opposite message, one that points out that the idea is bad and wrong and that people should abandon it for those reasons.

If White nationalism and White Supremacism, particularly in their armed forms, are such terrible things (and I do think they are wrong), the people who hate these ideas need to forcefully make the case that these concepts and ideologies are wrong and bad and should be abandoned.

There’s another silly concept floating around. It’s the idea that these armed White nationalists want to start a race war. I’ve got some news for everyone. The guys on pol/ are right. It’s too late for that by a few years already. The war’s already here. It’s already on. It’s happening right now.

You can’t stop an existing entity from starting. Is it time to pick a side? Maybe so, or you can always go neutral. I will choose to oppose these maniacs because killing people because of their race, religion or ideology is just messed up. I don’t agree with the morality of it.

Alt Left: Anatomy of Two Chinese Stereotypes: Greediness and Lack of Aesthetic Taste

Thinking Mouse:

What do you make of the stereotype that Chinese are greedy amoral worker drones with no aesthetic taste and little emotion?

Lot of truth to those things. Let’s take these one by one here. We previously discussed amorality and stoicism or lack of emotion, so let us look at greediness and lack of aesthetic taste. I will also look at Jews as many Chinese stereotypes are Jewish stereotypes as well.

 

Greediness

 

The Chinese are white collar criminals, and they are amoral in that sense. Very similar to the Jews. It may be the case that any group with IQ’s markedly higher than the majority will not only grab most of the money under capitalism but will also be profoundly ruthless and amoral in how they go about it, often to the point of basically being a race of white collar criminals, which is what I would call Chinese and Jews.

Both Chinese and Jews are viewed as being fanatically money-oriented, materialistic, and aggressively driven to succeed at all costs. As the Jews have their Jewish mothers and uncles with pinky rings, so the Chinese have the newly created Tiger Moms

Lack of Aesthetic Taste

 

You can make the lack of aesthetic taste argument about all those other Chinese-influenced societies. The Chinese or Japanese artist is deliberately spare and seems at first glance to be drawing excessively, shall we say, modest paintings. It is as if the Asian artist feels ashamed of artistic talent and is deliberately dumbing down in his art so as to not appear better than others.

Nevertheless, artists have told me that Chinese and Japanese art is excellent in its own spare, somewhat minimalist, and certainly modest sense.

Both Chinese and Japanese have taken to modern literature, the Japanese in particular in terms of fiction. But both races have early traces of fiction in the form of epic tales that are basically novels extending back centuries, even to 1000. Think of The Tale of the Genji or Water Margin for Japanese and Chinese respectively.

Japanese invented a very interesting, spare, minimal, “shy”, and modest or self-effacing form of poetry called the haiku, which in its own way reaches to the peaks of literature.

The Japanese also took up Western or rock music. Many excellent rock bands of all sorts have come out of Japan. The Chinese, like the Italians, have been entertaining themselves via operas forever.

Alt Left: Anatomy of Two Chinese Stereotypes: Amorality and Emotionlessness or Stoicism

Thinking Mouse:

What do you make of the stereotype that Chinese are greedy amoral worker drones with no aesthetic taste and little emotion?

Lot of truth to those things. Let’s take these one by one here. Let us look at emotionlessness and  amorality and for starters. I will also look at Jews as they are accused of some of these very same thing, not to mention that Jews and Chinese have a lot in common.

 

Emotionlessness or Very Understated Emotions

 

The Chinese practice inscrutability. This is one of the hallmarks of not only their but also all other Chinese-influenced societies in Asia such as Japan, Korea, Vietnam, and Thailand.

Say a wild, boisterous, screaming, hollering violent fight breaks out on a train. An older Japanese men, maybe 40, gets between the fighters and calms. He never loses his cool or gets very emotional in the process.

These Chinese-type cultures would say that that man is displaying the ultimate in masculinity. He’s the most macho guy on the train, simply because these people regard keeping cool under pressure and not caving in easily to emotions as extremely masculine behavior. And in the Nietzschian sense, the man on the train is indeed the biggest man there, the Ubermensch. He rose above everyone on the train, did he not?

However, the inscrutability, like so many Chinese habits, is largely fake, for show, or like a game. The Chinese are trained to appear inscrutable, not to be emotionless. Of course they have emotions. But they regard a wildly emotional person as akin to a beast of the jungle. After all, most beasts seem to have few emotions being fear or rage, and they are usually showing one or the other or both.

Beneath the inscrutable mask, the Chinese would say you can have any emotion you wish. But you are supposed to hide it from others, once again a form of extreme modesty and politeness taken nearly to the point of obsequiousness.

All of these China-influenced cultures are rather shy, deliberately self-effacing nearly to the point of being self-hating. This is mostly just a show or a game, but in all Chinese societies, modesty is highly valued, and braggarts, loudmouths, showoffs, blowhards and just noisy people in general are regarded as at best uncivilized and at worst barely human.

After all, many animals care nothing about raising a ruckus. Animals lack modesty by their very nature. This extreme, almost bizarre modestly of the Chinese probably comes from Confucian values, which were then overlain with Communism, which also regards showoffs, braggarts, and egotists as lousy Communists at best and downright society-destroying hooligans at worst.

Amorality

 

However, behind that stone-faced mask, the Chinese man may be hatching all sorts of devious schemes because once again like the Jews, the Chinese tend to be underhanded, sneaky, scheming, and conspiratorial nearly to the point of appearing diabolically devious. Check out Sun Tzu if you don’t believe me.

That’s how a Chinaman fights. Rules? What rules? Once again this akin to Jews who have always been accused of fighting dirty, playing hardball, and violating all rules in conflict. The intelligence branch of the Jews themselves after all has the motto of “By way of deception, though shalt do war.” The author of The Art of War himself would have been proud to have written that line.

Neither the Chinese nor the Jews for that matter  engage in savagery and barbarism (though the birth of Israel has created this very thing).

The Chinese are the Jews of Asia with the exception that they are not professional revolutionaries in every way, that they are not out to smash all taboos, and they do not want to change the societies in which they live.

Even in the Philippines and Indonesia, where 2% of population, the Chinese, controls 75% of the wealth, they just let the native Malays do whatever the Hell they want to as far as how to run society. The Chinese just want their money. They keep out of politics and the society-changing efforts that cause so much anti-Semitism when Jews engage in them, as is their nature.

This world-changing, ever-revolutionizing nature of the Jews is one of the main drivers of anti-Semitism, especially among conservative nationalists who see Jews as undermining and destroying the moral and traditional fabric of their lands. The Jews are always rebelling. Now, I am rather sympathetic to this trend, mind you. I’m a bit of a revolutionist myself and always have been.

Both Jews and Chinese also tended to lead Communist revolutions at the same time that their ethnic group was hoarding 32-80% of the wealth. So both the Chinese and the Jews are ultra-capitalists of the worst sort while also being some of the ultimate and often most radical Communists.

An Epiphany: Everything Happens for a Reason

Humans have this strange idea that things happen for no reason. One thing that I finally hit on last year at age 60 was the remarkable (to me anyway) conclusion that everything and I mean most everything happens for a reason.

Things often happen for bad reasons, but still there’s a method behind the madness.

Speaking of which, things more times than we want  to admit also happen for crazy reasons. Crazy people, after all, tend to have reasons for most of their crazy behaviors. They usually have crazy reasons for these behaviors but they have reasons nonetheless.

Once I had this epiphany, so many things about the world fell right into place, locking perfectly as an oddly shaped fragment into an equally bizarrely shaped hole in this crossword puzzle we call life.

A Look at the Mind of the Anti-Black Racist: The "Magic Negro" Theory

A lot of them do admit that some Black people seem good. They call these the magic niggers or magic Negroes. It’s 10%. The good Blacks on this site like Tulio would be called magic niggers because he appears like a good guy. But then would say that Tulio is still a nigger deep down inside, and sooner or later something will happen, and his lousy inner nigger will come out. I don’t believe that Tulio or the other Blacks on here have some lousy nigger inside of them. They’re just people like or me. There is no lousy “nigger essence” inside of every Black person. It’s nonsense, and even worse, it’s immoral nonsense.
But you see even these racists can figure out that some Blacks (they underestimate 10%) act good. This shows that not only are they moral, but they are also sane. To look at all Black people and decide they are all lousy stretches the credulity of the sane mind. This violates their theory so they have to explain it. They come up with the Magic Nigger Theory. This states that no matter how good they seem, magic niggers still have that awful Black nigger essence inside of them like all of their race, and sooner or later it will come out.
The Magic Nigger Theory allows them to accommodate the fact that even they, since they are basically sane, can see that millions of Blacks seem to be just fine, while still allowing them to hate the whole race. If millions were just fine, then it would be a moral quandary to hate the whole race. What about the magic ones? Do you hate them too? Well, why? How can you?
They can’t, and they are decent enough to recognize this. So to assuage their guilty consciences, they come up with the Magic Nigger Theory that says that even the ones that act good are really just lousy niggers deep down inside, and sooner or later their lousy inner nigger nature will come out. The theory’s completely false, but it shows the lengths these people will go to try to mollify their obviously guilty consciences.
As long as we see racists are pure evil sociopaths and not simply regular moral people like you and me that have gone astray on some immoral belief system, we will never understand these people. Racists feel guilty about strolling down this immoral path as as they properly should, so they devise all sorts of fancy cognitive strategies to deal with their guilt.
And it’s important to note that if anti-Black racists were truly evil, they wouldn’t have any guilt in the first place. The fact that they feel guilty at all shows us that we are dealing with good folks who went astray rather than pure evil sociopaths.
If you want to fight racism, at first you need to understand your enemy. Anti-racists fail on this front by not even bothering to understand why racists feel the way they do and what sort of people racists are in the first place. The first dictum is always To know thine own self is the rule, but the second dictum ought to be about how important it is to know your enemies.

A Look at the Mind of the Anti-Black Racist

They have bad experiences with quite a few people of the race and then they just decide to hate the whole race. Anti-Black racists make a deliberate cognitive error. They say that all Blacks suck. They have to say this because when you are that racist, saying that 40% or even 90% of them suck and therefore you hate the whole group seems morally wrong. But if the whole groups sucks then even I would agree that you should hate all of them.
These people still have consciences. It would bother their consciences to hate the whole group if only 40% were bad. In order to clear their conscience, they say the whole group is bad, and now they can hate the group in good conscience.
Seeing racists as evil is an error. Most are not evil. If they were evil, they would not have guilty consciences. They are moral people with consciences like you and me, but they have taken on an immoral view, so they have to justify this to their own guilty consciences, and they jump through some moral hoops to do so.

Moral Philosophy: How Low Does a Culture Set the Bar as Far as Acceptable Behavior Goes?

Alpha Unit: Human beings are good at figuring out who they should defer to (or at least pretend to defer to) and who they can take advantage of. “Low class” people are probably very skilled at detecting weakness in other people, and once they know they can get away with treating you like crap, any respect they might have had for you takes a nosedive.

No problem. But then if I am such an obvious sucker or mark,  why don’t White people take advantage of me then? And I would argue that any culture that  habitually sizes up others to figure out if they are marks or not is frankly sociopathic. Because that’s exactly what sociopaths do? So I’m going to argue that this low class or ghetto Black culture is  somewhat sociopathic, certainly more sociopathic than White culture, even poor or working class White culture.
Sure, White people, no matter how low class, yes, treated me like that, but in general, they never stooped to those lows. This “take advantage of this person” idea seems to be rampant among this group of low class or ghetto Blacks as Tulio calls them. I haven’t seen it a lot among Whites. Whites don’t usually take advantage of me like that, and in White culture, even poor and working class White culture, there are extreme rules about politeness that disallow a lot of the manipulative behavior that those who take advantage of others engage in.
I mean I am not even talking crime here. I am talking very low level offenses more properly seen as politeness or manners violations. But even there, the differences between low class or ghetto Black culture and even low class White culture are stark and dramatic.
Low class or ghetto Black act pretty bad from a White person’s perspective. I am not going to say it’s genetic.
Let’s try culture.
White culture, even poor White culture, has deep and profound politeness, manners, and proper behavior rules that result in the White culture we White folks like.
I am looking at this low class or ghetto Black culture, and I am thinking that these people were raised in a permissive culture that set the bar way too low on behavior. They simply did not demand that these people behave in a proper manner. Proper manners and politeness rules were simply not instilled in them.
Now by saying this, I am hopeful. I suggesting that this behavior is not genetic but is instead caused by a crap culture that lacks proper rules for decent behavior. Obviously a culture that sets the bar far too low could theoretically be taught and teach their children and fellows to behave better. If you are going to argue that this culture has the same politeness and manners rules of proper behavior as White culture does, I am going to call bullshit. If they instill these same values in their kids as we do, why do the people in this culture act so awful? And what’s wrong with saying that this is a crap culture that needs to instill better rules about behavior? Is there something wrong with saying that? I mean it’s a modest proposal, right? We can’t even say that this is a culture that needs to shape up?

Alt Left: Black People and Anti-Racists in General Will Never Understand Anti-Black Racism

I said in an old post that Blacks and antiracists in general should go to racist sites like Stormfront or racist humor sites like Chimpout or Niggermania to see why people really hate Black people. Actually, Stormfront would be a bad choice because they’re not very rational. The people at the other two sites make a lot more sense. Look through the Introductions section on those sites where new members introduce themselves and tell, well, tell why they hate Black people so much.
Blacks and anti-racists in general think the dislike, wariness, or out and out hatred of Black people is the height or irrationality. It’s crazy and it’s evil.
Now I would argue that if you are a Black person who acts just fine and you are still a victim of racism, this is serious moral error. I have some great Black folks on my site. I don’t personally know Alpha, Tulio, Greg, Phil or the  other Blacks on my site, but what I’ve learned about them is that they all seem like great people. In particular, they behave quite well. When I think that these people, my Black friends, will suffer racism, prejudice, unfairness and hate because of things that other people did, it almost makes my blood boil. It’s so wrong.
Specifically, you are being held responsible for the behavior of the other members of your race when you have done absolutely nothing wrong at all. It’s basically collective punishment. Why should that Black person over there, who acts as decently as any other citizen, be subjected to racist hatred because a lot of his racial brethren act terrible?
That’s immoral on a deep and powerful level, but it’s also understandable. The problem with Moral Philosophy is that a lot of immoral behavior is understandable. Humans are not wild, slavering, drooling, crazed beasts of the field. Even people who act bad often have some pretty sensible reasons for doing so. The problem is that behavior that is sensible (not irrational) and understandable is often nevertheless morally wrong.
Black people and antiracists just don’t get it. Racists don’t hate Black people for no reason.
Few people hate Black people “because of the color of their skin.” Actually, if they did, it would make it a lot easier for people to hate anti-Black racists because hating someone due to the color of their skin is pretty awful.
Few people hate Black people because of how they look. Asians look pretty funny too to us Whites, and it doesn’t seem to bother anyone. If Blacks acted like Norwegians or Japanese, I think anti-Black racism would be at a  pretty low level.
Which brings us to the cause of almost all anti-Black racism: It’s the behavior of Black people. Period. If you go to the sites I listed above, you will notice that almost immediately. On the Introductions section, over and over, you will see almost everyone there say that they hate Black people because of the way they act. Then they will list a lot of very negative experiences they had with Black people.
And in a way, you can’t blame them. It’s wrong to go so racist due to these types of experiences, but I see why people do it. I’ve had many of the same negative experiences with Black people, and it is only with conscious effort that I have kept myself from falling into the racism hole. Not because it’s wrong, although it is. Mostly because it’s a hole that I don’t want to fall down into. And it is wrong to hate well-behaved Blacks because so many of their tribe act terrible. To me, that’s a moral error on a very serious scale. It would be hard to live with myself if I felt that way.
Blacks and antiracists simply refuse to believe that this is the reason why Blacks are disliked. They get very agitated and angry if you so much as mention it. According to them, Black people don’t act bad at all. They act just fine. Except anyone who has spent a lot of time around Blacks knows that’s just not true. Yet Blacks keep insisting that Black people act just fine. People say Blacks act bad, and Blacks say well White people act bad too. Yes…but…the difference is the numbers.
Compared to Blacks, the number of White people who act bad is quite low, and the degree to which they act bad is on a much lower level. Looking out at a population level, there’s much less bad behavior, and what bad behavior there is is typically at a lower level. Now you go over to a Black area and the bad behavior is everywhere. There are far more folks acting bad, and they are acting bad in a far worse way than Whites do.
Actually there are behaviors that low class Blacks engage in routinely that you will almost never see a White person engage in, simply because in White culture, that behavior is regarded as unspeakably low. Even poor and working class Whites often have strong moral and behavioral codes and stringent rules of behavior. I don’t think these Whites act better because of their genes. It’s probably culture. But there is something in even pretty low White culture that is above even average level behavior of low class Blacks. So when Whites see Blacks routinely doing things that are absolutely outrageously rude and disgusting beyond all comprehension, we are outraged. We are outraged on a moral level. We are morally offended at what to us is outrageously bad behavior.
Black people won’t have any of this. They jump up and down and yell, “Why do you care? Why do you think about us anyway?” It’s simple.
These Blacks have never studied Moral Philosophy. Behavior that is so outrageously bad that it is almost never seen in one’s culture because it’s universally regarded as the lowest of the low outrages people on a moral level.
People who get outraged on a moral level are often not bad people. At worst they might be too good – i.e., prigs like my late father. But Black people get furious at good people who are morally outraged by people acting awful and say that these outraged folks are bad people. No they’re not. If they were bad people, they wouldn’t be so outraged by terrible behavior. Only good people get outraged by people who act awful.
Good people have relatively high morals, and when they see lowly behavior, it sets off a sense of moral outrage in them. Black people say that these people are evil for having high morals and a sense of moral outrage for despicable and low behavior. This is so wrong. No one is evil for having high morals and a sense of outrage over anti-civilizational behavior. It’s never evil to come from a place of elevated morals.
The problem is that Black people will simply never admit that Black people tend to act worse, a Hell of a lot worse, than other races, such as White people. They’ll go to their graves insisting that this is not true. Yes, there are people in every race that act bad, of course there are.
But humans are smarter than that. Humans are intelligent enough to play the odds game.
In my youth, I had many encounters with my fellow Whites whom I lived with.  Of course these were a mixed bag, but I had many good encounters, and I was able to make many good friendships. Sure, I ran into some bad White people who harmed me, but their numbers were not large. In general, you could make friends with a White person and be pretty well assured that they would treat you right.
My very first encounter with Black people – on the street outside my father’s school in Watts at age 12 – was terrible. My father was inside working in  his classroom and he had foolishly left us outside. Two very young and very feral Black boys asked us to play some game with them – I forget which – and very quickly they were trying to steal from us and there was a wild fistfight in the streets. My little six year old brother took on both of those little ratfucks. This sort of thing would almost never happen with the White boys our age, and we had dealt with some pretty bad White bullies. But even the worst White bullies weren’t that bad.
My next encounter was with JD, one of the few Black guys at my school. He was friends with my group of friends so I became a sort of friend of his, although he was always a bit of an ass. One night he left me in a park for 45 minutes for absolutely no reason at all, just for a joke. Somehow he came back around later and my friends in the car with him saw me and picked me up. My other friends were all laughing but none of them would have done that to me. In fact, very few Whites I knew at that time would do that to me. JD simply thought that was a hilarious joke.
JD had a brother named MD. He was a former football player, and I rather liked him. He had parties at his house, and the 14-16 year old high school kids in my crowd would hang out there, drinking cheap wine and smoking weed. He was a good jolly fellow, but he was later arrested for having sex with teenage White girls.
There was a Black man named Mr. Matthews at my school. He was the only Black teacher. He was also a jolly good-natured Black man. While I was there, he was arrested for having sex with a 15 year old White girl student. People said it was racism, but I doubt it. I think he did it.
Ok, now I am in high school, and I’ve met a whole five Black people.

  • Two tried to steal from me and then picked a fight with me.
  • One left me in a park for 45 minutes as a joke.
  • Two were grown men who got arrested for having sex with teenage White girls.

5-5.
At least two of them were in jail and another two should have been.
All five acted pretty damn bad. Their rate of bad behavior was far higher and an order of magnitude greater than the Whites I knew.
The statistics prove that Black people as a race act pretty damned horribly no matter how you slice the cake. Line up any number of statistics on any number of behavioral variables, and there are the Blacks, leading the charge in the bad behavior brigade.
Why do we care? Because morals are important to us. Because we have deeply held moral belief,s and people who violate our morals in an outrageous way offend us to an incredible degree. Moral outrage is a thing. It’s a normal thing. A rational thing. A morally outraged person is not usually a bad person.
Black people can huff and puff all they want to about how evil Whites are for feeling morally outraged. “Well, don’t think about us then!” That’s not helpful. It’s Blacks who are acting awful. The solution to people acting awful isn’t to call the people who are offended by them evil and order the offended to look the other way and mind their own business.
The problem that keeps circling back around itself is that Blacks refuse to believe that Black people act bad. You can throw anecdotes at them, and they will cry, “Anecdotes!” You can throw impressions and intuition at them, and they will cry “Impressionistic!” and “Unscientific!” and demand scientific studies. Then you throw scientific studies at them, and they order you to shut up and take down the damned studies, and then they yell that the studies are wrong.
The Emperor’s walking naked down the street and everyone is looking at him and laughing, and Black people are jumping up and down and screaming that he has clothes on and screaming that the people who see that he’s naked are evil. That never works very long. You can scream at people all you want that their eyes aren’t seeing what they see, that their ears aren’t hearing what they hear, that their very senses aren’t sensing what they sense. People will get confused for a bit and believe you and think maybe they are hallucinating after all, but then they will revert right back to sense and reason.
And this is the saddest part of all. As long as Black people keep acting so terrible, anti-Black racism will never go away. The antiracist project will be forever doomed. This is heartrendingly sad to me because at its root base, at its core, the antiracist project is a noble one. Wouldn’t a society with a diminished degree of racism be a wonderful thing? It would for me. It would be like a dream.
But the antiracist project will keep crashing back on itself because anti-Black racism is driven overwhelmingly, especially at this late date, by bad Black behavior and little else. This is very depressing, and I don’t know what to say about it, but hollering that Black people act just fine isn’t going to cut it. People will believe a lie only so long until reality keeps coming back and smashing them in the face and wakening them from their socially drugged slumber.

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.

How SJW's Are a Threat To Human Intelligence Itself

Thinking Mouse: “What about the exceptions?!?” is good for research, though. You want to know as much as possible.

Even in research, we don’t care much about that. I write for academic journals. In a lot of fields, we don’t care about exceptions. We just look for a statistical effect. Of course we have to discuss the exceptions statistically in our findings, but in a lot of fields, no one really cares about them.
The purpose of life is looking for patterns that help you to explain reality. The SJW What about the exceptions? nonsense is intended to completely stop humans for seeking or discussing any patterns in humans because all patterns in humans are necessarily generalizations, stereotypes, and various forms of bigotry, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia and all the rest of the folly .
On Quora, they often ask people with genius+ IQ’s (140+) how they think. Over and over you hear that they are always looking for patterns everywhere they go in life. If all patterns in human life are generalizations, stereotypes, and various forms of bigotry, and if What about the exceptions? nullifies all generalizations, we are talking about wiping out the very pillars of human thought.
All this dangerous silliness is coming out of postmodernism, a theory which denies even the possibility of truth or the ability of humans to discover it. That’s why in all Identity Politics like feminism, gay rights, trans rights, anti-racism, all the rest of the foolishness, you always get hand-waving away of the scientific facts they don’t like because the facts conflict with their precious theory.
All Identity Politics is based on the primacy of theory over fact, and as such, all IP is intellectually fraudulent. The fact that it is mandatory for all humans in the West to go along with a manifestly intellectually fraudulent and provably false set of theories on pain of job firing, career destruction, etc. is one of the most anti-scientific and anti-intellectual outrages of our modern era. I lay this whole travesty at the foot of the intellectual joke called the Cultural Left, a miasma of propaganda and lies masquerading as truth and science. 
The SJW’s are an actual menace to human intelligence itself.

High Illegitimacy Rates and Dysfunction among Lower Class Blacks

Greg Rambo: “The current plight of Black America has more to do with the government’s subsidizing of pregnancy and desertion than anything else.”* When you have a nearly 75% out of wedlock birth rate, you’re asking for disaster.
* T. Sowell

We don’t really support them anymore. Welfare is $300/month. Black women have out of wedlock rates like that all over the Black world and they don’t get a nickel.
Further this is based on a delusion. First that Black women have kids to get the check when the check doesn’t even begin to cover the cost of raising a kid. Socialist states all over the world subsidize children with fathers or not and we don’t see epidemics of illegitimacy. So if those women are having kids to get checks, they’re retarded. You get a check for $300, but it costs so much more than that to raise the kid? How are you coming out ahead? You sink yourself further into the hole with every new kid you have. It also suggests that Black women will start acting more responsible if we cut off the checks. Well they won’t. This is happening for societal reasons not monetary reasons. Another suggestion is that if we cut off the checks, these Black men will suddenly start sticking around and supporting their kids. Yeah, right! Come on.
Illegitimacy itself is not a serious problem if you look at it statistically. There are effects but they are moderate rather than major. The problem is the rate of it. A community can handle a 25% illegitimacy rate. It cannot handle a 70% rate. When illegitimacy rates get that high, you get additive effects to the illegitimacy due to the sheer prevalence of it. What happens that rates that high tend to cause the entire community to unravel, while lower rates dd not.
There is another reason. A moral reason. It is the argument that children need to be supported. Single motherhood is not optimal, but as a socialist, I refuse to cut off funds for single mothers and their children.
Give them the check in the form or rent vouchers, IBT cards, cards to pay their bills, whatever. Not just cash in their hands. In the 1990’s, Richard Nixon himself bemoaned the Clinton welfare “reforms.” in an interview. He shook his head at the interviewer and said in a note of dismay and disgust:
“I can’t believe what we are doing nowadays…I mean…beating up on the single Moms…of all things…come on…”
Although I agree that the high illegitimacy birth rate is catastrophic for Black people. It’s not doing them any favors and I think Blacks would act a lot better if that rate would go down. Before 1960, the Black illegitimacy rate was 20%, and it seems like they acted a lot better than they do now, but there could be other reasons why the behavior went down.
Illegitimacy and being raised by a single mother predict a lot of bad things.
Basically:
The girls develop Daddy issues and often turn into sluts trying to fuck their way to an ethereal Daddy who is always fading out of the picture.
The boys turn into criminals.
I don’t want to beat up on single Moms. They get beat up enough. But it’s not the ultimate family arrangement, and it does cause some problems in the offspring.

Alt Left: "Sleazy Gay Men Who Just Want Boys"

Great article from a gay man who has now gone religious and is opposed to homosexuality. The problem with these guys is that they say homosexuality is a sin against God according to Christians. Regardless of whether that is true or not, it’s not a scientific argument and most us, even Christians like me, are most interested in the science than the doctrine when it comes to that. Anyway, I don’t think homosexual behavior is sinful.
There are other problems with these guys.
They all adopt an anti-essentialist point of view on homosexuality. Of course, we on the Alt Left are essentialists or we are nothing. The best available evidence that is the homosexuals somehow get wired up that way by the time they hit puberty. The best theory is that homosexuality is a developmental disorder akin to left-handedness. These people seem to argue that gays choose to be that way, when that does not seem to be the truth.
They all argue that homosexuals can be cured, while there is no evidence that they can be.
They are also against gay marriage of course, which I support.
Other than that, a lot of these men offer an immaculate critique of modern gay culture that cannot be found anywhere else because PC/SJW Culture means that gay men are a protected class above all critique. Apparently it’s illegal to even look at them wrong. It’s long been known that homosexuals have high levels of mental pathology along with a long list of medical problems. The way homosexuals live shaves a full 20 years off their lifespans. A lot of gay men are are flaky and sleazy. Crime is high in the gay community as is a general debasement of morality and culture itself as everything of value is subsumed to the supreme value of sex above all else.
That gay male culture has very high rates of pederasty and that pederasty has been elevated as the ultimate gay male relationship above all others has been true since Antiquity. Older gay men have very high rates of sex with young teenage boys than older straight men do with young teenage girls. Yet no one says a word about this because gay male culture is silent on the older gay man – teenage boy question.
These relationships, many of them illegal, are ubiquitous across the gay community. They are regarded with an accepting or amnesic shrug, and these older men are almost never turned in. Gay organizations deal with these relationships constantly and they never turn the man in even one time. Yet we hear no end of screeching from the Puritan/feminists about how all of us straight men are pedophiles for turning our heads when a hot 17 year old girl walks by.

This article contains graphic true language of the sinfulness of homosexual sin.
I have to thank Michelangelo Signorile and other gay writers who have come forward in the Huffington Post and elsewhere in response to the discussion of Dustin Lance Black’s relationship with a nineteen-year-old boy. After decades of false pretenses, they have at last come clean with the American public and admitted that the gay movement cannot succeed unless taboos against man-boy sex are at last knocked down.
I had tiptoed around the issue until this week. I had been attacked as “anti-equality” and “anti-gay” for over a year, even without bringing up what I knew about the rampant pederasty (sex between men and teenagers, as opposed to pedophilia, which is sex between men and children.) Even as my defense of children’s rights made me vulnerable to charges of conspiring with evil homophobic rubes, I was holding back an even more difficult dimension of my opposition to same-sex parenting.
I had known that beneath the appeals to gay “normalcy,” there was an underbelly in the gay male world of men sleeping with boys.
I avoided mentioning this when I testified in St. Paul, Paris, and Brussels. Nonetheless I had engaged in the debate about same-sex parenting with the unspoken suspicion that many gay male couples, if given the chance to be foster parents or adoptive fathers, would end up having sex with boys in their care or exposing their charges (both boys and girls) to a gay male culture that trampled on the generally understood prohibition against old people sleeping with vulnerable young people.
The result, I feared, would mirror many of the negative impacts on gay boys that have occurred as a result of “It Gets Better,” the Gay-Straight Alliances in high schools, sexualized curriculum, online gay sites like Chatroulette and TrevorSpace (not to mention the creeps on Craigslist), and gay mentorship programs. These public policy projects have blossomed over the last twenty-five years in the United States with the best of intentions — to keep gay boys from killing themselves out of despair.
As it turns out, gay boys don’t usually kill themselves simply because people reject them for being gay. The vast majority of people really don’t care what anybody does in their private sex life, which is why Dayna Morales, the tragic lesbian waitress in New Jersey, had to fabricate the tale of homophobic patrons stiffing her on a tip.
Homophobia is far less powerful than the reigning callousness and indifference of society to what’s going on with other people, really. So gay boys are far more likely to kill themselves not because people care about their gayness and hate them for it, but rather because most people don’t care about their gayness at all other than horny gay men who are much older than they and fuck them up the ass when they aren’t ready to deal with the emotional minefield of homosexuality.
All these naive programs placed boys in contact with adult gay men based on the assumption that the gay adults wouldn’t end up using such arrangements to corner boys and sodomize them. That assumption was criminally negligent.
I speak crudely because, as the statistics from the Department of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control reveal, the end result of many such gay mentor programs has been many adults inserting their penises into boys’ anuses. Hence there has been a spike in the HIV infection rate of boys aged 13-19, of which 95% result from unprotected anal sex.
Studies into HIV infection rates among black gay men reveal that blacks are infected with HIV at an exorbitant rate because they of all the races are most likely to be engaged in relationships with males much older or much younger than they are. Black gays do not engage in higher rates of unprotected sex, nor do they have unusually high or risky numbers of sex partners. Rather, their Achilles’ heel is their greater penchant for what Mr. Signorile lovingly calls “intergenerational” sex.
One of the top indicators of HIV infection risk is a tendency to date much older or much younger than oneself, and this makes sense for a basic reason: the kind of men who disregard the taboo against men fucking boys will usually also disregard other ethical limitations to their gratification, seeing limits as unfair or prejudiced. Condoms disappear somewhere in the confusion — and no, making people feel less guilty about doing something doesn’t make what they do safer, as the recent statistics shockingly tell us.
Let’s forget HIV for an instant however and the overall issues of sexually transmitted diseases. What if there were no STD’s at all to be spread from older men to boys through anal and oral sex?
There is still tremendous emotional vulnerability in a boy who is considering gay sex which isn’t there with girls or boys who are 100% straight.
A boy who starts getting fucked by men finds his whole future rewritten — it is not only an event dealing with one particular partner, but rather a foundational shift in his imagined future.
He will be in the gay community, living by its rules. Once an old man’s penis finds its way into the boy’s anus, the boy has to redefine his life goals, envision a future without women, without children, without access to the cultural mainstays enjoyed by the 99% of the world that isn’t gay and male. He must picture spending his time in the constricted, tiny circle of gay bars, gay associations, and gay cliques, looking for love in a tiny, somewhat incestuous pool of familiar local characters; gay men who will flit in and out of his life, vanishing without a morning call-back after a year and then popping up two years later on the arm of his best friend.
There is also the sheer physical change that happens when you are a boy and you first start letting men fuck you. It’s painful. You are being taught how to mix pain and pleasure, which increases the likelihood that you’re going to develop masochistic behaviors. You feel like a different person. As someone who got fucked by a lot of men in their forties and fifties when I was a teenage boy, I speak from real, extensive experience.
So when you as a grown man fuck a boy, you are inflicting a host of potential anxieties on him. You are throwing his masculinity and sexual identity in doubt. You are forcing him to picture himself growing old and dying without having a wife and children, without giving his parents a daughter-in-law and grandchildren — being stuck in a claustrophobic world full of flaky and sleazy men.
The recent statistics from many sources all seem to confirm that man-boy sex is a rampant problem in the gay community, and it’s destroying people’s lives.
The Department of Justice found that gay teens are much more likely to be in physically abusive relationships not to mention emotionally abusive relationships, with one of the key factors the fact that they are involved so often in unstable sexual liaisons with men much older than they are. While the report included a statement about the lack of “role models” for gay teens, we must extrapolate a deeper problem that straight researchers might not be able to piece together. Gay teens have role models, but the role models are fucking them. That messes up their heads.
Many of the recent cases involving gay foster dads or gay mentors who sexually abused boys do not reflect a sinister, evil psychology in the adult gay male, but rather a frighteningly innocent belief on the part of the adult that the youth wanted to get fucked and somehow fucking him was part of helping him.
Walter L. Williams, the founder of USC’s Gay and Lesbian Archives, got caught in sex traffic with underage boys in the Philippines and elsewhere, after decades of writing in favor of more open attitudes toward sexuality. He most likely thought that he was doing something benevolent by fucking boys. He had been after all a veritable father figure to gay college students for years.
Mark Newton, who manufactured a baby with an illegal Russian surrogate and then used the child he bought as an international sex slave, said it was an “honor” to have been a gay father as he was sentenced and sent off to prison. He was profiled by Australia’s ABC in 2010 as the idyllic example of same-sex parenting, beneath a headline, Two Dads Are Better than One. He and his husband, Peter Truong, probably felt that the toddler was experiencing pleasure with penises in his mouth, since the experience was pleasant for the adult getting a blow job.
There is a failure of ego differentiation in many of these cases (of which these are only a sliver.) The gay male adult, fed a steady diet of LGBT narratives about people being born gay and deserving sexual gratification as a civil right, cannot comprehend that what they believe and feel isn’t exactly the same as what the child is believing and feeling.
Since so much argumentation about gay parenting has hinged on the notion of “gay couples providing a loving home,” many gay adults charged with youths get lost in the nebulous meaning of “loving.” They have been prompted to believe that if what they do to young people comes from affectionate motives, it’s good. Which is a very convenient way to talk oneself into fucking a boy, unfortunately.
I am sure that Dan Savage felt that he was helping young boys with “It Gets Better,” though it seems that the tens of thousands of testimonials from adult gays merely encouraged boys to go out and get fucked up the ass by older men, with the result that now a lot of them are going to die from AIDS.
And then think of Caleb Laieski, the teen activist honored by President Obama, who helped a fortysomething gay policeman score with a fourteen-year-old boy who was questioning his sexuality. As Caleb and his adult conspirator prepare to go off to prison as well, I cannot say that they were ill intended. He and the gay policemen were leaders in the gay community and thought they were helping the fourteen-year-old by breaking him in. Unfortunately for them, the boy got suicidal and exposed the entire activist game as a terrible exploitative ruse.
While neither Michael Jackson nor Jerry Sandusky identified as gay, it is worth noting that they both also viewed their suspicious congress with boys as part of nurturing and affection.
These abhorrent data result from the gay movement’s uncritical celebration of the penis and its supposed liberating power. Your penis is not an instrument of charity, gentlemen. Your penis is a loaded weapon. You must understand that.
Mr. Signorile speaks of intergenerational sex as “nurturing” and educational. His views on this reveal that the modern gay male has little to no concept of nurturing and educational relationships except when such connections involve inserting their penises into people and ejaculating into them.
It’s bad enough that relationships between gay male adults have to be hypersexualized. When your beginning mindset is, “I can help and coddle this young boy, and fuck him too,” and you see nothing wrong with this, in fact believing that any resistance to it is based on homophobia (as Mr. Signorile has written in stark terms), you may be qualified to lead the gay community in developing its imagination, its fantasies, and its sense of self-actualization.
But you should not have custody of children, teenagers, or young adults. You should not be asking the American people to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and then place millions of future 18-year-olds in basic combat training under gay NCO’s who think this way. You should not be asking the American people to allow gay leaders in the Boy Scouts. You definitely should not be listed as a potential foster care home, let alone candidates for adoption.
The response from Mr. Signorile that the 19-year-old in the Dustin Lance Black case was a “consenting adult” makes it all the more urgent that the American people reject the ligbitist push to change laws about adoption, employment non-discrimination, and the like. Mr. Signorile, like most in the movement, believes that anything legal is okay. It shouldn’t be surprising that they are therefore so interested in changing laws to make more of the sleazy things they do legal.
I didn’t arrive at these harsh declarations because I hated gay people or because I am part of the gay community and have a deep abiding love for my gay brothers; I got here because I love young people and understand that it’s better that gay men don’t try to fuck them, which they will, if given the chance. That scares me.
As a professor, I live and operate with the understanding that people in a seasoned, mature, mentor-like role must express love toward those who are in the learning, young, and undeveloped role, without unzipping our pants and getting our penises involved.
As a father, I live and operate with the understanding that my daughter should go forth in the world and be mentored by adults who can differentiate between teaching her about professional life, etc., and involving her in the fraught act of sexual intercourse.
As a veteran of the US Army Reserves (as undistinguished as my service admittedly was), I live and operate with the understanding that training and discipline do not mix well with orgasms and erections and ejaculation.
These are all understandings — norms, if you will — that an adult entrusted with children has to walk around with. It has to be second nature. It must be something beyond question, beyond editorial review, beyond negotiation. While women face this issue, it is even more acutely an issue for men, who have a long history and perhaps biological predisposition, to inject their penis into situations and confuse their own quest for pleasure with their obligation to teach, mentor, and guide young people.
Heterosexual men who defy these rules with girls are subject to swift recrimination, even if they get away with it because it’s supposedly “legal.”
Colleagues of mine who have violated the sacred sexual barrier between teacher and student and made love to their pupils have lost tremendous respect from me and especially from females in the profession.
Non-commissioned officers or officers who sleep with female subordinates are subject to severe penalties in the military.
Think of what happened to Bill Clinton and David Petraeus as a result of their inability to manage their penises properly in the presence of younger forbidden fruit.
Dustin Lance Black is thirty-nine years old and almost the same age as his boyfriend’s father when the latter passed away recently. Judging from what the boy said in the video and what others have reported as information gleaned from people close to him, he looked up to Dustin Lance Black and wanted to learn from him, be mentored, be held and fathered by him.
It’s entirely possible that the boy broached the topic of sex and wanted the older man to teach him about homosexual intercourse–as a professor, trust me, I am familiar with how 19-year-olds can be sexually aggressive, even demanding that a relationship that should be based on mentorship turn into sex.
When I say that our penises are loaded weapons, I do not mean to say that the “victims” of gay penises aren’t sometimes eager to have access to them. But the adult in the room has to be able to say “no,” tell the college freshman to calm down, and keep his zipper up and his penis under lock and key. That’s part of being a grown-up. If you can’t say “no” to a young person who wants to take a look at your penis, you have no business trying to pass the Every Child Deserves a Family Act.
Related articles
Why I Cannot Blame Russia and India for Taking on the Gays (americanthinker.com)
Michelangelo Signorile: Tom Daley Is 20 Years Younger than Dustin Lance Black… So What? (huffingtonpost.com)
Michelangelo Signorile: No, Pope Francis Is Not the LGBT Person of the Year (huffingtonpost.com)
Poor Black and Hispanic Men Are the Face of H.I.V. (thelib2013.wordpress.com)
Man-Boy Sex and Its Long Tradition among Gay Men (robertlindsay.wordpress.com)
Michelangelo Signorile at Odds With HRC over Positive ‘Duck Dynasty’ Message (towleroad.com)
Gay Teens Are At Higher Risk for HPV, Study Shows (thegayclassifieds.wordpress.com)
Study Finds HPV Common in Young Sexually Active Gay Men (counselheal.com)

Alt Left: Whites Created Modern Liberalism, Progressivism, and the Left

From here. He is commenting on an article I wrote nine years ago. At the end he talks about the ridiculousness of what could best be called the Regressive Left.

There’s some truth to what Lindsay says, buried under all the hyperbole and ranting. The foundations of modern liberalism – universality of humanity and rational individualism – were spawned by the Enlightenment in Europe. For all of its contradictions and inconsistencies, it was a big jump ahead of the hierarchical, ethnocentric, and tribal outlooks that dominated most of the world.
Without the liberal ideology born in Europe, racism would not even be recognized as a problem. African tribes had no problem regarding other tribes as completely outside their moral system, and it remains a problem for African nations to this day. The Indian caste system was a vicious system of racial disenfranchisement that reduced some people lower than cattle. It remains in Indian culture if not in institutions. East Asians have been incredibly racist. Gender equality as an ideal is definitely an Anglo-European thing, as is acceptance of homosexuality.
The USA was the first nation that defined its creed from the liberal idea, followed shortly by the French Republic. Karl Marx analyzed the contradictions of the liberal idea and founded an ideology that lent power to anti-colonial and egalitarian movements around the world. If you’re seeking dignity and freedom from oppression, you can thank the liberal and post-liberal ideologies originated by White Anglo-Europeans for making them issues in the world discourse.
I also agree with Lindsay that there’s a whopping contradiction in the position of the postmodernist, multiculturalist PC left. It’s a road to nowhere as long as it elevates backward, stifling, hierarchical, and violent cultures to the same level as the ones that embrace the dignity of the individual and their role in the community. There is plenty of room for criticism of cultural backwardness, although it is taboo among the PC Left. The nations that have thrived have done so by adopting aspects of the Anglo-European liberal idea, regardless of race.

Alt Left: Identity Politics is Based on Postmodernist Obscurantism

All modern Identity Politics movements, including feminism, are infected with postmodernism, hence the answer to a lot of questions is,

“There is no answer to that question…There’s no way to determine that…That’s not a question that can be answered by science…That’s not a matter that science can investigate…”

All IP groups are like this. All the important questions can never be answered, there are no truths because exceptions prove that truths don’t exist, there are no facts, there are no statistics to be measured and all statistics to be gathered are to be questioned on the grounds of false data, etc.

Alt Left: An SJW Calumny Against Milo Yiannopoulus

Now hear me out. I absolutely despise Milo Yiannopoulus, the reactionary Alt Right troll and hero of sticking it to the SJW’s. But he does a lot more than skewer leftwing airheads.
He’s also a reactionary on everything else, and if you have been reading this blog long enough, you know that we are basically liberals to Leftists on most issues aside from the Cultural Left Freakshow, about which we are to the right of but not all the way to Republican social conservatives, who we consider to be rightwing Puritan crazies.
So with the Alt Left here, as with the Alt Left on so many things, it’s idiots to the right of me, idiots to the left of me. We would never want to be members of any club that would let us in, but no one would let us in anyway. Instead, everybody hates us. To be Alt Left is to be in the center of a circular firing squad. But it also means to be correct. The Alt Left is based on facts, truth, and science – Enlightenment values if you will. It’s not only the Right that hates science and truth, it’s the Cultural Left too. They’re just as bad as Republicans, as most Identity Politics movements proceed from fact-free theories and assumptions.
Anyway, Milo is a stinking filthy rich member of the ruling class, and he’s depraved, degenerate, and decadent like so many of them. Morals? Milo doesn’t have any. He jokes about taking huge Black cocks up his ass. His Alt Right “conservative” audience roars with approval. Since when is interracial homosexual sodomy the favorite meal of…reactionaries…?!
None of it makes sense unless you understand the decadence of the ruling class. The ruling class takes power on campaigns of religion and morality, which they sell to the masses. Morals are for the poor, and they go on and on about how immoral the poor are. Why, if they would only go to church more, they would get rich!
But you know pesky things like morals are only for those Little People. The aristocrats are of course exempt from morals in the realm of sex, drugs, and…just about anything, just like they’ve always been. So it is only in this context of chastity for the poor, interracial gay gangbangs for the rich that this confounding Milo can be understood.
Of course Milo has a right to be a degenerate homosexual.
As noted earlier, SJW’s harangue us straight men endlessly daring to look at JB’s, but gay men get to bang all the boy JB’s they want because gay men are good in SJW theory, and straight men are evil.
But somehow the SJW’s violate their own rules when it comes to Milo. Now if Milo was just an ordinary leftwing gay man, no one would care what he said or did. But Milo did the unthinkable. He decided to be a typical degenerate gay man while adopting ultra-rightwing politics. It was the latter that pointed the bulls eye on his head for SJW’s. So rightwing gays are in a class similar to straight men – evil males who must be demonized.
Hence the constant “Milo is a pedophile” claim from the SJW Left.
But what’s behind this serious allegation? Is Milo just an ordinary pedestrian chicken hawk like so many gay men? Nope. He’s not even that bad! Under SJW parlance, Milo was actually a victim of gay child molesters or pedophiles. So SJW’s are calling the kid who got molested by pedophiles a pedophile for daring to get molested! Outrageous or what?
The truth is a bit more complex. Milo stated flippantly that as a precocious male Lolita or Lolito of 13, he was already deep into gay sex and drug party culture. Of course, this culture is full of underage teenage boys. They’re everywhere at parties like that, and the older men pass them around callously like candy.
Milo said he was a regular at these degenerate sex and drug gay parties on fancy boats owned by gay men. There was plenty of sex with older men on offer for the budding Milo, and I guess he decided that the stovepipes were to his liking. In other words, Milo said that as a young teen of 13, he used to go to gay drug and sex parties full of older men, he had a lot of hot sex with  older men, and worse of all for SJW’s, he dared to actually like the experience.
Now victims of statutory rape or kids who get molested are not allowed to enjoy the experience, although many if not most of the teens love it. Even some of the little kids enjoy it. If they do enjoy it, the feminist line is that these poor kids or especially teens are deluded. Their enjoyment is not real. It’s fake. It’s fake because somehow they have been brainwashed into getting off on it. They actually hate it but they only think they like it because as minors they are too immature and stupid to figure out if they enjoy something or not!
This is the source of a lot of confusion for them because it was wrong, but it felt so good, and this mixes them up a lot. This is part of the reason that so many molested kids go on the years-long Therapy Express. But no one ever talks about this. No one talks about how some of the kids and most of the teens liked or even loved the experience. To do so brands one a pedophile by proxy simply by promoting a “pedo argument.” Except the pedo argument here happens to be true.
So, Milo isn’t a pedophile and he’s never been one. Instead Milo is being called a pedophile for what SJW’s would call getting molested or being a victim of sexual assault and breaking the rules by saying he liked it instead of falling apart like a baby.
So why is Milo a pedophile? Because he was a molestation victim who enjoyed getting molested. Even if that is true, how on Earth does that make someone, anyone, a pedophile?
Milo’s a slug but I believe in fairness and giving everyone their due. Next time you hear BS about Milo being a pedophile, you might want to, just maybe, think twice before believing that accusation.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Alt Left: TERF Theory on Transgenderism: Is It Rational?

Radical feminist theory poses a serious challenge to to transgender ideology. It is for their critical stance on transgenderism that the Trans Community has taken to calling these women TERF’s or Trans Exclusive Radical Feminists. There has been a long-term war, now escalating very rapidly, pitting the Trans Lobby and their SJW Third Wave Intersectional Sex-Positive Feminist allies and Second Wave Radical Feminist TERF’s. This has now escalated into threats and assaults against TERF’s by transwomen. It is an interesting debate but as it is taking place on the fringes of the Cultural Left, most folks have never heard of it.
It actually takes the side of reason, rationality, and common sense, which is strange feminist theories are almost never based on truth or facts. However, I would argue that it does not challenge transgender ideology on very good grounds. In other words, they come up with the right answer to the question, but my beef is in the theory they used to arrive at the right answer and not the answer itself.
Radical feminist theory says that transgender people are simply mentally ill people with gender dysphoria for some variety of reasons. Transwomen are just men in drag or men who think they are women. Transwomen are not women and they should not be allowed in women’s spaces.
This is all more or less correct, but as I said, my beef is how they arrived at the answer and not the answer itself.
What theory did radfems use to arrive at this answer? Simple. Radical feminists absolutely hate men.
Anyway, TERF dislike of transgender men or transwomen who they insist on calling TIM’s (Transsexual-Identified Males) is based simply on radfem hatred of men. Transwomen are simply the hated men now dressing in drag and pretending to be or insisting that they are women and demanding access to women’s spaces.
TERF’s hate the idea that men are claiming to be women, as TERF’s quite logically say that only they and and other born females are real women. A real woman is born with and has an XX chromosome, female genitalia and female reproductive organs. Any human born with an XY chromosome and male genitalia is a male, plain and simple. And a male can’t turn into a female or vice versa, at least with present technology.
An incredibly high percentage of radical feminists are lesbians, usually lesbian feminists, which means that they are straight women who chose to be lesbians out of extreme hatred for men as a feminist political act. Most lesbians hate men quite a bit as it is, but when you combine a lesbian with a radical feminist, you get quite a potent mix of shrill man hatred.
The problem is that the nonheterosexual coalition which started out as gays and lesbians, then included bisexuals to be GLB’s,  has now expanded to included transsexuals, so the coalition is now called GLBT.
Recently queers (a term which has no meaning whatsoever other than nonheterosexual) has been idiotically added to this alphabet soup.
Some add an I for Intersex people, once again mixing gender expression (Intersex and Transsexuals) with sexual orientation (GLBQ).
There is also a movement now to add on an A for Asexuals.
God knows what they will come up with next. Pretty soon this acronym is going to be harder to pronounce than an Icelandic placename. A lot of people are exasperated by this ever-expanding list of nonheterosexual and non-cisgender orientation and identity soup and often add on ABC or WTF, so you end up with things like GLBTIQABCWTF.
Now there is quite a bit of friction between a lot of lesbians, many of whom are also radical feminists, and the transgender folks. Lesbians have been denied the right to march is Gay Pride parades and fights have broken out between lesbians and transgender people at these events. Quite a few leftwing outlets are banning TERF speakers from speaking at their venues or removing TERF books from their bookshelves. Many lesbians have been attacking the whole idea of
TERF’s logically argue that since transwomen are really men, they should not be allowed in women’s bathrooms, homeless and abused shelter’s, and prisons. Indeed, transwomen have already committed crimes against women in women’s prisons and bathrooms, so the fear is not unfounded.
In addition, many transwomen, especially the autogynophiliacs, were heterosexual men before they transitioned. They were attracted to women when they were men and now that they are transwomen, they are still attracted to women. So transwomen go from being heterosexual men to being female lesbians in a sense. A lot of these lesbian transwomen are doing a lot of yelling because most lesbians won’t give them the time of day, much less have sex with them.
This is especially true since many transwomen are pre-ops who have not had the operation to remove their genitals, so they still have male genitalia. What lesbian wants to have sex with a man with a penis and testicles who dresses up like a woman? Lesbians like women, not men in dresses. These lesbian transwomen have been calling real lesbians “transphobic” for refusing to date them. This predictably has a lot of lesbians, especially the radical feminist ones, up in arms.
As you can see, TERF’s both lesbian and straight have a lot of quite good reasons to be anywhere from dubious to outraged by transwomen.
Further, 88% of transwomen are not even real transsexuals. The real transsexuals with early onset gender dysphoria and different brains are a mere 12% of transwomen. I have a lot of compassion for these “real” transsexuals.
The rest, I am sorry, are just sexual perverts of one sort or another. 88% of transwomen are crossdressers, transvestites, and autogynophiliacs. These are also a lot of the ones that are committing sex crimes because they have paraphilias. Most don’t realize that paraphiliacs typically have more than one paraphilia; in fact, they can have several. It seems there are perverts and non-perverts, you are either one or the other,  and if you are a pervert, you tend to be polymorphously perverse instead of limiting yourself to one perversion..
People with paraphilias can definitely commit sex crimes ranging from harmless but annoying flashers all the way to serial killers and necrophiliacs. Most serial killers are sexual sadists, and sexual sadism is a paraphilia. I doubt if the real transsexuals are the ones who are committing these sex crimes or threatening the TERF’s. The real transsexuals seem calmer and more rational and believe it or not, they actually believe deeply in science and science is on their side somewhat.
The problem is that radical feminist theory on transgenderism completely collapses when it comes to transmen or female transsexuals. The reason it falls apart is because the theory has a poor basis – it is based simply on a hatred of men per se and does not try to make a coherent argument against transsexualism as a whole.
Radfem theory on transsexuals absolutely collapses with the complete and utter silence about transmen or female transsexuals. These are women who think they are men. There are quite a bit fewer transmen than transwomen for some reason. If transwomen are irrational and crazy, so are transmen, but radfem trans theory does not critique the rationality or mental fitness of transmen. In addition, the focus on violent and criminal transwomen, while good in theory, collapses once again as transmen are ignored. But transmen can be violent too, just like transwomen. Women who transition to men are more likely to become criminals than if they had stayed women, possibly a hormonal effect of testosterone.
I get all the radfem venom and rage against transwomen. It’s not hard to figure out. But why let transmen off the hook?
Why do radfems let transmen off the hook? Because they’re women! Well, that’s a logical theory! So radfems let transmen off the hook because they are women and women cannot be criticized by they bash transwomen to Kingdom Come because they’re men! Look, I am quite sure that radfem transsexual theory suits the emotion needs of radical feminists, but where’s the science? Where’s the science for the radfem theory that transmen are a-ok and transwomen are Satan’s children?
Oh wait. I forget. We are talking about feminists here, and feminists simply don’t do science. In fact, feminists now openly state that truth, logic, and science – (The very Enlightenment itself!) are permanently tainted because they are derived from men’s thinking and are the product of patriarchy. Anything that comes from men is junk and needs to be tossed. Feminists have a new epistemology: There is a “women’s way of knowledge” which apparently transcends science, facts, and truth, rendering all of them unreliable. They’ve taken the postmodern ball and the length of the field with it. In fact they didn’t even stop in the endzone. They kept running after the touchdown and now they are halfway across town.
The funny thing is that transmen are not really the friends of radical feminists or of women in general for that matter. I mean these are women who have decided that being a woman is so disgusting and horrible that they want to turn into men. That’s some powerful self-hatred they have going on there. Transmen call their vaginas “front holes.” Are radical feminists on board with vaginas being called “front holes?” Transmen also say that men can now have vaginas, ovaries, uteruses, etc. In fact, transmen even insist that men can now get pregnant! Are radfems cool with the notion that their hated dudes can have vaginas too just like ladies?
Radical feminist theory on transgenderism is just fine as long as it sticks to transwomen. It is based on facts, truth, and science. Of course radfems only choose facts, truth, and science when it allies well with their ideology, but I do commend them for using Enlightenment tools of knowledge at all.
But when it gets to transmen, radfem transgender theory shipwrecks on the shore. According to radical feminists, trannies are groovy and cool as long as they are lady trannies, but dude trannies are incarnations of the Devil Himself.
And this is…a scientific doctrine?

Alt Left: Females Self-Harm, Males Other Harm

That’s actually about it. And it applies to men and women too.
Females internalize aggression or pain, sadness, frustration or unhappiness, weaponize it and turn it into aggression against the self in the form of self-harm, masochism, self-blame, guilt, low self-esteem, depression, and suicidality and males externalize it, weaponize it, and turn it into aggression against others, hostility, rage, fight-picking, competition, cruelty, sadism, and homicidality.
The woman tries to destroy the self.
The man tries to destroy the other.
Those are two essential characteristics of the Masculine and Feminine Principles which in part divide out known world. Note I said Masculine and Feminine Principles and not Male and Female Principles.

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.

Alt Left: Women Throw a Shit Fit over True Facts

Here.
How women define “truth.”
Does that statement make women look good? Yes ——————————> Statement is true.
Does that statement make women look anything less than stellar? Yes ———————> Statement is false.
What do you know! A brand new theory of moral philosophy, feminist style!
* Actually these are not really women per se. Instead they are a subgroup of women called Feminist Retards. I should have known. Sorry for any real women who got offended by me calling you feminists. I’m sorry. I really am.

Alt Left: Be Careful What You Wish for, Feminists

Feminism has been shot through with hatred of men since the day it started. The very first Second Wave feminist demonstrations featured shrewish women yelling in the streets, “Starve a rat!” They were advocating that all women stop cooking dinner for their husbands. All women’s husbands were considered automatically to be rats.
Feminists claim it’s a lie that feminists hate men. I have been testing out this theory for a long time now because I was not sure it was true. It’s true. Most feminists definitely hate men. Or if not then they are angry at men and want paybacks and revenge. Feminists don’t want equality. They want revenge. They want us to suffer for all we did to them in the past. There are some feminists who do not hate men at all, but they are usually not openly involved in the movement to the extent that they are writing articles and commenting on feminist websites.
The Second Wavers were of course the worst when it came to man-hating. Most of the heroes of Second Wave feminism were such virulent man-haters that one wondered if their hatred of men was near  psychotic proportions. Mary Daly, Julie Bindel, Valerie Solanis, Robin Morgan, Audre Lourde, Angela Davis, Andrea Dworkin, Catherine McKinnon. All of these were part of a movement called Radical Feminism.
Apologists often say that Dworkin and Solanis were outliers, but even Solanis genocidal SCUM Manifesto is considered one of the canonical texts of modern feminism. I’m serious. Even otherwise sane Betty Friedan led the charge against the male birth control when a scientist in Brazil said he had made one. The idea that men could control whether women got pregnant or not sent the feminists into conniptions.
Apologists also say that Radical Feminism is a tiny movement in modern feminism. That’s not true. Almost all existing Second Wavers are radfems. Nowadays you are either a radfem or a Third Wave intersectional sex-positive liberal feminist. The latter are probably more common, but there’s no shortage of the former.
I would agree that Third Wavers don’t hate men nearly as much as Second Wavers do. After all, the Third Wave is predicated on sex-positivity, which implies that these women have to like us enough to tolerate having sex with us. However, Third Wavers are still man-haters to some extent or at least they apologize for them.
Even Babe Magazine, a Third Wave flagship publication, apologizes for the man-haters, claiming most of them are just joking. Jezebel is one of the better Third Wave feminist sites and many of the commenters are very much involved with men. Nevertheless, I would consider a lot of them to be at least moderate man-haters. The Third Wave toned down the man hatred but it didn’t get rid of it.
Thing is most straight women don’t hate men. I should know, I’ve been dating them and trying to date them my whole life. I am often shocked at how much the average women actually likes or loves us men. I often wonder how much we deserve it. With all the bad things we do to women, they still just can’t stop loving us.
Maybe that’s Natural Law kicking in again. Nature wants women to love men. Man-hating women are going against Nature. Natural Law says that violations of Nature will be tolerated but the violators will often function less well or be less happy. And indeed, the shrillest manhating feminists sure don’t seem very happy. It’s hard to be happy when you’re that pissed off.
All this stupid man-hatred has been very bad for Feminism, which after all, is one of the great Liberation Movements of the 20th Century – the movement for the liberation of women from male domination, control and bondage and towards greater equality between the sexes. Most women are actually in favor of this goal. But feminism has gotten so tainted with man hatred that only 20% of American women say they are feminists. That’s right. 80% of US women refuse to identify as feminists.
Furthermore, I would gather that men are leaving the feminist movement in droves. I was once involved in feminism and identified as a feminist. I was actually a dues-paying member of NOW, the National Organization for Women. I no longer identify as a male feminist, though I do support equity feminism. A stroll around the Web will reveal a wide streak of men who are openly anti-feminist along with a few women who are angry that their desire for equality with men has been ruined by the shrieking manhating harpies.
Why the blowback? I think the feminists have finally pushed us men too far. All Identity Politics movements endlessly push for more benefits for their group. Even after they achieve what looks like success, they will keep pushing because the whole nature of their movement is predicated on endless victimhood and moving the equality goalposts further away each time the movement nears the goal line. Furthermore, I don’t even think most IP movements even want equality. They say they do, but most want to go beyond equality and turn the tables by dominating the group that once dominated them. And there’s your paybacks, revenge, make em pay, etc.
The feminists have only themselves to blame for this whole nasty blowback, with all of the attendant misogynistic MRA’s, MGTOW’s, PUA’s, and incels. They birthed this monster by pushing too far.
By the way, a lot of these feminists have more or less declared war on us men. I don’t like to threaten people, but feminists might want to think twice before they declare war on men. I know my crazy gender very well.  Do feminists really want to go to war with men? Once men declare war on feminists in return for their shots across the bow, it won’t be a pretty picture. In any real war between men and women, the women will always lose. Furthermore, the omnipresent homicidal rage of men, typically suppressed or repressed in most of us, will ensure that any war will ugly indeed. The Incels are already murdering women just for being women. And that won’t be the end of it either.
Be careful what you wish for, feminists.
 

Who Is This Woman, and What in God's Name Happened to Her?

And what in God’s name happened to her? How do you go from the most beautiful woman on Earth to this? She looks like she’s been carpet bombed by a B-52 called “Time” for a while now.
The thing is, no matter how beautiful or handsome you are, there will come a day when you are old and ugly, assuming you are lucky enough to make it that far in the first place.
Time heals all wounds, but it also wounds all heels, and before it kills us, first it makes us ugly as sin, just to rub it in.
Golden years my ass!

When you bet on the body, you bet on a losing horse.
– Buddhist saying.

 

article-0-01D1755B000004B0-452_468x450
Something terrible happened here. I don’t know what it was. I think an Ugly Bomb got dropped on her poor face!

Well, she’s 83. Who looks good at 83? On the other hand, I have an aunt who is 82 and she is actually smoking hot! And I met a woman recently at a dinner at the clubhouse in my Mom’s retirement village and she looked good! My Mom said the woman was as old as my Mom, and my Mom’s 85. Even at 83, she should look better than that. Gloria Steinem is in her 80’s, and she’s hot!

Mother Nature Bats Last, Again

Mother Nature is embedded in your gender in a way it is not embedded in your race.
And no matter how hard you try to run away from Mother Nature, it seems she always catches up to you in the end. At some point you might as well quit running and just accept Natural Law and your role in it.
If you are a man, Natural Law says you act like a man, so just accept it and do it. Quit fighting it. I have met a lot of straight men who were not very masculine, but most had this masculine personality deep inside of them, and when they got around me, I could see a lot of it come out because despite those who say it’s not true, I am a pretty masculine guy in a way. At least these fairly unmasculine friends of mine thought of me as “macho.”
When they got around me, they imitated me and got into this masculine role. I could see the light in them go off as they got in touch with their deeply recessed masculinity. I think most straight men want to feel this way, and they feel a lot better when they start acting more masculine.
I have known some very wimpy men who were very miserable as wimpy unmasculine man. I later saw them become more masculine, and they sure seemed a lot happier. Masculinity in men and femininity in women seem to both hit that “sweet spot” in a way that few other things do. There is a real sense of contentment and being in one’s true place when one accesses their true gender roles.
Notice how gay (feminine) men and lesbian (masculine) women are not very happy? I thought about this for a long time, and I believe it is because they are violating Natural Law. Things that violate Nature are allowed to exist but often do not function very well because they are outside of their natural role.
Kids are raised best with a mother and father, and it’s best if they stay together. Children of divorce, single mothers, and now gay and lesbian couples are much less healthy than those raised in traditional families. The only reason I can think for this is because they are violating Nature in some way. If you violate Nature, you usually survive, but Nature enforces its law by making you less happy and/or less functional.

Alt Left: Identity Politics Is about What You Are, Not What You Do or Believe In

Zamfir: So what is your basis for objecting to whites who hate non-whites or Muslims who hate non-Muslims?

I don’t like haters, especially those who hate others for something as core to the self as race or religion. I don’t believe in hating whole races or religious groups. You can’t change your race at all and it’s hard to change your religion. You are born with your race and often with your religion.
I don’t like bigots.
I also don’t hate people for their ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, or even gender identity. I have better things to do than to hate people for what they are. And them being what they are doesn’t impact me much anyway, so why be a hater?
I’m not going to hate someone for being foolish, suicidal, para-suicidal, self-destructive, dysfunctional, miserable, crazy (unless they are dangerously crazy), or idiotic. They’re only hurting themselves anyway. Why hate folks who only hurt themselves. They’re not hurting me. I only hate people who are hurting me or want to hurt me.
I’m not going to hate anyone for picking the wrong parents. How can I hate someone for picking the wrong parents to give birth to them?
I hate certain people for what they believe, true, but even with those people, I have some acquaintances who believe in these philosophies and I am still friendly to them. These people have chosen of their own free will be believe some really lousy things, things that hurt me and my own and the rest of the country. If their ideas are implemented, I and my own get harmed and the whole country gets messed up. It’s ok to hate people for having shitty ideals and mindsets. They can change their philosophies, ideals and mindsets any time they want. No one is forcing them to believe all this awful stuff.
These people are out to hurt me, and a number of them have hurt me, mostly my feelings, but still. If their ideas get put in, my life is going to suffer in a huge way. So I hate them believing in these projects that are going to hurt me so much. They’re basically actively trying to harm me and I don’t appreciate that and I reserve the right to hate anyone who is trying to harm me.

Zamfir: And, strangely, you seem to express a lot of hate and contempt towards those outside the group you identify with.

LOL, I hate paranoid, thin-skinned hater nutcases? Maybe so, my friend, but so do most people. These are the types of people who tend to get banned from every bar in town.
Class is not an identity. And identity is part of your true self in general and it is not something that is easily changed. Class is not some integral part of oneself the same way your race, nationality, sexual orientation, gender or even religion are. It’s just a philosophy. No one thinks class is identity politics, except for you I guess.
Having a collective interest is not the same thing as a hard and fast identity like race, ethnic group, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, or even religion. Collective interests are just philosophies, goals and interests that people take up in life. It’s stuff they do, not stuff they are. And you can change your interests or philosophy any time you want. It’s not a hard to change part of your core self.
Political movements are not core, difficult to change identities of the self in the same way that race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation of even religion are. They are just political philosophies, collections of ideas that people take up and push because they believe in those ideas and value them. Anyone can change their politics anytime they want. Not even now, I mean yesterday. That fast Political movements are what you do, not what you are. It’s just a personal philosophy of life, a set of ideas, values, goals, etc.

Zamfir: Seems like this is just the nature of democratic politics in a pluralist society: people vote to secure the interests of groups they belong to and care about.

I just told you the difference between ideas and core parts of oneself, often unchangeable. It’s the difference between what you do and believe in and what you are. Most sane politics is about what people do or what philosophies they believe in about how society should be run. That’s not an identity. Philosophies are not identities.
Not one person on Earth thinks that all movements of collective interests or political movements are identity politics. Not one. Except you I guess.

Zamfir: You even say you’d take away the rights of others to benefit your group.

No I wouldn’t. When did I ever say that? I wouldn’t take away rights from anyone of any identity group based on their core self. I would not take away rights from women, gays, transsexuals, Jews, or people of any religion, ethnicity, or nationality. I certainly would not take away their rights to benefit my own group. Are you kidding?
 
 

PUA/Game: The Incel Problem Is Clearly One of Perspective

This is really what the whole damn problem is all about.
I have a friend who is a Brahmin in India. Really smart, really nice, writer who writes books. Also very handsome. He told me he was a virgin til he married at age 32, and so was his wife of the same age. He said this was just normal in Brahmin families, and no one cared. I asked him if he ever felt inferior, lame, failed, depressed, idiotic, incompetent, or ashamed of being a 32 year old virgin, and he said of course not. I asked him if anyone made fun of him for being a 30+ virgin, and he said of course not, people don’t do that here.
It’s not so much the celibacy itself, it is the value you and society place on it. Like so many other things in life. Read some philosophy. Philosophers talk about this a lot.
It’s not the thing itself. It is the value that is placed on the thing that mattes. The thing itself has little obvious meaning in many cases.
Actually Wittgenstein came around to this in his second book. He ruled out valuation in Tractatus, assuming that humans were purely logical.
By the time Logical Investigations rolled around, he changed his mind and decided that meaning or words in language was determined by culture or society and not mathematically via some logic of observing some phenonemon and describing it. His latter position is correct. Most things are relative, spectrums are everywhere you look, and everything’s a grey area. Which is quite a liberating thought, if you dare to believe it. I agree it’s a tough meal. Close your eyes, say the Hell with it, and swallow it whole. That’s how you ingest life’s most painful and resisted truths.
You see, people hate grey areas. They hate spectrums. Mostly because people are basically stupid but also because they scare easily, and once you sort of say everything’s more or less up for grabs, you’re tossing the whole universe like a damned salad. Most people don’t want that. They want to be sure about stuff. Even if it’s bullshit, at least they can be sure of their bullshit.
Right, wrong, or indifferent, this is what I believe, and can we please move along now? Can you pass the olives, please? So where were we now, remind me? Oh yes, your vacation. Do carry on. I so want to hear about this.
Life’s not easy; it’s actually quite difficult. But humans always want to take the easy route, and why not? Life’s doesn’t make much sense, but who wants to live in the terror of a senseless universe but guys like Sartre? No one. We want things to be easy, and we want them to make sense, and facts and truth be damned, we will get what we want. Which is reasonable but sad.

Most People Are Doing Everything They Do for a Reason

Most things people do, they’re doing them for a reason, and often a good reason at that (at least as they see it). Even crazy people for the most part do things for a reason. A crazy reason, sure, but a reason nonetheless. Once you realize that most things people do are for a (fairly logical, at least for them) reason, the world clears up and things make so much more sense.
For decades I ran around pulling my hair because so many “crazy or evil people” were doing all these lousy things “for no reason.” But I finally figured out that that was a lie. Few things that people do are for no reason at all. Once you figure out that people are doings things for understandable reasons, the world becomes a much less baffling and infuriating place.
Now you have to set out to try to determine who people are doing the confounded things that they are doing, whatever those might be. Here’s where the fun comes in. I have found that you can usually figure out the reasons for most behavior, even that of the most baffling of females, if you think about it hard enough. Once you understand why that person did what they did, a feeling of peace comes over you. The world is actually an intelligible place. Most people are more or less logical, as painful as it might be to admit that.
And there’s your blackpill.

Lousy Arguments the Left Uses to Counter “Racist Facts”

Below is a list of the “racist facts” that I listed in a previous post. But first of all, a look at some great progress. Some good news for once.

Blacks Have Made Much Progress in Ameliorating Black Problems and Discrepancies

Yes, Blacks have closed the achievement gap by 1/3, which shows it was not purely genetic. However, 2/3 of the gap remains. Blacks in the UK have closed the achievement gap completely according to scores on the latest high school achievement tests.

Yes, the Black crime rate can go down and has gone down dramatically in the last 25 years. But that occurred at the same time as the crime rate for everyone dropping dramatically. It’s definitely true that you can have large swings in the Black crime rate. Black violent crime is down 40%. That wouldn’t be the case if it was all down to genes.

Nevertheless, crime reduction becomes an arms race as the White rate declines concurrently with the Black rate so the Black 6X discrepancy remains.

Yes, there are Black societies in Africa with over 1 million members who have homicide rates as low as the Japanese. This shows that a high Black crime and violent crime is not a genetic inevitability. And it shows that genes are not destiny.

An excellent environment which does not occur naturally very often (I call it a superenvironment) can wipe out the entire Black tendency towards crime and violence (which I believe is genetic). The problem is that replicating these “superenvironments” Blacks need to get these problems down to low levels seems to be quite difficult to achieve.

The Black IQ gap has closed significantly among Black children, among whom it has closed by 40%, and in places like Barbados and Bermuda, where it has closed by 50%. Nevertheless a significant gap remains. Blacks have closed the standardized test score gap in high school in the UK. Such scores can be seen as proxies for IQ.

The Black single parent rate was quite low in the 1950’s when 80% of Black children lived with a mother and father. So single parenthood is not a genetic inevitability.

There are wealthy Black areas like Baldwin Hills and Ladera Heights that reportedly have low crime rates. They are the opposite of rundown, slummy, blighted, dangerous Hellholes. Apparently if you get a lot of wealthy Blacks in one place, they can create a well-functioning metropolis.

However, in general, it seems that not a whole lot can be done to ameliorate the Black problems and discrepancies below. This is why most of the people talking about such things resort to extreme solutions such as bringing back Jim Crow and legal discrimination or forming a separate White state.

They advocate such extreme solutions because those are the only real ways to deal with the problems below. The problem here is that the solution is immoral. Immoral solutions are not acceptable no matter the problem.

Now we will look at why there is little point harping on and on about these discrepancies unless you can do something about it. If you don’t have even a partial solution to a problem, why talk about it?

Why Bother Writing about “Racist Facts?”

If there’s no solution, and if writing about this just gets me called racist, makes Blacks and liberals hate me, and stimulates a lot of White racism, why bother to write about this stuff unless I want to use these facts as a stick to beat Black people with? See what I mean? That’s why I don’t bother often to write about these things. I write about them once in a while, but I don’t like to harp on and on about them.

What’s the point? There’s no way to fix them, and all writing about them does is cause a lot of bad vibes, exacerbate hostility and racism in society, and make even more people hate me. Why do it?

Now we will look at the absolutely awful rejoinders that the liberal/Left uses as rejoinders against “racist facts.”

Bad Arguments Used by the Left to Counter “Racist Facts”

Nevertheless, the Left still has no arguments or very poor arguments for all of the facts below. I would like to point out first of all that the Left gets away with calling all of the above facts racist because they say they are lies. So we need to determine if these are lies or not. If they’re not lies, then the facts below are not racist. How can you have racist facts? It’s weird.

Even things like “Black schools tend to perform more poorly,” they will say is a lie because it’s a generalization. They will say, “Lots of Black students do very well in school, so that’s a racist lie!” This argument is a logical fallacy, but never mind. The rest of the allegations, they will just say they are not true.

I will list the previously stated facts below along with the bad arguments that the liberal/Left uses to try to refute them. I would like to point out that all of these liberal/Left rejoinders are very bad arguments. All are illogical or do not even attempt to counter the original statement. And in general, they rely in a huge way on all sorts of logical fallacies.

  •    Black people are less intelligent than Whites as measured accurately by IQ tests. They will say that’s a lie. However, it is simply a 100% fact. It’s not even 1% controversial.
  •     Black people impose considerable costs on society. They will say that’s a lie or White people impose costs on society too, so therefore the statement is a lie. This is factually true. Black people per capita impose much greater costs on society than other races.
  •     Your average Hispanic has an IQ of 90. They will say that’s a lie. But this is a straight up pure scientific fact. There’s no debate about that figure either. It’s accepted across the board.
  •     Blacks commit 6X more crime than Whites. They will either say that’s a lie, or it’s due to poverty (which means it’s still true) or that Whites commit just as much crime except they commit corporate crime. Those are all very bad arguments. First of all it is true. Second of all it’s not due to poverty. West Virginia is the poorest state in the country and it has the second lowest crime rate. The kicker? It’s almost all White. As far as corporate crime, so what? Does it effect you personally? Anyway it goes on constantly no matter who’s in power and there’s no way to reduce it. Since it’s always at the same level, isn’t it a good idea to lower street crime then? Are individuals truly and obviously harmed by corporate crime the same way they are by street crime? I say no. When I am walking in a shady neighborhood at midnight, and there is a guy in a suit and tie walking behind me, I will not start running away because I’m afraid he’s about to violate a health and safety code. Get it?
  •     Blacks are 13% of the population but commit over half the violent crime. They will say that’s a lie, or resort to the poverty non-argument, or talk about Whites and corporate crime, imperialism, or White historical crimes like settler-colonialism or slavery. But it’s true. And White settler-colonialism, slavery, and whatever is all in the past. Imperialism doesn’t affect Americans. Corporate crime is always at high levels, but it doesn’t effect people much at the micro level in a brutal way like Black crime does. Anyway, Blacks commit white collar crime at levels much higher than Whites do anyway, so if corporations were run by Blacks, corporate crime would be vastly worse.
  •     Large cities with high percentages of Black people tend to be slummy, dangerous, rundown, blighted hellholes. They will ask you to define those terms, say there are nice areas in all of those cities, say it is due to discrimination (which means it’s still a fact), or say White cities are slummy too. The terms are obvious. So what if there are nice parts of those towns? Does that obviate the places like look like they just got leveled in a WW2 bombing run? Discrimination doesn’t cause heavily Black cities to turn into slummy, dangerous, rundown, blighted hellholes. You know what causes those cities to be like that? Black people. Black people created those cities in precisely that way of their own free chosen will for whatever reason. There are almost no slummy White cities in the US. Haven’t seen one yet and I’ve been all over.
  •     Blacks tend to be more impulsive than Whites. They will say that’s a lie and demand evidence. Never mind the candy bar test originally done in the Caribbean and redone in the US and elsewhere in the Caribbean now replicated ~15 times. These tests showed conclusively that at least Black children are vastly more impulsive than White children at off the charts rates. And it has to be genetic. Those kids were only six years old.
  •     80% of Black kids are born to a single mother. They will say that’s because of racism or because Whites took all the jobs away. Neither of those things are true. This is true because so many Black men of their own free will refuse to stick around and take care of their kids for whatever reason. I’m not sure why this is but this behavior is also very common in the Caribbean and Africa, so maybe there’s a genetic tendency, no idea.
  •     Many Black men do not stick around and take care of their children. Same thing. Racism makes them do it, or Whites stole all the jobs. Neither of those things are true. Black men do this, it’s a fact, they do it far more than other races, and they do it of their own free will for whatever reason.
  •     Most prison rape is Black on White. Almost none is the other way around. They will say it’s a lie and demand proof. Or they will bring up some weird case of a White raping a Black and say it’s a lie because Whites rape Blacks too. Those are terrible rejoinders. Black men rape White men in prisons all the time. White men almost never rape Black men in prisons. Those are facts. Those Black men in prisons rape those White men of their own free will at insanely disproportionate rates for whatever reasons they have to do that.
  •     Blacks have quite high rates of STD’s. They will say Whites get STD’s too or it’s due to poverty or racism (which means it’s still true). Whites get STD’s at much lower rates than Blacks. Black STD rates have nothing to do with poverty or racism. Who knows what causes it but Blacks are far more promiscuous than Whites on average, so there’s a clue.
  •     Heavily Black schools tend to perform poorly. First they will say it’s not true, then they will say it’s due to poverty and racism. It’s not due to poverty or racism. There is a considerable intelligence gap between Blacks and Whites on average. This average lower intelligence would be expected produce poorly performing schools.
  •     Blacks tend to be poorer than Whites at postponing instant gratification. See the candy bar studies. Liberals reject all of those candy bar studies as flawed even though they have been replicated 15 times. And they were done with little six year old children, so there’s little cultural influence. And many were done in the Caribbean, where there is zero racism against Blacks.
  •     One of the main reasons so many Blacks get shot by police is because they commit so much crime. They will say that Whites commit crime too. Sure, but they don’t commit nearly as much! Unarmed Whites are more likely to get killed by police than unarmed Blacks, so Black Lives Matter is based on a fraud, and obviously the high rates of Black killings by police are simply due to Blacks committing six times as much crime.
  •     Black people tend to be louder than White people. They will say that Whites are loud too and bring up some example of loud White people. Ever taught in a Black school? Ever taught in a White school? Hispanic school? Asian school? Pacific Islander (Filipinos and Samoans) school? I have taught all of those races of students countless times over many years. Blacks are much louder than any of those groups. It’s most horrifically noticeable in primary and junior high, but it can still be heard in 9th grade and even up to 10th grade. 11th and 12th grade Black schools even in the heart of the ghetto are rather subdued because all the bad ones are either dropped out and on the streets, in juvenile hall, or dead.

Is Political Correctness Valued More Than Factual Correctness in Quora?

Answered on Quora:
Absolutely. Most of the time my answers have been flagged as violations of “Be Nice, Be Respectful,” I was simply reporting things that were 100% factual, in my opinion. Or at least reasonable opinions that almost any intelligent, rational and unbiased person would realize are factual. Did you hear that?
Almost all of my warnings have been from posting facts! Inconvenient facts, yes, but facts nonetheless. You see PC is based on the idea that if the truth offends you, it’s not true. So all facts that are offensive to PC people, including a vast range of common knowledge, common sense and even science, are deemed racist, sexist, homophobic and transphobic lies.
Apparently:

  • The truth is racist.
  • The truth is sexist.
  • The truth is homophobic.
  • The truth is transphobic.

Not only that, but PC people will try to destroy anyone who reports and inconvenient or unpleasant fact that violates the PC Commissars’ version of truth.
As far as philosophy goes, PC people’s versions of truth and falsehood are pretty interesting from a philosophical POV. I wonder how many famous philosophers would agree with the PC nation that:

  • Truth: That which does not offend me and is true
  • Falsehood: That which is not true or is true but offends me.

I would think almost all of the world’s most famous philosophers would reject that definition.

As an Exceptionally/Profoundly Gifted Person (IQ 146+), What Are Your Thoughts on Derrida, Foucault, and Lacan?

Answered on Quora.
Thanks for the A2A. I am familiar with all three.
Lacan is completely full of it. Not only that, he was a fraud who ripped off his clients. He may have ripped off all of us with his nonsense.
Derrida is nonsensical too. He simply made no sense whatsoever. Apparently that is the idea.
Both men took modern philosophy off into postmodernism where nothing is true, so apparently nothing makes sense either. Most of their work is sheer nonsense or strings of incomprehensible or made-up words that sound important or intelligent but really are simply nonsensical.
Foucalt may be a bit more grounded, but I am not sure. I have not studied him enough. But I know some anti-postmodernists hate him and say he is full of crap.
I meet your intelligence qualifications, so it can’t be that I am too stupid to understand these charlatans. If I can’t understand them, I doubt if anyone can.
We need to get off the postmodernist nonsense train and back into the real world where things are supposed to be comprehensible and make sense.