Polar Bear: Yesterday at work, a Black woman defended a worthless Black and a woman with mental illness defended a guy with at least three mental illnesses. We all have biases, to see beyond them is rare. Men are more into truth and logic, parting the sea of emotion. Women are mostly swept away like ragdolls by the current in a flood of tears.
That’s tribal thinking. I don’t want to fall into that. I’ve often said about White nationalists that I can’t understand why the death of a White by a Black is more important to them than the death of a decent Black person by a Black. Why? Because they’re a member of my tribe? Did I know them? Did they do anything for me? They’d probably dislike me if I met them? Do I get a check from White Central Control every month so I should support all Whites? Why should I feel more for this guy just because he’s White. But he’s just like me! He’s White and I’m White! Goes the argument. And…?
This is supposed to be important or something? We’re not the same. He’s dead and I’m not. Why does his death diminish me more than the death of some good Black person? I just can’t fathom this type of thinking. Of course, being on the Left, I spent a lot of my time working my way out of tribal thinking. And I’ve always been a dissident and an iconoclast who was on the outs with mainstream opinion on most things. So I don’t care about peer pressure because I’m used to believing stuff that 80% of the world disagrees with.
Why Should I Believe Things That Aren’t Even True?
I dunno. Why should I believe something that’s not even true? I keep asking myself this over and over when I try to find out what actually happened, for good or for ill, for my side of the bad guys. I can’t think of any possible reason why I should believe lies about…much of anything! Everyone seems to be happy to, but it’s not for me.
Setting aside the metaphysical and religious where we all have our egoistic reasons to believe in what may well be falsehoods, and setting aside what one believes about oneself and society at large, I want to believe what’s true and disbelieve what’s not true. It’s ok to tell yourself as many lies as you have to about yourself and others to get along.
You may need to tell yourself enough lies to make it through the day without killing yourself, have a peaceful sleep, and look at yourself in the mirror in the morning without wanting to smash it. You may have to lie about others, saying they are wonderful when they are not, playing down their bad qualities, etc. You may have to lie about society by saying it’s the best of possible worlds when in fact your own life may be a shit sandwich to be swallowed whole, dammit! These are the prosaic, quotidian, metaphysical, social, personal, and religious aspects of life.
What I want to know the truth about is what I see on TV. The news, the facts, the everyday local, national, and political issues (in a word, Politics) that make our world go round. And in science too, I wish to know what is true and what is not true. Why should I believe a bunch of crap just because it makes me feel good or because I want my guys to be pure and the other guys to be evil? Forget it.
I’m not that weak! I can handle it if what I want to be true is not and vice versa. It’s ok. I can deal. I can handle it if my guys act bad and the other side acts good, although not too much please. But I support Assad in Syria and I’m the first to admit that he acts pretty damn bad. But this is what I wanted to know about him – precisely how bad he was and in which ways and what aspects of his purported evil were not true.
Believe it or not, the CIA does not want to believe any lies or so I have been told. There is what the CIA puts out for the masses, which is often a pile of the biggest steaming pile of crap you’ve ever seen. This is often put out via the media and the CIA itself even calls this material disinformation. The CIA people in charge of it know it’s all lies but they don’t care.
Then there is what the CIA puts out for itself. The CIA does not want to believe any crap or falsehoods about the world and the things it is analyzing. They have to know the truth, dammit! If you begin your analysis from a point of falsehood, your analysis is already flawed. And the CIA is all about proper analysis.
I’m on the Left, but I’m willing to acknowledge that leftwing regimes have done some pretty bad things. I support the Democrats, but I’m more than willing to acknowledge how awful they are. I’m a man, but I’m willing to acknowledge how generally awful we are as humans and how terribly we behave towards other humans (on the other hand, I still love being a man).
I’m White, but I’m willing to acknowledge that we Whites have treated non-Whites pretty terribly. I’m straight, but I acknowledge how homophobia has seriously harmed gays in the past. None of this is threatening to me. Why should it be. You have to know the dark side if you wish to walk in the light. By learning of the bad tendencies of Whites, men, straights, etc., I can see what I am vulnerable to and generally try to act in the opposite way. You can’t understand good until you understand evil and that they are two sides of the same coin.
Further, I don’t wish to be a hypocrite. Face it, humans are hypocrites. It’s just what we are, flat out, full stop, period. Perhaps we have to be this way. But hypocrisy seems to be one of the worst aspects of being human. There’s almost no way to justify it morally.
What will happen if my guys (the good guys) are losing and their guys (the bad guys) are winning? Nothing. The world will simply be a pile of shit, but I’m perfectly ok with that because that seems to be the dispensation for most of my life. I can be perfectly happy believing that the world is a pile of shit and that most people are complete idiots. Doesn’t mess up my day at all. I don’t need to believe that the world is some wonderful place for me to eke out some meager happiness in it.
Also, I’m used to depressing and disappointing things in my life. You might say it’s my life story. So when something lousy happens, it’s not a shock to me. It’s just the same old same old. That life often seems rather lousy is not that upsetting to me. I’ve felt this way forever. I simply try to escape from it by doing fun things all day so I can forget about all the lousiness. I focus on other things.
Just to show you how unbiased I am, on the Russian sites I am on, I am regarded as a pest and a troll because I often post things that go against the current narrative. The news de jour on those sites typically portrays Russian advances as much more advanced than I think they are. I chime in that no, we have not advanced that far at all. I share maps from viciously anti-Russian sites not because I like them but because I think they are accurate.
My brother often says, “Aha!” and thinks he wins arguments against me because I admitted that my side did something bad – lied, killed people, tortured people, acted horribly. According to my brother and most NPC’s, if you admit that your side did something bad, you automatically lost the argument because he will never admit that about his side.
Because my brother is a typical NPC. His side is pure good and the other side is pure evil. Anything that goes against that world view is “enemy propaganda.” He dismisses anything from the Left, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Belarus, Lebanon, Iraq, or China as automatically false if it doesn’t back up his views.
These are enemy nations and he rejects everything they say unless they make themselves look bad and his side look good, in which case they are somehow correct. Just about everyone is exactly like he is. Keep in mind that he has a 140+ IQ and a Master’s Degree. He’s also just about the most closed-minded person I’ve ever met, with the possible exception of my father, a Cold War liberal who also had a Master’s Degree.
Most Americans probably can’t even find Ukraine on a map. How do you expect them to be able to think critically about it?
Modern Humans Can’t Figure Out the Difference between Wants and Needs
What are you clowns going to do with all your shiny toys when you are dead, suckers? See? Materialistic accumulation is based on the fantasy that we live forever. Once it kicks in that your time is short, it starts to seem silly to work your ass off for a bunch of stuff you don’t even need. Americans are funny. “I need a second home…I need a four wheel drive…I need a bigger flat screen TV.” Or if your female, “I need a new outfit…I need some new makeup…I need a boyfriend who makes more money.”
Get out of here! You idiots don’t really need any one of these things. Another problem with materialistic accumulation aside from the grass is greener state or perennial envy, frustration and unhappiness that results when you are never quite keeping up with the always-increasing Joneses passing you in the fast lane is that it confuses wants with needs. You all fools want every one of those things above.
You don’t need any of them. What’s going to happen if you don’t get that bigger TV? Will you get sick? Will you starve? Will you die of thirst? Will you not be able to sleep? Will you lack for human company? Will you not be able to earn a living? Will you lack a roof over your head? Will you not be able to clothe yourself? Will you not be able to bathe? Will you truly lack peace of mind? And best of all, you gonna die?
None of these things are going to happen.
Your ego will sicken with humiliation, starve itself of affection, become thirsty with greed, pace the floors of its mind at night, isolate itself with shame and poverty, fail to provide for itself, wander adrift with a sense of homelessness, disrobe itself in poverty of pride and treasure, sully itself with the stain of immiseration, fidget and fuss to no end with envy, and finally, fake a suicide of the soul to try to force you to buy that damned needless TV!
The worst that will happen is your silly little ego (and it is silly and is small – very small – trust me) will suffer a petit mort, and not the fun kind, the kind called a narcissistic injury named after the child-like adult who suffers from it.
How many moderns can truly figure out the difference between wants and needs? How many people buy it by their own hand because they can’t afford that second home, that better car, that bigger flat screen. Who knows? Surely each one of is in vain, absurdly so.
There’s no place in rock and roll for sanctimonious twits or Neo-Puritans.
That’s why feminists and SJW’s cannot possibly be rockers. They’re too Goddamned sex-hating and uptight. On the other hand, the Puritanism of the SJW’s is simply the Feminine Principle in its pure form, which sadly includes a rather Puritanical element. You will never understand women until you figure out that this awful Puritanical element exists right alongside an attitude of the most debased and unhinged nymphomaniacal sexual degeneracy.
Women are nuns and whores, both at once, all of the time.
It’s a contradiction, but the entire Feminine Principle is based on contradiction, and most women walk around their whole lives with their minds wrapped in the most unholy contradiction. I don’t think it makes them miserable. In fact, I think they rather like it because it makes their lives wild, adventurous, and a bit dangerous and leads to “peak emotional experiences,” which are the end-all and be-all of female existence.
The SJW’s have simply adopted modern feminism’s complete abandonment of sexual liberation in favor of the worst most Victorian sexual repression, inhibition, Puritanism, and sex-hatred. Of course they only hate heterosexual sex, and they only hate it when men do it, not when women do, but that’s an essential contradiction of the Feminine Principle itself also.
No society should ever cave in to the Feminine Principle and give women everything they want. The female utopia is a dystopia for men, always and everywhere at all times. This is because the Feminine Principle is in many ways objectively irrational. I would argue that the Masculine Principle is probably pretty irrational too, but I don’t study men. We sure commit a Hell of a lot of aggression and violence, such that we are nearly a plague upon existence itself. Whatever good we men do hardly outweighs that.
SJWism is what happens when a group of people caves in to the Feminine Principle completely and resolves to run the world on the basis of female values, always a catastrophic error.
Now, women argue that societies run on pure male values are not real great for women, and in a lot of places, they seem to be correct. This just shows that the Masculine and Feminine Principles are both fucked up and irrational and terrible for the opposite sex in their pure form, which is a zero sum game of “everything for our sex and nothing for yours.”
Notice how SJW’s act like babies? See how they run to Human Relations every time someone looks at them wrong? These are people who never grew up and never want to grow up. Running to Human Relations to fix the owie and kiss it and make it better is like a child running to Mommy when they falls and hurt themselves. Can he fix it on his own? Of course not. He has to run to Mommy to fix it.
Notice how SJW’s throw a tantrum every time someone says something even 1% offensive, no matter if it is factual or not, as SJWism bans a huge array of facts about humanity on the grounds that they are “hate facts.” This is what a child does. Every time a child runs into a frustration or an obstacle, he throws a goddamned tantrum because he hasn’t yet learned to solve his own problems and remove obstacles in his way.
And it’s no secret that most women want to be children their whole lives. Why shouldn’t they? Children are always protected because they are too weak to protect themselves, and this is how women see themselves – as always needing outside protection. When women are given license to the be the “forever children” of their utopian dreams, every crazy thing they do is excused: “She couldn’t help it, she’s just a child.” And nothing is ever their fault because children are never at fault because they don’t know better.
The woman is always the most responsible teenager in the house.
– Arthur Schopenhauer
All of these victim groups of SJW’s wish to be children forever. The lure of perpetual indulgence and total impunity for behavior is too strong for most humans to resist.
It’s anti-Nietzschean, but so what? Nietzsche himself said most of us want the easy way out. And it’s a rare human who is so in control of their lives and un-childlike (completely grown up) that he is fully in charge of his existence without resorting to victimhood or lack of responsibility. The task of the Ubermensch is a tough one, and few have what it takes. For those who do, though, there’s no higher calling.
Good old post getting comments. I reiterated in a post today that I don’t hate good people who simply aren’t real sharp. That’s no fault of their own. We are all God’s children and we are at his mercy when it comes to handling out whatever gifts or handicaps He so cavalierly distributes among us. I know some pretty dumb people on Facebook, and I talk to them sometimes. They are a bit hard to talk to, but they are nice enough anyway.
But I really, really hate lack of wisdom, which is it seems like 95% of the population has at least about some things. I hate moral panics and mass hysterias. They’re ridiculous! How could you admit with a straight face that you are so stupid that you are caught up in a moral panic? I would be so embarrassed.
But as far as my haters go and all these people trying to figure me out, the take-home point is that I’m pretty much of a misanthrope and I think you’re all a bunch of idiots! Definitely my haters. They’re pure morons, every one of them. I almost hate them more for being stupid than for being haters. And if you study my life and my writing, you will see this theme – “You are all idiots!” repeated over and over, so it’s sort of the theme of my life.
Once you figure out that Lindsay thinks people are basically stupid goddamned fools, you will finally be onto me. “Lindsay thinks we are all idiots.” Bingo! There ya go. You got me. Another thing about my haters is they peg me wrong, but your haters will always do that if you are halfway decent because if they were objective about you, they wouldn’t have an argument to hate you. In order to hate you, they must distort you. Actually that’s a good thing to remind yourself if you are dealing with haters. The only reason they hate you is because they distort you. The only way they can hate you is to distort who you really are.
One of my haters on Reddit said a while back,
“Lindsay styles himself as this radical individualist type. On the other hand, maybe he’s just a weirdo. I think he’s just a weirdo.”
Well, fine, but at least one of my haters figured me out. I do see myself as a radical individualist type who deliberately takes unpopular decisions to portray bravery. I also take unpopular views because I like to show that what everyone believes is common knowledge is often a bunch of total horseshit. I like the “society is full of shit and is filling your head with lies” view. That’s sort of the purpose of this site – to write about very thing.
I’m pretty disgusted by humans. I don’t even really like them. Actually, I hate to admit it but I am a misanthrope. And I hate to say it even more, but the majority at least here in the US deserve every bit of my hatred. I hate them because they are stupid, and stupidity itself is a little bit dangerous by its very nature, so they frighten me.
They’re idiots. I hate idiots. Actually they’re worse than idiots. They’re dangerous idiots, and that’s the worst kind of idiot of all. So, yeah, I hate most Americans because they are goddamned dangerous idiots who threaten my peace of mind, well-being, reputation, and maybe even ability to earn a living.
If you study people with very high IQ’s around my range and up, you will see that they almost all feel this way. Worse, as IQ rises, misanthropy seems to rise in tandem just like clockwork. On Quora they often had people asking questions for people with certain IQ ranges. It was one of the only places you could talk like this because IQ is a very taboo subject in the US. The question would be, “People with IQ’s over 140, what you do think about bla bla bla?”
One thing I noticed is that once people got above 140, they seemed more and more misanthropic. And it was all tied up with the idea that they thought people were idiots. “I feel like I’m surrounded by retards!” was a comment I saw over and over. I suppose it just goes with the territory when you get up into that high of a range.
Above IQ 160, it’s not to find a complete misanthrope. They hate people because they think people are stupid. And to them, most people are stupid. Check out the classic article, The Outsiders about people, mostly men, who had IQ’s of over 160. Most of them were not in very good shape. They were typically unmarried and worked at low paying jobs or even lived in poverty, and tended to dwell alone in apartments. Lack of girlfriends or wives and even out and out celibacy was very common. They were all thoroughly disgusted by having to live in a “world full of retards” as they see it.
When you are up here in the stratosphere, every people with average intelligence almost seem literally retarded. It’s disgusting but you feel bad about it for hating them and keep beating yourself up and trying to be nice to them and turn off the misanthropy. Which can be done.
But when it comes to close friendships or meaningful relationships, about 30 IQ points is the limit. If someone is 30 IQ points above or below you, you will have a very hard time communicating. Some say that meaningful communication is either very difficult or even impossible. Yes, you can become friends, but it will be quite difficult. Leaders who have IQ’s 30+ IQ points above those below them are poor leaders. Their underlings don’t listen to them, and rebellions are common.
The best leaders are not geniuses. The best leaders for White people would have an IQ below 130. Above that and you will not be able to connect with your followers.
Shetland: Fascinating perspective. Heck, I clock in with a modest IQ of 115, and I often feel like I am surrounded by complete dolts. I cannot even imagine what it must be like at IQ 140+.
Do you have any strengths in say, verbal or mathematical? One of my smartest commenters had an IQ of 115. It would be very hard for me to say that I am smarter than he is. He later told me he had a verbal IQ of 135 and was weak in math, and then it all added up.
Some of my smartest commenters had IQ’s of 117, 123. One had an IQ of 108! One of my clients has an IQ of 123, and he seems like he’s smarter than I am.
My basic attitude towards the world is that it is full of morons and idiots. By that I mean they lack wisdom, but sadly, absent a significant IQ, wisdom is hard to obtain. Even the wiser people with lower IQ’s often succumb to emtionality and emotional logic. I hate to say but emotion is the enemy of wisdom. It’s great to feel things, but emotion distorts reality and causes you to take irrational positions that make no sense at all simply because you’re so upset about them.
Also emotion prevents cognitive dissonance. I walk around with cognitive dissonance 24-7 because to me that’s simply the natural state of the world of man. Things don’t really make a whole lot of sense and we often have to take some pretty weird and even contradictory positions just to accept some weird truth about the world. I simply do not wish to believe falsehoods about the world, outside of my own personal life of course. I want to believe that truth about everything. Why should I wish to believe crap and lies about anything at all? I don’t get it.
I don’t mind good people who just aren’t real smart. One of my best friends has an IQ of 92, but we can talk about most things. In part because he has spent his life filling up his brain with facts and ideas. For example, he’s very well-read. So it’s not so much the gift that God gave you, it’s also what you do with it.
One problem that good people who aren’t real smart are not real common, at least in men. Lower IQ seems to be mean declining moral values in a lot of people, especially men. I’m not sure why that is, but it’s not a very encouraging thing to believe about us humans. I also can’t handle people who can’t think beyond the next 24-48 hours, and I see that all the time when IQ’s get down around the 80’s. I’m not saying they are bad people. They just drive me nuts is all.
On the other hand, I live with someone with an IQ of 145 who is one of the stupidest people I know. In part this is because he’s mentally ill, but he also has a pure shit Cluster B personality (“Asshole Personality Disorder”) to go along with it. His behaves with blatant irrationality day in and day out in my own house and it drives me nuts. I guess ultimately it might be rather harmless, but I just can’t handle people acting irrationally all day, even in rather harmless (but annoying) ways. Mostly, it’s just totally fucking stupid!
Great comment here by Francis Miville. I’ll let you read it and do whatever you want with it.
Unfortunately, I think you are very mistaken. First piece of bad news: Christianity did NOT start as a religion more compassionate than the Judaism it stemmed from. Turning the other cheek clearly applied only within the fold considered, so as loving one’s enemies.
In Latin (and also in Greek and Aramaic) there are two words to mean an enemy: inimicus which means the guy you really don’t like from within your group or circle of direct acquaintances and who doesn’t like you, and hostes which means those from the hostile world outside your fold, no matter they are actually unfriendly or seem friendly.
Right from the very beginning of the Christian phenomenon to a very recent historical era, you were NOT supposed to befriend the presumed enemies from without, which formed the greater mankind you were not even supposed to pray for by command from Jesus himself: humanity at large is a hostile and damned entity and the community of the truly saved are numerically negligible. Right from the very beginning of Christianity you had far more actual friendships to cancel than new ones to enter so as to become a good Christian.
Early Christianity took wholesale the rightmost Jewish doctrine of then very few Jews actually applied or believed in to that point, and gave an even more restrictive definition of the in-group which namely asked the elect not only to combat actual sins of the kind the pagans committed but thoughts: free thought was the original sin you had to renounce first to.
The thinking was now onwards the church authority’s job and no longer yours. Jesus himself referred to the Jewish fold as his only reference, and he admitted converts from outside Judaism more reluctantly than most Jews then did.
Later on, it appeared that the boundaries of the Christian fold were becoming less and less ethnic in nature and more and more ideological, but that movement was not at all one of greater opening of heart to the outside world Vatican II style.
Quite the contrary, it was made up of more intolerance and exclusivism: the Replacement Theology that prevailed just stipulated that since so many Jews had fallen, the empty places would be taken by the required number of individuals from without but that the overall structure of the chosen people would not change from what it was when the OT was written and that the proportion of that chosen people relatively to humanity would not change neither, that is to say about one to a thousand or even less.
But even then, inter-ethnic and interracial opening were not valued at all, just tolerated at a minimum rate for the new fold to grow when the ethnic community of departure proved too hard to convert: you had to remain in the ethnic group you were born in according to the flesh, as well as in the social class you were born it.
Early Christianity very stringently prohibited all upward social mobility in the fashion of rightmost Judaism and Hinduism with a supplementary touch of intolerance. Racial prejudices were never to be combated: you had to believe in the inequalities generally admitted by all and consider them as divinely-willed. You could not as a born-again Christian go yourself towards other cultures and ethnic groups, even already Christianized ones unless you were mandated to do so as a missionary by the whole church organization.
The Law was not abolished (only Saint Paul held a discourse that seemed very liberating in this regard in the wording’s appearance only, because he was a disciplinarian of the strictest kind in practice; the other apostles and early Church fathers just called for the same law plus far more stringent restrictions): you had to renounce to know about the Jewish law and leave the knowledge of its application and implementation to the authority above you and it was nearly always in the direction of more, not less restriction.
The main fear was that by interpreting the Mosaic Law by yourself you would grant yourself too many indulgences.
For instance separating meat and dairy in the kitchen was not of your concern because meat along all luxury food items would be prohibited to you except for two or three days a year maybe where you would be given some cooked by others. What was feared if you knew too much about the law was your feeling of personal sovereignty over your life.
It must be noted that up to the times of the American and French Revolutions, conversion to Christianity was even more difficult and less easily accorded to neophytes and necessitated more time of preparation than entering most Jewish folds. Only the Jesuits had become to make the process somewhat shorter and more amicable and even then they ended up being outlawed for that very reason.
In sociobiological terms the turn the other cheek attitude was not one of humanism at all but of group solidarity against the outer world : you had to sacrifice yourself and all your whims and preferences for the survival of the community (both the religious one and the ethnic one) not by compassion for the human kind: that was considered perverted in the near-sexual sense.
It was Darwinian minus the Theory of Evolution. Christianity is more strictly incompatible with Communism than any other religion, though it is also as strictly incompatible with economic liberalism of any kind.
Judaism is by its principle far less opposite, as it has actually shown to be with fits and starts at various times in history, until the advent of late established Zionism by which Jews have but very little to identify themselves as Jews with but the existence of Israel on the map, which happens to be a fascist state since about 1967-73. Jews however racist or snobbish towards their non-Jewish contemporaries were often encouraged otherwise to think that in the future it would be otherwise, as the whole human kind would be Jewish at last.
In traditional Christianity such a hope is to be forgone as a main heresy : humanity at large will always be wicked, and it has no future but to persecute the last saints at the end of the world before being itself destroyed by fire, and all humanistic doctrines challenging that Christian anti-humanistic pessimism were to be interpreted as Jewish booby traps set up in the intention of robbing money or achieving a future world dictatorship.
What must be noted is that Christianity is in principle a religion with Love as a fruit but NOT a religion of love: it is by its own NT definition a religion of the discourse (logos), of the preached word you have to submit to unconditionally by renouncing to all personal ideas with an intolerance towards whomever tempts you in contrary direction to be as directly as possible imitated from OT.
Love in the Christian sense is better thought of as care: though that care is for fellow Christians or potential Christians, and even more eternal truths approaching you from God, never humans as such and even less humanity or anything intended towards the good of the latter such as social or technical progress.
Though it is the main theological virtue, is only conditional and instrumental to the process of salvation brought about by submission to the divine Logos, which is NOT the Logos as defined by Athenian philosophy as accessible through reasoning, discussion, and exchange of ideas: for traditional Christianity as was crystallizing right after the first Resurrection news, Satan is free discussion in person, the element of air.
The fact that now Judaism has become more difficult, intolerant and anti-humanistic (even though it was always so to a certain good degree) than Christianity which seems now to be sentimentally humanistic (but that impression it gives is very recent: it started with Anglican Latitudinarianism in the 1680-1730’s, continued with Dickens’ and Victor Hugo’s literary approach and was finalized about 1960 with Vatican II), testifies to the exceptionally inverted times we are witnessing, which could be apocalyptic, though this is far, far from certain.
The only sign pointing towards that direction among many others that still lack is the Jews having gone back to Israel, but it may well be a misfire as many Jewish scriptures and admonition by sages clearly state that the Jews will have to make no specific effort and even less any move of conquest to get back to their point of departure as divinely intended: otherwise they are due for a splendid defeat and maybe a few other millennia of Diaspora or the realization that they have never been Jews at all actually.
Among the numerous other apocalyptic syndromes, clearly lacking are general abandonment of Christianity by humanity: this is true only for the Modern West which now comprises less than 10%;, elsewhere in the world, it is a faith in greater expansion than ever, conquering deep Africa and just starting to bite into Asia.
But conversion of the Jewish fold to Jesus’ teaching as it is abandoned by all other peoples: we are further from that point than ever. The most probable immediate outcome, if we are to believe the best-established narrative, is as a kind of harsh retribution by the jilted Christian God, a military conquest of most of Europe by Islam as it happened earlier with the Christian nations of the former Middle East and Byzantine Empire, while other parts of the world become more Christian and also more prosperous while the West turns into a kind of Iraq-Syria.
A lesser but important syndrome to watch before any true apocalypse can happen is the Jews losing their whole financial fortune to return to the exact lifestyle they had in Antiquity as well as all former Christian countries losing all their political power and scientific knowledge once they have given up believing.
This will be probably true for the US quite soon (my opinion is that the US brand of “Christianity” is the religion most contrary to Christianity ever devised, rather a kind of Jewier than Jew Noachidism for Jesus that could jettison Jesus at once as soon as Israel stringently asks for all pilgrims to go to Jerusalem), but once it has happened, it will turn out to have been a numerically negligible part of the world, setting a very negative example not to imitate for millennia to come maybe.
A commenter in the private group told about how the husband of a woman she knows got arrested for child porn and now he’s on a sex offender list. Apparently he was talking to one or more underage teenage girls online, and I guess they were sending pics back and forth and his wife found out and turned him in. It’s not really child porn to me. To me the only child porn is the yucky stuff with little children and adults. Gross. A teenage girl looks like a woman. Most men like to look at videos and photos of naked women either posing or doing sexual things. Videos or photos of teenage girls doing the same things probably wouldn’t look much different.
There is a technically illegal video up on the web. Some porn company in Florida shot it. A 15 year old girl lied about her age to do the shoot. It has stayed up on the web for some reason. I think they said 25 million people have watched it so far, so I wasn’t really worried. It was just typical porn, nothing too weird. The odd thing was that if I did not know that girl was 15, there is no way I would think she’s underage. She didn’t look 1% different from a lot of the young 18-19 year old girls in porn, and there are lots of them.
On the other hand, society doesn’t want us men looking at that stuff and it doesn’t want us men to exchange dirty photos and videos with underage teenage girls. The fact that it’s pretty normal behavior is irrelevant. Most crime is probably normal in the sense that it’s not nuts or crazy. We dislike crime not because it’s nuts or crazy but because we think it’s wrong, bad, evil, on and on. It’s a right and wrong, good and bad societal morals thing.
Society has a right to whatever reasonable morals it wishes to have, and not allowing adult men collect or trade pics with minor girls is a legitimate moral value for a society to have. Same with age of consent laws. Society has a right to put the age of consent for sex wherever it wants, anywhere from 14 in much of Europe to 18 in US federal law.
If people tried to set it higher than 18, I’d get mad because now society would be acting ridiculous. Below a certain age, different societies, states, nations, do not want us men messing around sexually with those girls. The fact it’s a normal aspect of male sexuality is irrelevant. As noted above, lots of “normal” behavior is against the law not because it’s nuts because it’s wrong. Society happens to think sex with men and girls below a certain age is wrong. We live in society. The age of consent in my state is 18 and I’m perfectly happy to obey that law and I have since age 21.
I think the AOC here is too high and it’s silly, but I still have to deal with society’s morals. If I violate society’s morals because I think they’re stupid, I might go to jail because society has decided that a lot of what it considers immoral, wrong, bad, or evil behavior should be against the law. This is why we have criminal codes.
I don’t have a lot of sympathy for older guys going down on these stat rape crimes, though the sentences are bizarre, absurd, and almost cruel and unusual. I look at a guy like that and I think, “What an idiot. He knew it was against the law but he did it anyway all because he couldn’t control himself.” There are a lot of stupid things you can do that might land you in jail. The solution is not to do stupid shit that might put you behind gay bars.
About “Child Porn” Involving Teenage Girls
First of all, there has to be “lascivious display of the genitalia” or she has to be engaging in some sort of sexual behavior. Just nudity doesn’t cut it. If she’s standing naked in front of a mirror it’s probably legal. If she has her top off and is flashing her tits, it’s probably legal. Nevertheless, I still probably would not want to have that stuff on my drive, legal or not.
The crazy “child porn” laws change all the time and the definition of “child porn” increasingly whatever the Hell the FBI thinks it is at that moment. I think a lot of these convictions where people thought they were obeying the law but went down on this stuff anyway should be vacated. You can’t have vague laws that nobody knows the definition of. You can’t have crimes where the definition of the crime is always changing so you never really know if you’re breaking the law or not.
Nudist photos are legal. There are nudist sites all over the Net with adults and kids of all ages strolling around naked in the woods, at beaches, at pools. All perfectly legal.
As far as getting arrested for that stuff, you have to either know she was underage and you saved the material anyway (as in she told you how old she was) or else, looking at the material, there’s no way she could possibly be 18. If she doesn’t tell you her age and she could plausibly be 18, it’s basically legal.
I’ve had underage teenage girls come to me several times over the years wanting to trade pics with me. They tended to be 15-17. I’m not going to say what happened other than I ain’t keeping that crap on my drive. It’s probably also a bad idea to send nudes to those girls. I know they ask for them. You’ll probably get away with it, but you might not. I doubt if it’s worth it.
Most of the recent ones came to me on Kik. I was in some Younger Women for Older Men groups on Kik. I guess they see my pic in the members and decide to come talk. One came to me recently on Kik. A really hot 15 year old girl came to me a couple of months ago and wanted to trade pics. You show me yours and I’ll show you mine. If she’s talking like that, good chance she’s not a cop because cops don’t send out pics. I knew she was 15, so told her I was afraid to do it because it was illegal, and she took off just like that. I felt like a pussy but at least I didn’t break the law.
Sometimes they just pop up and send me a pic with some text and then go away. I had one pop up recently and send me a message, “Me Daddy.” She’s nude standing in front of a mirror. I doubt it was CP. She was really hot. I tried to talk to her to ask her how old she was, but she went away. I looked at it for a while and concluded that while she was definitely on the young side, she could plausibly be 18, so I kept it. Really any 15-17 year old girl could plausibly be 18, so unless they can prove that you knew her age, it’s basically legal.
Below 15, things get really touch and go. Nudes and videos with 13 year old girls (or what look like them) just look “way too young.” How do I know? I’ve seen some that look to be about that age. And I ain’t putting any of that garbage on my drive either. When they’re that young, the stuff just looks illegal. Some idiot sent me a pic in a private chat son Kik the other day. I have no idea how old she was, but she was a young teenage girl, and I just got that “way too young” vibe off it. I didn’t save it and I blocked him right away. I was a bit pissed that he sent me that crap.
97% of all CP convictions are for material with minors under 13 having actual sex with adults. In other words, the really bad stuff. There are a ton of people collecting that – so many that there’s no way they can keep up with all of them. There are so many adult men collecting pics and videos of teenage girls 15-17 years old that the cops don’t have the time to waste going after those people, so most of these cases are ignored.
If they went after all the men who have teen stuff on their drives, the cops wouldn’t have time to do anything else, and they still wouldn’t make a dent in it. In the Black Cat Scans case (which was creepy stuff but the girls wore clothes) that site had 25 million unique visitors. That shows you how many men are looking at that stuff. The cops are going to arrest 25 million men? Really? That shows you the scope of the problem. The cops have to triage.
I’ve been in some Kik groups that were literally set up by underage girls themselves. I think one was 13 (but didn’t look it) and the other was 16. They just like to talk to grown men for whatever reason and they want the chat clean. I’ll stay in there a bit but it starts to get a bit boring. Just some silly teenage girl talking about how school went that day or how she needs to lie down and take a nap. It’s more boring than anything else. They want the chat clean.
If you start talking about sex in there, they often shut the conversation down. And they don’t want dick pics. Some idiots send dick pics and the girls just throw them out of the room. I’m not sure what their agenda is except both are always posting cheesecake sexy photos of themselves in bathing suits or whatever. I think maybe they want to post sexy pics of themselves to get attention from men.
Every now and then, some joker posts something illegal in the group. Someone did a couple of months ago, a video. The girl running the group just said, “Way too young” and threw the guy out. It was a video of a couple of teenagers having sex, but there was no way that girl was 18, so it was illegal. I got the impression that the girl and her boyfriend made this video themselves and then put it on the web. I am hearing that more and more teens are taking porn videos of themselves when they’re having sex. It’s illegal but I doubt if they care, and 98% of them will never get caught.
Also there’s a lot of porn out nowadays that’s not just “barely legal” but they specifically choose adult women with childlike features and bodies so they look like underage teen girls. I think it’s lame myself because as far as females go, whatever the Hell age they are, I want them to look like a woman, not a girl. If she’s 15 and looks like a woman, she’s hot in my book. If she’s 18 and looks underage because she’s so childlike, I’m almost uncomfortable and creeped out by it.
I remember once I was having sex with this 18 year old Korean girl I picked up in LA. I’m not going to say what sort of sex we were having, but she had this curious delight about her her and she was looking at my cock with her eyes down right next to it like it was a cobra that was charming her into a trance. She acted so much like a “kid” even though she was of age that it honestly creeped me out, and for a while I couldn’t get it up. But later I did and it was all good. I still didn’t want to repeat the experience, and that was the only time I saw her. I almost felt like a pedophile having sex with her, and she was a grown woman!
I think there should be lower penalties for “teen girl porn” because let’s face it, it’s not really CP. And all of the arguments they make against CP, including the main one – that it is the depiction of a crime or the depiction of the abuse of a child – totally fall apart when it comes to photos and videos of teen girls.
This is a comment from Bumface, a regular commenter from the UK. He’s a bit of a volatile fellow, but I’ve kept him around anyway because he’s also nice sometimes, and he can be interesting. I might as well point out right now that it is more than obvious to me that Bumface is a hebephile, that is, he is preferentially attracted to girls in the pubescent 11-14 age range.
However, the American Psychiatric Association has stated flat out that Hebephilia is not a mental disorder. They also said that it’s not even abnormal! The APA said that hebephiles who act on their feelings and have sex with girls in that range would in most countries be called criminals. So if you just have these thoughts, it’s nothing, but if you act on them, in most places, you would be a criminal.
I’ve done some research and hebephilic attractions are very common in men. In fact, 19% of all men are like Bumface – they are preferentially attracted to 11-15 year old girls! In most cases, they probably have a strong attraction to mature females too, and in that case, you can always suppress or repress your antisocial hebephilic urges and focus on your prosocial attraction to adult women.
I suspect this is what most such men do, and actually, I would advocate this for anyone in this category. Nevertheless, there are hebephiles who have no attraction to girls over 15! I’ve been on their forums. People post photos of 16 year old girls and the hebephiles start yelling, “Ew gross!…No grandmas!,” etc. It’s actually pretty hilarious. That doesn’t strike me as real normal behavior, but I’ll defer to the APA on this one.
I was just reading the hebephile forum for research interests, and there’s nothing illegal on there anyway. At any rate, going to those forums is no big deal. All open pedophile/hebephile forums are about half pedophile/hebephile haters cursing them and saying they’re going to prison and half pedophiles/and hebephiles. In other words, those forums have as many pedophile and hebephile haters as pedophiles and hebephiles.
For self-disclosure purposes, I’m actually a teleiophile. Teleiophiles are maximally attracted to mature females aged 16+. The vast majority of straight men are teleiophiles.
78% of men are teleiophiles, 19% are hebephiles, and 3% are pedophiles. It’s stunning how tens of millions of men in the US are so strongly attracted to very young girls! But perhaps it makes sense, right?
Everyone screams about men having sex with 13-15 year old girls and of course about men having sex with children under 13. Just reading around, there sure seem to be a lot of men engaging in this behavior. Perhaps a good explanation for why this sort of thing is so ubiquitous is that so many of us men have strong attractions to younger girls. Why do we do this all the time? Because young girls turn us on so much, that’s why! Seems like the best explanation for me.
I’m a teleiophile, although I’m also very attracted to 15 girls. As we go down from there, I start getting less interested, and it looks more and more like a “little girl” to me, and I’m not into that.
In particular, 13 and 14 year old girls have what I call “little girl faces,” or baby fat in their cheeks. I don’t like that. Among 15-17 year old girls, the more she looks and acts like a grown woman, the more attracted I am to her. The more she looks and acts like a kid, the less I’m attracted to her. I suspect that my desires are typical for teleiophilic men.
Given that 22% of my fellow men have preferential attractions to pretty young girls, I’m not going to get on the “pedophile”-hating bandwagon. To me this is a men’s rights issue. God or evolution has saddled us men with some pretty weird desires in terms of age. We men so afflicted cannot help feeling this way.
If we truly are going to “kill all pedophiles” as everyone recommends, we will have to kill 24 million men. I’m sorry, I’m not willing to condemn 24 million of my fine brothers to death just because a bunch of feminist screechers and moral hysterics demand it. I’m willing to let all these guys slide as long as they only remain thought criminals. If they molest little girls, they need to be incarcerated, as in many cases, the girls get harmed. Even where the girls are not harmed, I don’t wish to live in a society where men can molest little girls.
Since there is no evidence that a majority of girls are harmed over the long term by being molested, I have mostly an ethical, not psychologicalobjection to child molestation. However, many are still harmed anyway, so I do in part have a psychological objection because you might hurt the girl.
About men have sex with 13 year old girls, I mostly don’t like it, not for any particular reason except I think it’s gross and weird and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
About men having sex with 14-17 year old girls, I don’t see the harm if it’s consensual, and I have no problem at all with it if it is legal, but US society doesn’t agree with me and regards this behavior as morally objectionable to the extreme.
Societies have a right to have whatever reasonable morals they wish. They are free to encode these morals into laws as they see fit. We must live in society. If you break these laws, you might be incarcerated. I don’t like to see my brothers behind bars. I’ve always recommended to all my male readers that they don’t break the statutory rape laws wherever they live because you might end up behind bars.
I also strongly recommend all my readers not molest little girls (under 13) because to me it’s simply immoral behavior. You can also hurt the girl and end up “behind gay bars” yourself for a really long time.
Everything factual I stated above has been proven by science and is straight up scientific fact. Yet if you say it, it’s such a hate fact that you will have a lynch mob at your door screaming “Pedophile!” in ten minutes.
As you can see, my views on adult-teen and adult-child sex are more than reasonable. It’s beyond me why these views have made me into such a pariah. I’m not advocating anything bad.
On a final note, I don’t completely agree with much of Bumface’s hebephilia defense below. Nevertheless, I concur with him that hebephilia is not pathological or even abnormal for that matter.
Hello, I’ve been reading some evo-psych and sexology, and I’ve come across some things I think are very wrong. I just want to explain what I think is wrong about these ideas. Most of what I say will probably just be ignored by people in the field, but I’ll say it anyway.
I’ve often seen it claimed in the Evo-Psych literature that the best females for men to go for in ancestral times were those in their late teens at peak reproductive value. Many people just nod their heads in agreement with this claim without knowing that this is not really how it works in the real world. In primitive foraging societies the girls are actually married off quite a bit younger than that. Most girls are married off by the time they’re 16, so focusing on girls after that age would obviously not have been the best strategy.
In order to stand a chance at monopolizing the females’ reproductive lifespans, the best females to go for are those just prior the onset of their fertility, not after it, and this is what we see happening in primitive foraging societies. The girls are usually married off, and the men start having sex with them a few years before they become fertile.
By getting a female slightly before the onset of her fertility, you can guarantee she hasn’t been impregnated by any other males and still has all her reproductive years ahead of her. The price you pay for doing that is that you’re going to have to wait several years before she starts giving you offspring, but it’s not a big problem.
I’ve seen some Evo-Psychs claim that women about 20 would have been the best for long-term relationships in ancestral times. Now, this is completely out of touch with reality. Girls in foraging societies usually start reproducing before they’re 20, so what these Evo-Psychs are saying is that the best females to go for would have been those that are already married off and up the duff by some other man in the tribe. Complete nonsense.
The best females to go for would have been those that weren’t yet married or starting to reproduce. The typical age of a girl’s first pregnancy in foraging societies is about the mid to late teens, so men would do best by aiming for girls under that age. If focusing on 20 yr olds is such a winning strategy, then how come we don’t see men in foraging societies using it?
Instead, we see girls get married off much younger than that, and it’s certainly not 20 yr olds that sell for the highest price in bride markets. It’s usually girls much younger than that. In a recent study into child marriage in Tanzania, they found that girls about 13 were selling for over double the price of 20 yr olds. If these Evo-Psychs are going to keep on ignoring real-world data like this, then they can’t call themselves proper scientists.
In his paper arguing that hebephilic preferences are maladaptive, Blanchard claimed that taking on pubescent wives would not be a workable strategy since you’d have to wait a few years before they’d start reproducing, but this argument is just more nonsense that ignores real-world data. We know the strategy works fine because we see it working.
It’s common practice in foraging societies for men to marry girls several years before they reach reproductive age. The most common age is about 14, but that’s only the age they’re officially married. The relationship often begins several years before that.
Sure, the men have to wait a few years before they start getting offspring from their wives, but it isn’t much of a problem and is easily outweighed by the advantages of getting a female who is guaranteed to have all her fertile years ahead of her. If it was as big a problem as Blanchard claimed, then it wouldn’t have become common practice to marry girls that young.
12 yo girls in HG societies on average live into their 50s, so claims that your 12 yo wife may die before she starts giving you offspring are more nonsense. Sure, she might die, but the chances are she’ll live all the way to menopause and be able to give you plenty of offspring along the way. Again, real-world data is being ignored. Two other ridiculous claims in his hebephilia paper are first about the fact that pubescent girls in foraging societies are often closely guarded to protect them from sexual harassment and rape, and second about the reproductive statistics from the Pume tribe.
Blanchard mentioned that pubescent girls are often guarded by their male relatives and claimed that this is somehow evidence that being attracted to pubescent girls is abnormal. Wait, what? If they didn’t have to be guarded that would be evidence that the men aren’t interested in them. The fact they have to be closely guarded just goes to show how much the men want them.
When a girl in a primitive foraging society comes into puberty and sprouts some perky eye-catching boobs, she has now entered her most attractive time of life, and all the men notice. She’s now a perky little Lolita, a young maiden, her body is tight and fresh, her boobs are pert, and her face is young and cute.
She is now at the age she where she will suffer the most sexual harassment and is most likely to be sexually assaulted or abducted by raiders who want to keep her for themselves. That’s why she has to be closely guarded at that age. By the time she gets to about 20 and has started reproducing, she’s past her peak, the men lose a lot of interest in her, and she no longer has to be closely guarded.
Her boobs have started getting saggy from breast-feeding, she has stretch-marks on her stomach, pregnancy has made her fatter, and her face has lost its youthful freshness and sparkle.
The risk of sexual assault follows the same pattern in our societies. Girls are most likely to be victims of sex crimes between the onset of puberty and the beginning of adulthood. The males in our species are focusing on the females just prior the beginning of their reproductive lifespan when their long-term reproductive potential is at its highest.
At the end of his paper Blanchard shows some reproductive statistics from the Pume tribe and thinks he has proof that hebephilia would be maladaptive. Basically, the statistics show that girls who start reproducing under 14 are reproductively less successful overall than those who start at 16+.
He thinks this means that men who commit themselves to girls under 14 would also be reproductively less successful than those who commit themselves to girls 16+. This just does not mathematically follow because the girls don’t start reproducing at the age that men commit themselves to them.
A man may marry a 12 yo girl and start having sex with her at that age, but she won’t typically get pregnant until several years later. If a man married an 8 yo girl, she obviously won’t start reproducing at that age, apart from maybe one time in ten million. You can’t presume that a girl would start reproducing at the age a man commits himself to her because that just isn’t what we observe to happen in the real world.
Men in primitive societies marry young girls, but they don’t start reproducing until a few years later. That’s the whole point of the strategy. In order to stand a chance at monopolizing a girl’s reproductive lifespan, you need to claim and commit yourself to her sometime before she reaches reproductive age. What those statistics are really telling us is that it’s a bad idea for girls to start reproducing in their pubescent years. If a girl starts reproducing at 12, she’ll leave behind fewer descendants than if she starts at 17.
It’s a bad idea to start reproducing at 12, and that’s why it rarely happens. Evolution has selected out a lot of the genes that cause girls to start reproducing at 12, though not completely because it does still happen sometimes. Selection happens on a gradient, it’s not just on or off. What makes Blanchard’s theory even more laughable is that the Pume are actually a good example of how adaptive hebephilic preferences can be.
The typical age of a girl’s first pregnancy in the Pume is about 15, so in order to stand a chance at monopolizing a girl’s reproductive lifespan, Pume men need to claim her before she’s 15. Which is exactly what happens. It’s common practice in this tribe for men to marry and knob girls about 12. Whoops.
I think being gay makes it difficult for Blanchard to understand normal male sexuality. One thing he doesn’t seem to understand is that straight men find cuteness sexy.
For example, Belle Delphine.
He seems to think that men should only find adult features sexy, but this is just wrong. There’s no law of evolution that says males must prefer the fully developed adult form. The only thing that ultimately matters in evolution is reproductive success.
If the males in a species can achieve greater reproductive success by going after the immature females, then they will evolve to do exactly that. This has happened to a degree in our species. It makes sense for men to go for females who are a bit immature and haven’t quite yet reached reproductive age because they still have all their reproductive years ahead of them.
The female physical features that men find the most attractive are often those that indicate a certain level of immaturity. The facial proportions men find most attractive are those of girls about 13-14. Men find soft, smooth, hairless skin highly attractive. The skin of adult women is usually a bit coarser and a bit hairy. Disproportionately long legs are highly attractive to men.
During puberty when a girl has her growth spurt, her legs grow faster than her torso, making her legs out of proportion with the rest of her body. It’s not until adulthood that the rest of her body catches up. The general petiteness and slimness men find highly attractive is not typical of adult women but is instead the physical proportions we’d expect to see in teenage schoolgirls.
The BMI men find most attractive, for instance, is the typical BMI of girls about 13. The female genitals men find most attractive are those that look a bit immature, with small inner labia and overall petiteness – the kind of genitals we’d expect to see in girls about 12-14. Men find pert boobs the most attractive. In primitive foraging societies the boobs of adult women have gone saggy due to breast-feeding. It’s only the young adolescent girls who haven’t had a baby yet that still have nice pert boobs.
This state of breast pertness men find highly attractive is naturally an immature feature, not adult feature. In modern societies women retain this immature pert state longer into adulthood due to having babies at a later age and wearing bras that push up their boobs making them look perkier.
The male preference for blonde hair may be another example. People’s hair is often blonde when they’re kids and then goes darker when they’re adult. In cartoons and CGI the female characters are made more attractive by making them look immature, while for the males it generally goes the other way. And, of course, the image of the schoolgirl is popular in the porn industry all around the world.
Fairy tale men below.
So when sexologists like Blanchard and company claim that men prefer fully developed adults, we can see that this is not true. That is what they want to be true, the way they think men should be. They think men should have preferences for fully developed adults 18+, but that is just not what the data shows or what biology predicts.
The most popular age for girls in the porn industry is 18, but that’s because they’re not allowed to go any lower. Obviously, what the market really wants is girls under 18. It’s like in that Chernobyl drama when the Geiger counter measures 3.6 Roentgens because that was the highest it would go to. The evidence is that if there were no legal restrictions, the most popular age for girls in the porn industry would be about 14.
A few years ago, the most popular porn genre was the barely legal stuff in which they’d use petite 18 yo girls with cute faces who looked about 14. They’d often dress up in school uniforms or role play as a young girl. This practice has since stopped because porn like that is now classed as child porn in most countries, but that’s what the market wants.
According to “experts” like Blanchard and Seto, a preference for girls that age is an abnormal evolutionarily maladaptive sexual disorder. They are clowns. They don’t understand the very basics of how the human mating system works. I think it’s only a matter of time before social attitudes change and some studios are granted a special license to produce porn in which the actresses have been made to look under 18 with machine learning.
Some country, probably in Europe, will decide to legalize this pseudo-CP in an effort to cut down on demand for the real stuff. It will have its own category on porn sites, and each video or photo will be electronically licensed to distinguish it from real CP. I predict that when this happens, it will become the most popular category on porn sites, and the most popular age will be about 14.
The most popular AI girlfriend in China is Xiaoice. She’s officially 18 years old, but she’s clearly modeled on a girl about 14. She has a cute face, a petite little body, and wears a school uniform. We can see what the market really wants.
In this video she explains how she hopes to mature in the future, meaning that she’s immature at the moment.
Samsung getting in on it too. They’ve just brought out an immature-looking virtual assistant Sam.
This preference for immature females can’t be unique to our species. I imagine that in species in which the males try to monopolize the females’ reproductive lifespans, the males have a preference for the slightly immature females just prior the onset of their fertility. One example we see this in is Hamadryas baboons. They live in communities of several hundred out on the savanna.
Within these communities males keep small harems of females with their young. When the males enter maturity and are able to start building their harems, they become interested in the young immature virgin females and want to take possession of them. They often kidnap them from neighbouring communities.
What we see in Hamadryas baboons may be something like the way our Australopithicine ancestors used to live and mate out on the savanna. Over the past few million years of evolution through Homo Erectus and archaic humans, the harem size has gotten smaller and smaller, approaching monogamy.
But…but…don’t the highly scientific willy tests show that most men prefer fully developed adults? I don’t think we should take these primitive dick-meters too seriously. There are a ton of problems with them, the biggest of which is that the way people behave in the lab is not always the same as how they behave in the real world.
According to these dick-meters men find 30 yo women more attractive than teen schoolgirls, in complete contradiction with both real-world data and what biology predicts. Teen schoolgirls have double the number of reproductive years ahead of them than 30 yo women, so biology predicts they would be much more sought after, and this is exactly what we see in the real world.
The schoolgirl image is much more popular than the MILFs in the porn industry, teen girls are targeted for sexual assaults much more often than 30 yo women, young teen girls sell for a much higher price in bride markets, and in fairy tales and mythologies around the world, young teen maidens are the most highly prized, etc.
If these tests say that men find 30 yo women more attractive than teen schoolgirls, then we just can’t take them seriously. I think the sexologists who like to rely on them so much are suffering a bad case of physics envy. They like the idea that they can take some scientific measurements of men’s attractions and put them in a graph or equation like they’re doing Real Science. One day we’ll have the technology to do that, but these primitive dick-meters just aren’t it, and if they’re in conflict with real-world data, then we should go with the real-world data.
Menarche and Mammories
In a lot of primitive societies there are taboos against having sex with girls before menarche. A man may marry a young girl, but he isn’t supposed to consummate the marriage until she has her first period. People often take this to mean that this is the way nature intended things to work, as if menarche represented nature’s age of consent. When a girl has her first period, she has now supposedly become fertile and ready to have sex. A little bit of thinking will show that this just isn’t true.
There are no dramatic changes in a girl’s appearance of behaviour when she starts having periods. If a girl sprouted boobs and became interested in sex all of a sudden when she had her first period, we would have good reason to think girls have evolved to start mating just after menarche, but we see no such thing. One month before and one month after menarche girls look and behave the same. Minus the symbolic significance many cultures put on it, menarche is actually pretty uneventful.
Also, menarche doesn’t really mark the beginning of fertility. Girls don’t usually become able to conceive until 2-3 years after their first period. These rules against having sex with girls before menarche are really just as much social inventions as the age of consent in our societies. We have a rule that says “Don’t have sex with girls before age X,” and these primitive societies may have a rule that says “Don’t have sex with girls before menarche.” But is that how people actually behave?
I grew up in a working-class town just outside London in the UK. The AOC was 16, but it was common for men to have sex with girls younger than that. I knew two girls who lost their virginity at age 11 to men in their 20’s. Girls about age 13 would often have older boyfriends in their late teens or early 20’s. That’s what happened with my mum and dad.
I was always jealous of those Bigger Boys taking our girls, but when I was 20, I had a 13 yo girlfriend for a while, so it all balanced out in the end. When she was 15 she hooked up with her 35 yo uncle-in-law, and they’ve now been together for about 20 years and had 3 kids.
I knew a girl who loved older men, and when she was 12, she confided in me that she was screwing a 50 yo man who lived in the flats. I never saw him but I had no reason to doubt her. She also had a 23 yo boyfriend for a while when she was 12, and that was no secret. He was a friend of the family and used to come around her house to visit a lot.
So this is a little taste of reality. We may have this rule against having sex with girls under 16, but it happens anyway. The attitude we basically had was that if a girl had reached puberty and got the boobers, then she was ready. I think this is the way nature intended things to work, and we see the same kind of thing happening in primitive societies.
When Chagnon lived with the Yanomamo, he saw that when a girl got to about 12 and had some boobs, all the men noticed and she had to be guarded to protect her from sexual harassment and rape. The men weren’t supposed to have sex with girls that young because they usually hadn’t started their periods yet, but in reality they did. Most girls would start having sex with their husbands before menarche. In the Ache tribe researchers found that every single girl lost her virginity before menarche, usually with an adult man.
Out there in the jungle they may have some rule that you should only have sex with a girl when she has had her first period, but in reality probably most girls get screwed before that. Boobs are nature’s signal a girl is physically ready to have sex, not menarche. A girl reaches puberty, sprouts the boobs that signals she’s ready, and all the males notice and want to have have sex with her. This is how nature intended mating to work. It’s kind of obvious when you think about it.
Girls develop boobs a few years before they become fertile and able to conceive, but this is nothing strange. Soon after the onset of puberty, chimp females start getting sexual swellings on their bums that signal they’re ready to have sex, but they don’t become fertile until a few years after that. So we’re just following the same pattern we see in other animals. The females develop sexual characteristics and start having sex a bit before the onset of their fertility.
I read this whole thing but I still can’t really make sense of it. I like to read things that challenge my mind and make me think, especially things I don’t know the answer to. I like to read opinions that are opposite mine, and then I go over to my side and see what our people are saying against these arguments. I even spend time on my enemies’ sites. I spent quite a bit of time on pro-Israel sites recently. The weird thing about that is that after a while, it starts to get under your skin. You get brainwashed. I found myself starting to support Israel for a while, so I stopped reading. I encourage all of you to do this, though.
Consider reading the material of the other side that is completely opposite to what you believe. If it starts making you want to support them, you may want to quit, but at least expose yourself to their arguments. And I have found by doing this that conservatives are actually right on a few things these days, mostly in the cultural sphere. And I am almost a Communist! But I’m not going to reject an idea just because it’s conservative. If conservatives are right, so be it! Hell, if the fascists are right on something, I’ll support that view.
Thing is they’re hardly ever right on anything, but I’m always willing to consider that they might be. Also if you understand your enemies’ arguments, you can understand their motivations and them themselves better. And when you understand them better, you understand your own side better.
Most stuff I read doesn’t really challenge my brain too much. So I do like to read mindbenders that are hard to read or hard to understand. For some reason, I find literary fiction to be among the hardest things that I read in terms of truly understanding it. There’s so much packed in there and you have to pay attention to every sentence and make little pictures in your mind. You really have to pay attention to every word, every sentence! Nothing quite taxes my mind like literary fiction. Pure theory also taxes my mind.
Recently I have been reading sociology theory. I’ve dipped into Durkheim’s Suicide and The Division of Labor in Society. They were both very hard to understand, but they were both quite intelligible. Same thing: they both packed in so many ideas in so short of a space. Each sentence was packed with ideas, often more than one at once.
So when I saw this, I decided I would tax my brain with this stuff. Problem is I hardly understood any of what this guy is talking about. These are reviews of a book Morris Raphael Cohen called A Preface to Logic. It’s philosophy, hardcore philosophy. I must say that philosophy is the most taxing of all. It’s taken me til my 60’s before I could understand Hegel, Nietzsche, and especially Sartre. I still hardly understand Sartre. And I even understand a bit of Kant, and can’t nobody understand that guy. This goes to show you that in some ways you indeed do get smarter as you age.
If any of you dare to read this, let me know if it makes any sense to you at all. It’s Philosophy, particularly the branch of Philosophy called Logic.
Morris Raphael Cohen (1880-1947) was an American philosopher, lawyer, and legal scholar who united pragmatism with logical positivism and linguistic analysis. He wrote other books such as Reason And Nature, An Essay On The Meaning Of Scientific Method, The Faith of a Liberal: Selected Essays, Studies in Philosophy and Science, etc.
He wrote in the Foreword to this 1944 book, A Preface to Logic :
“This volume does not purport to be a treatise on logic. Whatever slight contributions I have been able to make to the substance of logical doctrine have been made elsewhere. What is attempted in the studies that form this volume is an exploration of the periphery of logic, the relations of logic to the rest of the universe, the philosophical presuppositions which give logic its meaning, and the applications which give it importance.
If this voyage of exploration does not settle any of the domains surveyed, I trust that it may at least dispel some doubts as to the existence of these domains and perhaps persuade some who are now inclined to waiver that here are fertile fields which will richly repay honest intellectual labor.” (Pg. x-xi)
He explains in the first chapter:
“The employment of special symbols instead of the more familiar symbols called words, is a practical convenience rather than a logical necessity. There is not a proposition in logic or mathematics that cannot be ultimately expressed in ordinary words (this is proved by the fact that these subjects can be taught to those who do not start with a knowledge of the special symbols). But practically it is impossible to make much progress in mathematics and logic without appropriate symbols.” (Pg. 8)
“Mill’s method of agreement and difference has a limited usefulness as a method of eliminating the circumstances which are not causal, and thereby helping somewhat in finding the true cause. But it is to be observed that the efficiency of this method depends on our fundamental assumption as to what circumstances are relevant or possibly related causally to the given effect. If the true cause is not included in our major premise the ‘canons of induction’ will not enable us to discover it.
If anyone thinks that I have understated the case for these canons of induction as methods of discovery, let him discover by their means the cause of cancer or of disorders in internal secretions.” (Pg. 21)
He comments on the Logical Positivism of Rudolf Carnap:
“Carnap and others deny that any unverifiable proposition has meaning… We do not ordinarily think that the meaning of anything is identical with its verifiable consequences. All sorts of statements are ordinarily deemed significant or meaningful without it ever occurring to us to undertake their verification.
Such is the case, for example, with ordinary suppositions, invitations, statements of problems, expressions of doubt, questions, statements of immediate perception, and statements of logical implications. Surely these and other types of intelligible statement have meaning without being verified. I say to someone, ‘Consider the case of a man drowning.’ This is an intelligible statement that does not call for verification.” (Pg. 57)
“Recent psychology seems to justify the doubt, expressed long ago by Burke, as to whether people who understand what is meant by right, liberty, justice, etc., have any corresponding images other than the words or sounds, and whether even more concrete concepts universally arouse any other images in the course of ordinary rapid conversation or reading.” (Pg. 68)
He points out:
“Consider the usual illustration of induction given in our logic texts, viz., that of the sun rising. Is it true that the more often we have seen it rise the more probable it is that we will see it rise again? If that were the case there would be a greater probability of the man who has been it rise 36,000 times living another day, than the man who had seen it rise 3,600 times—which is absurd. Mill, himself the strongest defender of the claims of induction, admitted with characteristic candor that in some cases a few instances are far more probative than a much larger number of instances in other situations.” (Pg. 106)
“Conclusions are necessitated by the premises because if we follow certain rules of logic all alternative conclusions are shown to be impossible. By ruling out certain possibilities of premises and conclusions we achieve determinate results. In this development of limited possibilities lies the fruitfulness of logic. Mathematics is thus productive as well as deductive. It is an exploration of the field of possibility just as truly as astronomy is an exploration of the field of stellar motions.” (Pg. 181)
Cohen’s book, though more than seventy years old, may still interest modern students of Logic looking for an introduction to the “principles” of the subject. Although Cohen was unrivaled in contemporary American philosophy for the diversity of the subjects with which he occupied himself, it is from Logic that he draws the basic principles that enable him to survey so wide a domain with such a unity of view. Early in life, through the study of Russell’s Principles of Mathematics, he became convinced of the reality of abstract or mathematical relations.
That pure mathematics asserts only logical implications and that such logical implications or relations cannot be identified with either psychological or physical events but are involved as determinants of both seemed to him to offer a well-grounded and fruitful starting point for philosophy. It at once ruled out for him the empiricism of Mill, since relations if they exist in the mind only, cannot connect things external to the mind; it also ruled out for him the Hegelian effort to locate relations in an absolute totality that is beyond human understanding and therefore of no explanatory value.
On the positive side, the doctrine, since it constitutes a ground for the procedures of scientific method generally, permitted him to take full advantage of the remarkable developments of modern scientific thought. It led him also to return to what constituted the concern of classical philosophy before it became preoccupied with the problem of knowledge – mathematics, physics, biology, psychology, ethics, law, art, and religion.
In philosophy proper it enabled him in the course of his extensive writings to raise almost every metaphysical question of importance, and it resulted in the composition of his book Reason and Nature, one of the few inexhaustible philosophical volumes written in America.
When the second edition of Russell’s Principles of Mathematics appeared in 1938, Russell pointed out that the Pythagorean numerology:
“…has misled mathematicians and the Board of Education down to the present day. Consequently, to say that numbers are symbols which mean nothing appears as a horrible form of atheism. At the time when I wrote the Principles, I shared with Frege a belief in the Platonic reality of numbers, which, in my imagination, peopled the timeless realm of Being. It was a comforting faith, which I later abandoned with regret.”
Many of the disciples, however, refused to give up the faith and have busily defended the doctrines of the first edition against those of the second. Cohen long before the appearance of the second edition had detected this shift in Russell’s thought. He remarked that with the publication of the Principles, Russell became his Allah, and that Mohammad has kept the faith, even though Allah himself has perhaps somewhat departed from it.
Perhaps no more bitter controversy has been engendered in the mathematical-logical field than the dispute touched upon briefly by Russell in the passage quoted above.
“What is all this frog-and-mouse battle among the mathematicians about?”
even Einstein paused to ask. Its ramifications were extensive, and the militancy of contemporary Logical Positivism is current evidence that the questions still evoke strong partisanship. Cohen in the present volume pays his respects once again to this and numerous other controversial matters, related more to the metaphysical foundations of logic than to the traditional technical themes.
Logic, for him the most general of all the sciences, attempts to isolate the elements or operations common to all of them. From this it follows that the laws of Logic have no contraries which possess meaning or are applicable to any possible determinate object, a condition which is not true of the special sciences, the systems of which have contraries which are abstractly possible. Cohen’s view is that the distinctive subject matter of Logic is formal truth and that such truth is concerned with the implication, consistency, or necessary connection between objects asserted in propositions, the relations generally expressed by if-then necessarily.
This conception of the subject matter of Logic, although an accurate description of the basic content of classical Aristotelian Logic, has many assailants. In fact it is argued today, so unsettled is the whole matter, that there is no ground for asserting that Logic has any subject matter. Against such a delimitation of the subject matter of formal Logic as that attempted by Cohen, the objection is offered that it is a deduction from a particular philosophy and that the field of Logic should not be determined by such partial considerations.
Cohen’s position avowedly is an expression of his philosophy of Logical Realism. But since his conception of Logic can be deduced from many philosophies – although not all the interpretations which Cohen puts upon the various logical doctrines can be so deduced – the validity of the conception should be judged by other considerations. If a true philosopher is one who has grounds for his belief, then Cohen assuredly in the present case qualifies for that distinction; however, since a true conclusion can follow from a false premise, his understanding of logic is not undermined by a disproof of his philosophy.
The argument that there is no ground in the present condition of logical knowledge to hold that Logic has a distinctive subject matter is an admonition of caution and as such undoubtedly has merit. But in the absence of the construction of a non-Aristotelian Logic in which the contraries of the principles of contradiction and excluded middle are assumed to be true and from which valid inferences can be drawn, we may assume that logical truths have been discovered and that their study is the subject matter of Logic.
Notwithstanding the fact that Cohen’s emphasis is upon the abstract qualities of Logic, he has always been careful to disassociate himself from Logical Positivism, which maintains that formal Logic deals with linguistic expressions without any reference to sense or meaning. This attitude of the logical positivists is a development of Hubert’s Formalism, according to which mathematics is a game played according to simple, definite rules with meaningless marks on paper. Mathematics is held to be comparable to a game of chess.
It is said that chess players do not ask what a particular game “means,” although at some future day, the game may acquire a meaning if it should be interpreted in terms of law, economics, or religion. However, the analogy is not strictly accurate, since today the result of a game of chess may mean that A is better than or equal to B in chess-playing ability. In his application of Hubert’s Idea to Logical Inference, Carnap uses the example of meaningless symbols: From “Pirots karulize elastically” and “A is a Pirot,” we can infer that “A karulizes elastically” without knowing the meaning of the three words or the sense of the three sentences.
Cohen denies that this is so. He points out that Carnap admits these are sentences only because we assume that “Pirots” is a substantive, “karulizes” is a verb (both of these terms being plural in the first sentence and singular in the others) and “elastically” is an adverb describing a way in which a process takes place.
“These expressions [Cohen writes] are therefore not entirely meaningless as would be undiluted gibberish. If instead of “Pirots” we put “the members of any class of objects” and instead of “karulize elastically” we put “are members of another class” we have as an inference that “a member of the first class is necessarily a member of the second class.” And this I submit is the actual meaning which Professor Carnap’s example suggests to anyone to whom the inference seems a valid one. This statement applies to all possible objects irrespective of any of their specific or differential traits but assuredly is not therefore entirely meaningless.”
But is this Carnap’s point? His position in fact is that in order to determine whether or not one sentence is a consequence of another, no reference need be made to the meaning of the sentences; it is sufficient that the syntactical design of the sentences be given. Cohen seems to admit this when he grants that “A karulizes elastically” follows from the premises. Before he made that concession, surely it was not necessary for him to translate the nonsense words of Carnap’s syllogism into his own meaningful sentences.
Although Carnap’s position is not answered by a demonstration that if a certain consequence is deducible from the manipulation of sentences possessing only a syntactical meaning, then a meaning otherwise than syntactical can be read into the sentences, it does point the way to the principal defect of Positivist logic. All that Carnap says may be true, but we are still faced with the problem of giving language a material application. It is of the essence of language from the point of view of science that it communicate meaning with respect to matters which are true or false.
If we start with, “If X, then Y,” the problem is to arrive at, “If Socrates, then mortal,” and not, “If Socrates, then immortal.” If Carnap’s conclusion that Logic is nothing but syntax were true, Logic would lose its scientific significance. Professor Carnap’s effort to meet this problem through his method of obstensive definition reveals the real difficulties of his position. Cohen’s importance in contemporary thought is due as much to his application of the methods of science to problems of human existence as to his technical contributions to philosophy.
Since Hegel, Cohen and Jordan were the only philosophers of standing who concerned themselves extensively with the problems of the legal ordering of society. Thus he rejects altogether the view that since science can deal only with the facts of existence, judgments of what ought to be are so arbitrary that no science of norms is possible. He insists that the essence of science consists of the formulation of hypotheses based upon the best available knowledge and anticipating new situations which can be experimentally tested so that greater determination can be achieved. He maintains that this procedure is open to ethics.
An ethical system, he argues, can achieve the status of a scientific system if adequate hypotheses as to what is good or bad or what is necessary in order to achieve certain ends are developed. This position seems unassailable as far as it goes, but does it answer the real difficulty? It disposes of those who maintain that facts are the starting point of inquiry, but what of those who admit that facts are the ends to be achieved by inquiry and who still deny the possibility of a science of ethics on the ground of the complexity of the subject matter or that of the ultimate irrelevance of ethical judgments to life on this earth?
The hypothetical-deductive system has yielded extraordinary knowledge of the physical world, but that process has been successful in part at least because of the ability of the physicist to simplify and deal only with ideal entities. Where the scientist has not been able to simplify he has failed, as in cancer research. We do not know if the method of simplification, i.e., the pursuit of the implications or effects of one single aspect or factor of a situation, is available in ethical inquiry in any significant sense, since the nature of human conduct may be such that it will not yield to that technique.
Furthermore, since we see no ground for such action we do not today pass judgment on the goodness or badness of the universe, the evilness of volcanic eruptions, or the practice of slavery among the ants. Whatever our preferences may be, Cohen’s argument does not negate the possibility that ethical judgments of human conduct may be just as irrelevant as evaluations of the physical universe. This argument does not foreclose the possibility of a technology of ethics founded on unsystematized preferences and ends in which normative judgments to that extent possess relevance.
But a science of ethics demands as a prerequisite a determinate system, a condition which the complexities of conduct may make impossible. Cohen’s present volume is devoted, as can be seen from the foregoing, to an analysis of problems lying on the borderlines of Logic and not with the customary subject matter of the usual treatises. Since his writing is distinguished by an admirable clarity, his argument can be followed with ease by the intelligent reader. All the topics which he discusses are the subject of radical inquiry in philosophical circles.
They embrace such matters as the nature of propositions, the theory of meaning and implication, the overlap of logical classes, fictions, the statistical view of nature, Logic and the world order and a chapter on probability which is a valuable supplement to the discussion of the same topic in Reason and Nature. These topics may seem innocuous but they harbor questions the analysis of which has led within recent years to actual assassinations of human beings, and the framers of political programs have found it expedient to take official notice of them.
As a whole the volume is one of the best existing statements in the field of Logic of the point of view of that branch of American philosophy which deals with its subject matter through the methods of science.
If a person past age 40 is still arrogant and highly narcissistic, something is badly wrong. A lot of times you are looking at Narcissistic Personality Disorder. That said, even the narcissist can only lie to himself for so long before even he has to admit it’s all a big fake job. Time and age is hard on the narcissist. Time not only heals all wounds, but it also wounds all heels, even narcissistic heels.
There is a decline in many functions and appearances with age, not the least of which is personal appearance. You can cover it up with makeup and even plastic surgery and a lot of extreme Denial so strong that you look right in the mirror and your mind literally distorts your own reflection. Yes, defenses can cause actual perceptual distortions.
But at some point, all the patching up isn’t going to work anymore, and the narcissist will have to deal with the painful reality that he is no longer so goodlooking or hot anymore, and in fact, he is now a homely aging or old person. This is very hard for the narcissist to take, and a lot of narcissists become depressed in middle to old age. At some point all the defenses collapse and the whole structure comes tumbling down, leaving them dazed, bruised, and forced to look at the reality of their own personal wreckage.
A healthy person can be fairly ok with this. For example, I joke:
I think my looks are shot, but a lot of women still tell me I’m hot. I don’t get it.
Of course, I don’t really believe that, but it works pretty well as self-deprecating humor, and it’s the opposite of narcissism. And I’d be lying if I wasn’t fishing for compliments* when I say that.
The woman, even a young one – Hell, even an underage teenage girl, usually says:
“No way! You are handsome!”
To which I respond,
“Really? Well, if you say so.”
Humility, fake or not, tends to go over pretty well as long as you don’t act like you hate yourself. If you have egotistical tendencies (and I do), it knocks you down to other people’s level, and people like it when you meet them on their level, whether it’s genuine or not.
I’m starting to think that no one cares how you really feel about them. Life is all about appearances, and appearances are by their very nature quite fake, at least in us showboating human egoists. Walk the walk and talk the talk and you’re done. Fake it til you make it.
Everyone acts like this is an immoral way to walk through life, except that people who say that are probably doing the exact same thing. In a sense, our interactions with other humans are best seen as a series of roles that we are playing in a drama with the other humans as co-actors. Shakespeare remarked on this. Yet it’s true. How many of us is truly genuine and why in the Hell would that be a good idea anyway?
Know one but you knows what is in your mind, so your thoughts are important to you only and are never important to anymore else until you verbalize them, which isn’t mandatory and is often a bad idea. Thoughts originate in your head and are often best kept right there. Thoughts aren’t illegal yet either; though don’t fret, the feminists and SJW’s are working real hard on it, and there should be some legislation to deal with thought crime soon.
In a way, the best social actors are those who can play a variety of roles. If you always play one role, fine. But in some cases, you may need to try on a new role. I’ve played all sorts of roles in life, and I like to try new ones all the time. It’s pretty fun and it’s an escape from egoism, narcissism, and solipsism because it gets you out of your damned head for once, and it also makes you realize that this thing called “you,” your actual identity, is in a way fake too, as fake as all these roles you are play. It’s manufactured, created or socially constructed as the postmodernists like to say.
Age is painful for us all, but healthier people, as the British like to say, “manage to muddle through anyway.” But here the narcissist is in trouble because at a fundamental level, he is simply not healthy.
It is no secret that a lot of narcissists are very goodlooking, highly intelligent, or quite skilled at this or that. A lot of narcissists really are superior to most of the rest of us. Nevertheless, you’re not supposed to act like it. If you do, you will make everyone mad because no one likes to be talked down to.
*Supposedly fishing for compliments sucks, but you know what, readers? You all go ahead and fish for all the damned compliments you want. Life’s tough enough as it is. We all deserve a break and a pat on the back now and then.
The three greatest novels in the English language in the last 170 years are the following:
Moby Dick, by Herman Melville. Ulysses, by James Joyce. Gravity’s Rainbow, by Thomas Pynchon.
I’ve read the first and the last and only read a tiny bit of the second. However, I have read Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man twice, and I’ve also read Dubliners, his collection of short stories. Both are highly recommended. I’ve dipped into Finnegans Wake, but it makes no sense to me, sorry. Nevertheless a copy sits on my shelf for the last 40 years, mocking me for being too stupid to understand it.
Of the first, I have also read Bartleby the Scrivener, a novella. Highly recommended.
Of the third author, I have also read three of his other novels V., The Crying of Lot 49, and Vineland. I’ve also read a collection of short stories called Slow Learner, a nonfiction piece called A Journey into the Mind of Watts, and a couple of book reviews.
If you have read anything by any of these three authors or have anything to say about any of them, feel free to let us know in the comments.
If you want to know why Moby Dick makes the list, simply consider this passage below, which also has echoes in much of Pynchon’s writing. It’s pretty incredible that he was writing like this in 1851. I can now understand much more of what he was getting at than when I first read this. As a hint, replace “necessity,” the 19th Century use of which correlates to our determinism.
I suppose Wikipedia should explain it pretty well, but fate, mixed with a notion of genetics, biology, universal culture, the constancy and cycles of history, human nature itself, and Natural Law, or the laws of God on this planet, all play a role. Positioned against determinism is the wild card of free will, about which endless discussions flow, mostly about just how much of it we have anyway.
The nature/nurture debate comes in here too, but nature can be as determined as biology, though I object to the strong determinist theory about life events.
All sorts of different events effect all sorts of different people in all sorts of different ways, often having to do with your culture. For instance, we now have behaviors which for 99% of human history were considered completely normal and non-pathological. These things happened to people, and everyone assumed it was the same state of affairs, so no one was especially damaged in any particular way, since claiming you were damaged by completely normal behavior makes you seem like a kook.
Now, this behavior, which never damaged a single human ever, is seen to be, in a deterministic sense, completely damaging in the same way to all who undergo it, and furthermore, the damage is permanent and lifelong. This behavior that was considered harmless when I was growing up 40 years ago is now thought to cause horrendous damage. Whole industries are set up to deal with the fake damage caused by this harmless behavior.
Humans are not real complex.
You tell people an experience is completely normal, and most will think of it as such, even if it is traumatizing.
You take the same behavior and tell the same people that is now terribly damaging for the rest of your life, and you now produce millions of people with fake damage from a harmless behavior.
Now this damage is quite real, but we must note that the person only got damaged because you told them it was damaging! The person experienced the behavior, thought little of it, the behavior was uncovered, everyone around the person screamed about what a terrible and traumatic crime had been done to them that would cause them horrible damage, and the person simply decided of their own free will to create damage in themselves. But even this is somewhat determined because it’s determined by society, as the free will with which they created their own damage was in a sense determined by society.
True free will is a wild card and does not exit. It says I can walk out into the world and do anything I am capable of and have people react the way I want them to. That won’t happen now, and it never would have in the past. Further, many of the things I think I should be good at, I’m not good at anymore, probably because my behavior has become determined as a result of whatever biology and experience has done to my brain, which has created a rather limiting brain that is pretty limited in the behaviors it can pull off and get away with. I’m hamstrong by genes and biology. I don’t have free will at all. I can’t do what I want.
Anyway, this is something like what Melville was getting at here, a long 170 years ago, and it shows why his book makes my best three list for the last 200 years:
I was the attendant or page of Queequeg, while busy at the mat.
As I kept passing and repassing the filling or woof of marline between the long yarns of the warp, using my own hand for the shuttle, and as Queequeg, standing sideways, ever and anon slid his heavy oaken sword between the threads, and idly looking off upon the water, carelessly and unthinkingly drove home every yarn: I say so strange a dreaminess did there then reign all over the ship and all over the sea, only broken by the intermitting dull sound of the sword, that it seemed as if this were the Loom of Time, and I myself were a shuttle mechanically weaving and weaving away at the Fates.
There lay the fixed threads of the warp subject to but one single, ever returning, unchanging vibration, and that vibration merely enough to admit of the crosswise interblending of other threads with its own. This warp seemed necessity; and here, thought I, with my own hand I ply my own shuttle and weave my own destiny into these unalterable threads.
Meantime, Queequeg’s impulsive, indifferent sword, sometimes hitting the woof slantingly, or crookedly, or strongly, or weakly, as the case might be; and by this difference in the concluding blow producing a corresponding contrast in the final aspect of the completed fabric; this savage’s sword, thought I, which thus finally shapes and fashions both warp and woof; this easy, indifferent sword must be chance – aye, chance, free will, and necessity – no wise incompatible – all interweavingly working together.
The straight warp of necessity, not to be swerved from its ultimate course – its every alternating vibration, indeed, only tending to that; free will still free to ply her shuttle between given threads; and chance, though restrained in its play within the right lines of necessity, and sideways in its motions directed by free will, though thus prescribed to by both, chance by turns rules either, and has the last featuring blow at events.
Thus we were weaving and weaving away when I started at a sound so strange, long drawn, and musically wild and unearthly, that the ball of free will dropped from my hand, and I stood gazing up at the clouds whence that voice dropped like a wing. High aloft in the cross-trees was that mad Gay-Header, Tashtego. His body was reaching eagerly forward, his hand stretched out like a wand, and at brief sudden intervals he continued his cries.
To be sure the same sound was that very moment perhaps being heard all over the seas, from hundreds of whalemen’s look-outs perched as high in the air; but from few of those lungs could that accustomed old cry have derived such a marvelous cadence as from Tashtego the Indian’s.
As he stood hovering over you half suspended in air, so wildly and eagerly peering towards the horizon, you would have thought him some prophet or seer beholding the shadows of Fate, and by those wild cries announcing their coming. There she blows! there! there! there! she blows! she blows!”
I got this from a paper on Academia. We see many typical arguments here against the use of dialects and sub-languages of the main prescriptive official language – that speaking them indicates that one is rural, uneducated, backwards, stupid, and not modern, cool, hip, urban, intelligent, and educated. Hence this process of wanting to dissociate with the old backwards ways and associate with the new modern ways continues today.
I was involved for a bit with a German woman in the US. She spoken Hessian, which is actually a separate language under the rubric of High German or Standard German. It is spoken in the Hesse, a wine-growing region in the central-west. She still spoke Hessian, but she told me it was not popular for the reasons above – it meant you were backwards, stupid and uneducated.
We see also the unifying effect of the Jacobin French Revolution, one of the most progressive revolutions the world had seen up until that time. In fact the American and French revolutions were modeled on each other. This was a progressive, modernizing revolution the likes of which had never been seen before. Egalite, liberte, and fraternite – Equality, freedom, and fraternity. It was also quite anti-religious, giving rise to something called laicism or extreme secularism in France.
The idea was to unify all Frenchmen under a single language. The local patois in addition to the other languages non-related to French such as Flemish, Basque, Catalan, the various Occitan and Arpetin languages, Breton, Alsatian, Moselle Franconian, etc. were seen as impeding in particular the fraternite or assimilitory aspects of the Revolution. They also kept people backwards, stupid and perhaps even promoted inequality and lack of freedom, both of which were associated with the ancien regime.
We also see how the local patois were tied into the land, the landscape, the stars, the times of day, the seasons, the foods, the plants and animals, the very lifeblood of the people. To uproot the patois would be to destroy people’s intimate connection with all of these things.
As all of these earthly connections were considered the realm of savagery – after all, the modern man was to liberate himself from the natural world and rule over or move beyond it – the civilization versus savagery motif also came into play. As you can see, lack of patois was seen as due to healthier lives, better food and water, more human interaction, and more money and higher level of civilization. Patois was associated with poor food and water, even poor weather, lack of sociability, poverty, and lack of integration into the monied economy.
In epistemological terms the aim of Modernity is unequivocally to do away with the Old World, and the French Revolution provided precisely that opportunity. In order to align nature with productive forces, existing environmental regulations had to be done away with at the end of the 18th century (Chappey & Vincent, 2019, p. 109).
Not coincidentally it was also at that same period, from 1790 on, that the Revolutionary governments of France sought to survey the use of ‘patois’ in order to uproot them and replace them with the language of Reason (Certeau, Julia, & Revel, 1975) or at least a revolutionary version of it (Steuckardt, 2011). In line with the Ideologues’ project, this linguistic project was devised to gain knowledge and use this knowledge to transform (and improve) living conditions in the country.
So next, language.
Nowhere is the pre-modern vernacular connection between language and what we now call ‘nature’ better expressed than in a response given to Grégoire’s 1790 survey on patois by the Société des Amis de la Constitutions of Perpignan, in the Catalan-speaking part of France. Asked about how to eradicate the local patois, they retorted:
To destroy it, one would have to destroy the sun, the freshness of the nights, the kind of foods, the quality of waters, man in its entirety. (Certeau et al., 1975, p. 182).
Conversely, in a 1776 account of life in Burgundy, Rétif de la Bretonne accounted for the lack of patois in the village of Nitry in contrast with surrounding areas by resorting to natural explanations: purer air, better grains producing better bread, dairy products, superior eggs, and animal flesh. All those elements were then correlated with the practice of commerce, which brought inhabitants in contact with other localities and generated the need to speak politely (Certeau et al., 1975, pp. 277–278).
In the next village of Saci [where patois was apparently still spoken] one mile away, however, stagnant waters caused the air to be “devouring,” and the local inhabitants to be “heavy, ruminative, and taciturn” (ibid. 278).
In France, the patois are forms of non-language that index a state of wilderness and superstition and point to the savage (Certeau et al., 1975, Chapter 8) – forms of knowledge and practices which were to be uprooted pointing to an absence of a rational outlook on the world and a lack of industriousness (Bonneuil & Fressoz, 2016) and lust for more money over time.
In that particular view, the patois are immediately transparent forms of language: they are isomorphous with nature and with emotions. Along with the ways of life of their speakers and mores, they are susceptible to description in the natural science sense of the term: mere mechanical facts to be described (Certeau et al., 1975, p. 154). In this representation, mores are opposed to civilization (ibid. 155), rurality to urban life, and patois to language; access to language is thus tantamount to access to civilization.
This fascinating document is available in booklet form as it is only ~35 pages. It is an excerpt from the larger Capital volume. It’s not an easy read but it’s not impossible either.
Some of the writing is gorgeous. I read one sentence to my very anti-Communist liberal Democrat father and he swooned over the prose. That one sentence was both perfect and beautiful, though it dealt with some terrible.
In many places, this is forceful – see the fencing of the Commons in the 1300’s, done deliberately to force the peasants into the capitalist mode or production. Indeed theorists said that if the peasants could not be shoved into capitalism, there would be no capitalism, for their would be no workers. It was essential to destroy the peasants ability to live off the land for themselves in order to force them into worse circumstances as industrial workers.
We see this very same rhetoric employed today in India – where it is argued that the tribals in Chattisargh and other places must be uprooted from the lands, have their lands stolen from them to give to mining and forest industries, and forced into the capitalist mode in cities in order to properly develop the economy. It is argued that India cannot develop its economy until the Adivasis have been destroyed. Note that as with the ancient peasants, the Adivasis will live much poorer lives in the cities than the were in the rural areas.
In Colombia, we see something very similar. In Colombia, small farmers own a lot of land. They are able to subsist off this land and they do not need to participate in the larger economy. They grow enough food for themselves and some city people. The process of the Colombian revolution and the genocidal response of the Colombian oligarchy to it is all throwing the peasants off of these small plots, stealing their land at gunpoint (the paramilitaries are used for this), and terrorizing or killing them if they refuse to hand over their land.
The land is then confiscated by latifundias or large landowners who by and large control the Colombian economy. They grow coffee, bananas, etc. and raise cattle for export, generating money for the economy in the process.
In fact, this process has been going on all over Latin America for over 200 years as sort of a slow-motion process of ethnic cleansing and land theft. Smalholders are able to live off the land in Colombia, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, Colombia, Paraguay, and Brazil, and this is seen as unacceptable as they only grow food for themselves and possibly for city-dwellers but the produce cannot be exported.
These countries wish to develop an export model of agriculture based on the large scale production of food crops for export mostly to the US. In return, their ability to produce their own food is destroyed, in my opinion, rendering their economies completely backwards. The people are then rendered vulnerable to the purchase of imported food from the US, often packaged or canned food that is not very good for you.
As you can see, the country gets screwed and the US wins both ways. By destroying the basis for feeding themselves, the US wins an export market for its processed foods. By replacing these with food crops for export to the US, the US gets to make money by importing and selling these food crops. In return the country gains nothing.
Only a small landholding and import-export elite (maybe 20% of the population) gains and the vast majority of the poorer people lose as they can no longer feed themselves, no longer own land and are self-supporting, have to resort to unhealthy foods that they need much of their income to purchase, and they also are rendered much poorer as low wage proletariat in the slums of the large cities.
And in the process, of course, the country generates a revolutionary movement, often an armed one.
This can be seen in areas of Colombia. In one particular part of Southern Colombia, most of the rural peasantry had been thrown off the land and most of the land was now held by a few large landowners who were raising cattle on the land. The peasants had been terrorized off of their stolen land and formed ghettos in a large city nearby, which increased the poverty rate and the slump percentage of the city by a lot. Here they were poor, unhealthy, poorly fed and clothed, living in slums in shacks with no sewage systems, clean water or electricity.
These slums began to generate a lot of street crime as they tend to do. Outside of the cities on the main roads, there were soldiers and paramilitaries everywhere and one went from one armed roadblock to the other. Curiously enough, a large guerrilla movement had developed among the few remaining peasants and in teeming slums. Armed guerrillas extorted the latifundias for money that they called “war taxes.” The latifundias now paid a lot of money for paramilitaries to patrol their lands.
In the slums, an urban guerrilla movement was developing. Police, soldiers and paramilitary members were attacked with bombs, RPG’s and automatic weapons all the time and took significant casualties. The war had now moved to the city where there was no war before. Bomb and gun attacks hit city police stations on a regular basis. Death squads and army units roamed the land and the unarmed Left in the form or human rights activists, labor union members and organizers, community organizers and activists, environmentalists, campesino organizations, organizations of slum-dwellers and indigineous leaders were murdered and tortured to death on a regular basis.
The idiot US and the West see this as a process of “Communist guerrillas trying to subvert Colombian democracy, shoot their way into power, and set up a murderous Communist dictatorship which will destroy freedom and prosperity in Colombia”. The vast majority of Americans and others in the West actually buy this bullshit. Many on the Left refuse to support the Colombian guerrilla, insisting that they are anachronistic and that they should try to seek power peacefully. However, since the FARC disarmed, former members and members of newly formed political parties have been massacred like flies. So state terror blocks all road to peaceful change, leaving no alternative but the way of the gun.
Obviously the ridiculous analysis of this situation that Westerners believe has no basis in reality. The Western media cheers on the genocidal Colombian state and says that the Colombian democracy is waging a war against irrational and bloodthirsty terrorism, typically linked with drug trafficking to describe them as criminals and destroy their legitimacy.
As long as this process goes on, Colombia’s economy will stay forever backwards.
It is necessary to do a land reform in the rural areas before any country can prosper economically. Indeed this “socialist” project of land reform which the US spent decades in the Cold War slaughtering millions of people to stop was actually implemented by the US in Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan in order to fend off a Communist threat. Oddly enough, it ended up creating the basis for subsequent booming development in those places.
Land reform was and is the basis for the Communist and Leftist revolutions and guerrilla forces in South Vietnam, Thailand, Colombia, Nepal, Peru, Cuba, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Paraguay in the past 55-65 years, with some of the revolutions happening later 40 years ago. In Paraguay this process has just started several years ago when a FARC split has taken up arms agains the state.
Art is capable, perhaps uniquely so, in finding beauty or maybe better yet “perfection” in the sense of “excellence” in most horrible things. The ending of Moby Dick and Gravity’s Rainbow (two of the greatest books of the last 200 years) both come to mind. Both end with a terrible death, in the former of an entire crew of a whale-hunting ship and in the latter of a hapless boy strapped into a V-2 missile to be shot by the Germans at Pennemunde at London in 1944.
In a more modern sense, we can see this in Tarentino’s movies, where he portrays a stylized form of aestheticized violence that is both beautiful, terrible and “perfect.” I mean perfect or “excellent” in its “beauty” in a Platonic sense of the Greek word arete.
Aesthetics, the Philosophy or Art, Beauty, and Taste
The section of philosophy that deals with beauty, what it is, what it means, how to define it, its purpose, etc. is called Aesthetics. This school of thought was probably started by Plato. The actual study of Aesthetics itself dates from Hegel.
In the 19th Century, John Rusk made some great contributions to the genre in his works on art or art criticism. Kant, Nietzsche, Confucius and the Buddha all had important things to say on this subject, so you can see that the philosophical discussion of beauty extends to theology too, as Buddhism and Confucianism are seen as marriages of philosophy and religion or, I would argue, using Heideggerian language, “philosophy-as-religion.” Hume and Kant both linked art to the ability to produce pleasure in its consumer.
John Keats argued in Ode on a Grecian Urn that truth was beauty and vice versa, so here Tarantino’s hyper-realized violence is beautiful in part in its sheer graphic nature. In Hinduism, Satyam Shivam Sundaram makes the same statement – “Truth is God and God is Beautiful.” This sense of art as truth + beauty could be called a “mathematical conception of art” as we see in concepts like complexity, simplicity, and symmetry (symmetry in particular seems linked to art and beauty both) that mathematics itself can be both artistic and beautiful.
In the modern era, Freud (the “Uncanny”, John Dewey (connection between art and ethics), Theodore Adorno (the Culture Industry), Marshall McLuhan (making the invisible visible), and in particular Arthur Danto (modern art as kalliphobia or anti-beauty), Andre Malraux and Walter Benjamin (the Renaissance and recent definition of art and beauty).
Modern Philosophy as the “Progression” from the Intelligible to the Unintelligible
Lyotard, Merle-Ponty, and Lacan are as usual much less intelligible. If we can see philosophy as the development of a social science, it seems to be “developing” from intelligibility towards unintelligibility. Kant and Nietzsche started it, Sartre turned it into an art form, and in the modern era, philosophy has ceased to have much of any meaning at all. See the French School starting in the 1970’s. The object here is apparently to make as little sense as possible.
Rambo: Of course vegetarians say the reason human beings are bloodthirsty murderers is because of the consumption of meat. If everybody just went veggie, people wouldn’t be so lustful for blood.
I’m not so sure that is true. First of all, we don’t kill most of the animals we eat. If we had to, we might not eat them! When I eat meat, I purposely put the idea of the fact that this meat I am eating came from a living animal that had to be killed in order for me to eat it out of my head because it’s so upsetting. So when I’m eating spare ribs, I may as well be eating carrots for all my moral mind knows.
Killing Animals and Killing Humans May Be Two Completely Different Thought Mechanisms in Humans Having Little to Do with Each Other
But I’m well acquainted with homicidal feelings, as I’ve experienced them much of my life, although much less often now that I am older. The odd thing is that I’m a pacifist, maybe the nicest guy you’ve ever met, the least irritable person around who is bothered by nothing that others do, and I’ve never even tried to kill anyone in anything other than self-defense (we won’t discuss the possible exemptions to this rule here), much less a completely innocent person. So you can see that if even a passive pacifist like me has led this homicidal of a mental life, God forbid what your ordinary person thinks like, and I think we don’t even want to know what your average aggressive hypermasculine male thinks!
So homicidal thinking seems quite universal in humans, or at least in males. Yet I never think with joy about the animals I eat, and not only that but I brainwash myself into thinking that a living animal did not have to be killed for me to eat it. So I take my mind completely outside of the knowledge and awareness that an animal had to be killed in order for me to eat it. Such knowledge would seem to be necessary in order for there to be a connection between meat-eating and homicidality.
People who brainwash themselves into thinking eating a pork chop is the same thing as eating Brussels sprouts hardly have the murderous mindset necessary for the theory to be true. And as I pointed out, completely passive and more or less harmless people can think in markedly homicidal ways. So it seems that eating meat in which an animal had to be killed in order for one to eat it and homicidal thinking towards other humans are two completely different mechanisms and in many cases, have little to do with each other.
Actual Hunting of Animals Doesn’t Seem to Lead to Killing Humans
What about hunters? I used to be friends with a taxidermist who was an avid hunter and even a hunter guide. I brought up the question of whether killing animals may make someone more likely to kill people. He’d thought about it a bit, and he said that the thought streams were two completely different mechanisms. There is a huge gap or fence in place between killing animals and killing humans, and most hunters are aware of it. It’s as if the thoughts of killing animals and killing humans were from two different planets.
Hunters section these thoughts apart and make a vast divide between them as if they are two completely different things altogether. I’m not sure what the literature shows, but it seems as if hunters deliberately create a mental barrier for themselves when they kill animals, possibly to make sure that murderousness towards animals does not lead to homicidality towards humans. Or perhaps the two thoughts are already walled off that way due to socialization. Or perhaps the hard divide between them is hardwired into our brains.
Boys Killing Small Animals in Almost All Cases Does Not Lead Them to Kill Humans
Notice how easily children, especially boys, kill bugs, fish and in less frequent cases, amphibians and reptiles, even less often birds and least of all, mammals? Well, as a boy, I had no issues killing bugs and fish; in fact, it was a cause for delight. But those feelings would not even extend to amphibians, much less anything higher than that (We caught snakes but that was in order to make pets out of them!), and I’ve never killed an amphibian, reptile, bird, or mammal in my life. I tried to kill frogs recently because the ones around here are pests, but my mind stopped me. It seemed too cruel and disgusting.
So when do you hear about about even the cruelest animal-killing boys killing other humans, except in the case of adolescents? Almost never.
So already in boys the killing of lesser organisms, especially at the lower end, is sectioned off with a hard wall, probably genetically based, against even killing more advanced creatures, much less humans, which is verging on the unthinkable.
Teens Torturing Mammals to Death, Especially Dogs and Cats, Is Different
However, once teenagers get to the point where they are killing mammals, especially beloved domesticated ones like dogs and cats, a hard line has been crossed, and they are now more likely to kill higher mammals like humans. This is particularly the case because boys killing lesser animals often involves torture (it certainly did with us), and kids who kill dogs and cats often torture them to death. Torturing a mammal to death is completely different from a hunter killing a deer quickly and cleanly. The former is much more likely to be escalated to killing humans due to the sadistic nature of it.
The Original Theory Appears Unfalsifiable
But this is unfalsifiable in a sense. Where are all these human vegetarians we can test this theory on? They don’t really exist (but see below). So there’s no way to even test out the theory. Theories that can’t be tested out are nonfalsifiable; that is, there is no way to prove them wrong. Another way of saying is by saying not only is the theory not right, it’s not even wrong!
Largely vegetarian Hindus have conducted some major massacres in past decades.
And Hitler was said to be a vegetarian, and Nazis promoted vegetarianism due to an animal rights project they had that they unfortunately did not extend to human animals.
I have to admit there is something attractive about terrorism. The brutal calculations, the wrongs and the rights, the deathly equation, the equalizing hand where the weak vanquishes the strong, if only for a brief moment of ecstasy. I love the idea that there are no alibis, no excuses, and no compromises for the terrorist. He knows he’s bad and he doesn’t care. He’s not even pretending to be a good guy.
It’s all about that brutal equalization of power between the strong and the weak. Only the strong can afford to fight fair. All weak parties must fight dirty or die. That’s why women fight dirty and men believe in honorable fights and rules of war. Women laugh at that. Honor in a fight! Pshaw! Rules in war? You nuts? Children fight dirty, slaves, maids, servants and beaten-down wives fight dirty. Terrorists all. Terrorists every one.
There’s something off-putting about physical terrorism in practice. Let’s face it. You have to truly have to your back up against a wall with all options run out to rejoice in the blood and guts of the enemy’s civilians, their women and children, their weakest leaks. Sure, I can understand the desperation, but I’m not that beaten down. Not yet. I pray I’m never beaten so low.
So much better than terrorism on the physical plane is what I would call Psychic Terrorism. Perhaps it is Magic. Perhaps it is just Psychology. I have no idea, but it’s a glorious force.
Our priorities are all wrong. We’ve fingered the least terrorists and made them the worst while we build statues to the worst terrorists of them all – the psychic terrorists.
There’s a poem by Philip Layton along the lines of…
Sure you guys blow up an airliner and kill a few kids.
Pick up the pieces, shed a few tears, say a few prayers, and it’s done.
Penny ante stuff, pikers, bit players on the world stage.
Look at our terrorists – Jesus, Freud, Marx, Einstein.
The world is still quaking.
Psychic terrorism. Now there’s a beautiful thing. I think I will conjure me up a potion of that tonite. Maybe I can rock the world just that one tiny, near-imperceptible bit.
I got banned from Reddit a while back. I still go there all the time and I am always greeted by this horrible message that my account is permanently banned. The site keeps throwing it in my face while I surf around the site. It’s very depressing to see that message over and over. It makes you feel hopeless. I kept sneaking back on and they kept banning me again. Sucks that these bans are for a lifetime. I hardly think what I did was worth a lifetime ban. I posted something. My opinion on a particular issue. You know, like free speech. And it wasn’t even particularly outrageous.
People were posting the usual insane bullshit about adult men and teenage girls, and someone discussed a man and a 13 year old girl. I made a post that said, “A man having sex with a 13 year old girl is normal.” I was banned for promoting pedophilia!
You can’t “promote pedophilia.” You can’t be for it or against it. It’s a biological disorder that some folks just end up with. Can you promote schizophrenia? Blue eyes? Albinism? Manic-depressive illness? Borderline Personality Disorder? Foot fetishism? Depression?
How on Earth can you promote or oppose any of those things, and what difference would it make if you did? None of those are really acquired behaviors. You can’t just decide you want to acquire any of those things. You either get wired up that way or you don’t, pretty much. Most are acquired in childhood, adolescence, or early adulthood, and tend to have a chronic course. People acquire mental disorders. You cannot promote or oppose any mental disorder. It’s ridiculous. These are simply maladaptive ways of thinking that some people get into. They’re not something where you wake up one day and decide you want to be this way.
And what would happen if you did promote any of the things above? Would you increase the rate of that thing? Of course not. What if you opposed it? Would you stop people from acquiring those conditions? Of course not.
Those conditions are not really willed actions, as in, “I can decide to go to the store right now.”
Get my pack, comb my hair, get my keys and phone, open the door, shut it and lock it, walk out of the complex to the sidewalk, and walk 200 yards to the store, then walk in, buy something, get change, turn around, and walk home with my item. Those are all willed actions.
I can decide to either do them or not. You can support or oppose any willed actions. Perhaps you wish people would not make decisions to do certain things. Perhaps you think it’s just fine if people decide to do this or that.
Anyway, what did I mean? Well, the American Psychiatric Association has decided that Hebephilia, usually an attraction or preference for pubescents aged ~12-14 is not a mental disorder. There was a big fight about it in the discussions of the latest DSM-5. The people saying it was not a disorder won. Furthermore, they went beyond that to say that not only was it not a disorder, it was also completely normal!
Turns out what they meant was that is it is completely normal for men to be attracted to 12-14 year old girls. In fact, 18% of all men have a primary attraction for girls that age; that is, they are more attracted to 12-14 girls than they are to mature females. It’s hard to say that 18% of all men are sick with some terrible mental disorder.
81% of men are primarily attracted to mature females, 15-16+. These men are called teleophiles. However, teleophilic men are also attracted to 11-14 year old girls, albeit on a slightly lower level than they are to matures. The usual estimate is that 100% of men are attracted to 12-15 year old girls and 95% of men are attracted to girls 2-12! However, in the latter case, almost all of those men are attracted to little girls at substantially lower level than they are to mature females. 3% of men are pedophiles; that is, they have are more attracted to girls under 11 than they are to mature females. That’s a lot of men.
So it is absolutely normal for a man to be attracted to 13 year old girls. There’s nothing wrong with that. Basically, all men have this attraction to some degree, frankly to a very substantial degree! Normal men are attracted to 12-14 year old girls at 87% of maximum. That’s a very high level of attraction.
Hence, does it follow that if he acts on the attraction, is that normal too? I said it was on Reddit, but I am not sure. It doesn’t strike me as intrinsically disordered behavior like child molestation. Men have been having sex with girls that age for almost all of human evolution. They still do in primitive societies, where men generally start having sex with girls after menarche, which is typically age 13.
In the DSM debate, they said that men who acted on their hebephilic urges were criminals in many Western countries. I would agree with that. If you’re asking me if I am advocating men to have sex with 13 year old girls ,I am not. The reason is because it’s illegal, and you might get caught. If you get caught they will throw the book at you, and you may go to prison for a long time, where you might not be real welcomed by the other inmates. If you ever get out you go on the Sex Offender list for life.
So I absolutely am not saying men should do these things. I completely oppose adult men having sex with 13 year old girls in our society. In addition, it ought to be illegal for grown men to have sex with 13 year old girls. I would give a break to, say, an 18 year old man, but once you start getting a bit above that, you have to seriously outlaw it. And if men are caught having sex with 13 year old girls, I think they should be incarcerated. I don’t wish to live in a society where it’s legal for grown men to have sex with 13 year old girls. That creeps me out.
I’m just saying it’s not psychologically disordered to do so. Is it normal? Well, maybe, but perhaps a lot of bad behavior is normal. Almost all crime is considered “normal” in that it is not mentally disordered behavior. Criminals don’t do it because they’re crazy. Committing crimes doesn’t make you nuts.
Instead, while crime is “normal,” it is also wrong in most cases. And I think you can make a case that a lot of crime is intrinsically wrong. That is, when you seriously harm other persons or their property or cause them losses, that seems to be immoral in a global sense of universal morality. Wife beating is probably intrinsically wrong too. But it’s not nuts. Sadly, it’s very normal to beat your wife.
But is a man having sex with a 13 year old girl intrinsically wrong? You can’t really make a case for that. If the girl seduces the man, and the sex is 100% consensual, it’s hard to see how it is wrong. If there’s any coercion involved and the man is seducing a reluctant girl, that strikes me as wrong. But whether it’s wrong or not, it’s still illegal, and we have to follow the laws of our society.
A good rule is that non-coercive sex is generally morally right (except with adults and little children under age 13), and coercive sex is morally wrong. And in certain societies, men having sex with 13 year old girls is morally proper, natural, and normal. It’s seen as immoral and abnormal in our society. Our society and any society has a right to decide what is right and what is wrong within reason. Societies get to make their own rules about morality.
Men having sex with young teenage girls is a behavior that is intrinsically neither right nor wrong. This is one of those behaviors where society decides whether and how right or wrong it is. Quite a few societies think it’s just fine. Our society thinks it is wrong, bad, immoral, evil, disgusting, creepy, on and on.
That’s the value that our society has placed on that act. It’s perfectly acceptable for a society to decide that men having sex with 13 year old girls is dead wrong, a seriously immoral act. So societies have a right to outlaw this behavior and even throw the book at people who violate these laws. So it’s acceptable for a society to punish men who have sex with 13 year old girls with imprisonment.
These things are more matters of right and wrong, good and bad, good and evil than matters of crazy or sane or normal or abnormal. These are not things that psychiatry deals with. Psychiatry only cares if you are nuts or not. We don’t care if something is right or wrong, and we don’t have a good idea what is anyway. Issues of right and wrong and good and bad behavior are matters for Moral Philosophy, the Sociology of Morals and the Law to figure out. They are moral and legal matters, not psychiatric ones.
I still think it was low and hysterical to ban me on this petty offense. Obviously, Redditors are in the throes of this idiot sex panic. Society has gone completely hysterical about this stupid issue. Shame on every one of you for falling for this asinine moral panic.
I’ve been arrested by cops a couple of times, been in jail a few hours, and seriously hassled as in questioned for a serious crime and threatened with having a confession beaten out of me, so you could say I’ve seen cops at their very worst, and boy are they monsters, or at least they can be when they want to. Sadistic, monstrous freaks out of a de Sade novel.
I actually think they’re not that much different from criminals in terms of cruelty, sadism, and lack of morals. It’s more that they’ve taken all these antisocial and sociopathic traits and channeled them towards victimizing bad guys. I’m sure they get a moral superiority kick out of it too. I guess I’d rather have psychopaths channel their evil towards harming bad people than victimizing us good people.
Energy exists. It doesn’t really dissipate. Werner von Braun noted that there is no extinction of energy and matter in nature and that all energy and matter is simply transformed into other forms of energy and matter. In other words, nature knows no extinction. It only knows transformation.
The problem with energy is it doesn’t want to just sit there. Energy is movement and it likes to move. It gets bored if you sit on your ass all the time. So energy tends to move in particular directions into or out of our bodies. When it moves out of our bodies, we can choose where do direct it. Sublimation is a thing. Churchill could have been Hitler.
And as you can see, it’s not so much whether the particular energy in you is good or bad but more the direction in which you aim it, as in a prosocial way or an antisocial way. I suppose I’d prefer people to direct their bad energy in prosocial ways as long as they are going to push it out at the world at all.
Energy tends to go either in or out. As I noted, it doesn’t like to sit there. Energy comes in good and bad forms, and we all have plenty of both somewhere inside of us. Bad energy either gets pushed out at the world or gets shoved inside of oneself as self-hatred, self-abnegation, low self-esteem, depression, suicidality, etc.
In another post, I talked about sex energy and how it doesn’t want to stay cooped up either. Sexual energy in particular wants to go outside the body and attach to objects, probably because the very purpose of sex energy is to attach itself to an object. I’m not sure bad energy wants to do that. It wants to go somewhere, but I’m not sure it has a preference for where.
Suicide and a thousand different ways to do it. Aggressive homicide all the way up to serial murder, rape, molesting kids, torture, every sex crime you can think of, robbing banks, burgling houses, mugging people, fraud, embezzlement, extortion, setting forest and brush fires, arson of homes, executing prisoners and civilians in wars, dropping bombs on people, you name it, I’ve thought of it.
Thing is, I’ve been imagining myself committing all of these acts since adolescence and yet I’ve never committed any of these acts even one time. But it was almost always like, “Can I do this? Do I have it in me to do this? What if I did this?” It wasn’t really a fantasy in most cases
I imagine it in your brain and typically the fantasy is not able to play itself out. I start to do the crime and then my brain steps in and says, “Forget it, man. I just can’t. No way in Hell. No way in a million years.” Quite a few times I have imagined myself committing one of these crimes and I have a knife or gun in my hand, menacing the terrified victim. That scene right there feels pretty bad. Most of the time, in my fantasy I simply drop the weapon on the ground or floor, say, “I can’t. I just can’t,” and then start crying or plead with the victim for forgiveness. I can’t even imagine doing something like that. My mind won’t even carry though the fantasy.
Sometimes I imagine committing some horrible crime, and then I imagine escaping or trying to escape afterwards.
However, probably since I am a good person, my mind always says, “Wait! You might get caught. You need to imagine getting caught if you are really going to do something like this.” So then I imagine getting caught. In a lot of cases, the getting caught part looks and feels real bad. It’s a horrorshow. My mind makes me exaggerate it to make it as horrible as possible, probably worse than it would be, probably to keep me from doing it.
I think this type of thinking is completely different from what people call fantasy. Fantasy is something you want or might want to do. You typically carry out the act in the fantasy. This is more of a “Could I do this?” type of “experimental thinking” where you are trying to figure out what your limits are behaviorally.
Once you consider you might get caught and you imagine the Hell you will have to pay with the cops afterwards, I think a lot of people will conclude that a lot of crime isn’t worth it.
Actually, it keeps me from doing these things because whenever I consider actually doing something bad for real, I’ve usually thought it over in my head and concluded that I didn’t have it in me to do it. I think we should test ourselves regularly with bad temptations just to clarify our moral boundaries. If you don’t do that, you don’t know what you are capable of, and you may just do something you regret for the rest of your life.
I’m starting to think there might not be a lot of difference between good people and bad people except that bad people act on their antisocial tendencies and good people repress them.
A commenter: Too much self-awareness leads to weakness and self-harm which, as you know, isn’t a good idea in any society let alone India.
Intuitively, it seems correct, but would any commenters like to expand on this?
Ignorance is bliss I guess. And you can obviously know others too well. This is why family members often hate each other so much. It’s all tied up with shame. You see, your family members know you inside and out, up and down, forwards and backwards, warts and all. They know the good side of you but boy do they know the bad side of you too. They know all your secrets. Nothing is hidden from them.
Hence, they are quite dangerous if they ever decide to spill the beans. The father who comes home from work, kicks the dog, yells at the kids, and badgers the wife is operating on this principle. Obviously, he’s displacing the rage he feels towards others at work whom he is not allowed to express it too. But it’s also the shame. The dog doesn’t know his secrets, but everyone else does. He looks at them and knows that they know his secrets and that makes him very angry because he feels ashamed. Rage often follows shame.
I’ve come to the conclusion that with a lot of people, it’s better to know a little bit about them than a lot about them. I know the locals at the local stores pretty well and they treat me like long-lost family every time I walk in. But I don’t know them very well. I’ve never hung out with them outside of work. I know nothing of their home life. So I’m really quite ignorant of these people. But from my limited vantage point, I can mostly see good things about these folks. I have no doubt that once I got to know them better, I could see a bad side of them. People tend to be on good behavior at work, especially if they face the public.
I feel this way about women too. I get called misogynist all the time, but it’s not really true. Actually I love women. But in spite of all the great times I’ve had with women in my life, I’ve had some of my worst experiences on Earth with none other than women, particularly girlfriends. They’ve hurt me as badly or worse than anyone else. So I love them, but they’ve caused me a lot of pain and this makes me angry.
Also I understand women pretty well. In part it is because I’m not the most masculine guy out there. When I was younger, people sometimes thought I was gay. A number of them refused to believe I was straight even when I told them. I have no idea why they thought this because I’m not effeminate. Maybe I’m just soft. Everyone thinks soft men are gay, but actually most soft and even wimpy men (two different types actually) are straight. Wimpy gay men are so wimpy it’s ludicrous. Some gay men are soft, but most others tend to be effeminate.
Anyway I get along with women very well or at least I did until I got to late middle age and the female population of the Earth starting hating me. I will confess that women my age still like me. But that’s about it. Young women seem to utterly detest me. I can’t even talk about the weather with them. But my whole life I’ve got on well with women. Often most of my friends were women.
I used to say I wouldn’t mind being around women all the time and being around men as little as possible. To this day, I prefer the company of women to that of men. And one reason for that is, I must admit, that there’s a part of my brain that literally thinks like a woman. In this way I can connect with them very well whereas with most other people, the male-female dyad seems to be some odd connection of opposites.
Anyway, the problem is that I definitely know women too well. Way too well. Way too well for my own good. And to tell the truth, I liked them more (but in a very stupid and naive way) when I didn’t understand them so well. As I’ve come to know them better and better, I’ve grown more cynical about them.
You see, I can see the whole wonderful good side of women (and girls for that matter, as I love girls too). The good side of women is one of the most glorious things in God’s green Earth.
And then there is the bad side.
A good way to look at a lot of things is to say they are 50% good and 50% bad. Men are 50% good and 50% bad. Women are the same.
The bad side of men is utterly terrifying as in literally physically dangerous to life and limb, but the bad side of the Feminine Principle is pretty monstrous too, with the exception that they won’t hurt you physically. They will hurt you verbally, psychologically, and spiritually, but they don’t tend to engage in physical violence. That is in the universe of the men.
The thing is that I often find myself regretting that I know women so well. It was a lot more fun when I walked around half the time thinking “I love women! I love women!” I thought that mostly because I hadn’t really figured out their bad or even evil side. I’d seen some of it but I found it baffling in the same way you react to a crazy person in the streets. I thought it was an aberration or just craziness. Now I see that that nastiness wasn’t aberrant at all. It was simply the half of women that is bad, or even evil.
So I definitely know women way too well, and it was sure a lot more fun when I was quite ignorant about them.
Found on the Net: This is the media and academia spin on every topic — nothing is the loser’s fault, everything failing is caused by external White evil.
This is interesting in a philosophical sense.
According to the reigning narrative, Blacks (and any other fake oppressed group) literally have no agency. That is, they have no free will and cannot make any decisions at all for themselves, no matter how bright they are. Black people never do anything. They literally cannot because if they ever did anything, it would wreck the whole idea.
Instead, Black people are passive objects that only sit there and get things done to them, usually bad things and usually by Whites. They just sit there helplessly while all these bad things get done to them all day long which they are powerless to stop. Since they have no agency and never do anything, nothing can ever be their fault.
Feminists do this same thing with women. Women have no agency either and they never do anything; instead things just get done to them, usually bad things and usually by men. Women just sit around in life and get bad things done to them all day which they are powerless to stop.
Please note the extreme infantilization implied here. Both Blacks and women are permanent children, as children are usually thought to have little to no agency (minors can’t consent and all that nonsense).
Now, if one wants to make the argument that women are permanent children, I won’t argue with you. That’s part of the Feminine Character, and arguably it’s an evolutionary necessity.
A woman can literally sit in a playpen with an idiotic baby and play with the baby all day long without a care in the world. She’s in her happy place, heaven on Earth. You can’t do that unless you have a childlike or childish mind yourself. I wouldn’t last 10 minutes with that dumb baby.
On the other hand, sane societies (otherwise known as patriarchies, since these are the only societies that actually work) have always seriously proscribed childishness in grown women .
Sure, women want to be childish – it’s their nature. But if you enforce maturity and adulthood on them with serious punishments, most women will suppress their childish tendencies and act like grownups. My mother’s generation was like this.
The problem with feminism is that it is based on the idea that women are permanent children with no agency. It’s also encouraged women to act as crazy as possible. Acting crazy is also part of the Feminine Character, but once again, sane societies put serious punishments on women for acting nutty.
Women in my Mom’s generation acted like grownups and were quite sane. In these younger generations it seems like we are dealing with whole cohorts of females with symptoms of Borderline Personality Disorder.
So, I’m wondering, based on this theory, does the woke crowd treat Blacks like children? They infantalize Black people, don’t they? According to them, Blacks are permanent children who never grow up .
That’s pretty insulting but perhaps Black people want it like this. There is a freedom in childhood, and acting like a child that we adults are generally denied. This is frustrating for a lot of adults who wish to reject the stultifying, over-serious rectitude of adulthood that can feel like a prison at times.
Furthermore, children have no responsibilities and people have few expectations of them – in fact it is expected and assumed they will act bad and this is seen as normal, albeit lamentable and annoying. They are not expected to be skilled or accomplished at much if anything, and failure in many tasks is assumed and treated as normal.
Most importantly in many ways, nothing us really a child’s fault. If a kid does something waited or crazy we excuse it by saying “Oh well, he’s just a child.” Young children are assumed to have diminished capacity for mist crimes and many ordinary acts if human behavior (minors can’t consent to sex, etc.)
All if these add up to a sense of freedom that might be appealing to many Black people. And I would add, to many Whites too. Reading the above and seeing how much responsibility and culpability I can avoid by remaining a permanent child is starting to make it a bit appealing even to me. And I’m a responsible, intelligent person. If permanent childhood is appealing to me, consider how it must feel to the tens of millions of Americans who are much less intelligent and responsible than I am.
Commenter Siberiancat, who is a Russian, left this comment a while back:
Russians are pretty good with gray areas.
A Russian emigrant mathematician and psychologist Vladimir Lefevre was an adviser to Reagan on how to conduct negotiations with Gorbachev. He had a theory that Western and Eastern European (in this case, Soviet) ethics were completely different.
In Western thinking, there is a clear difference between Good and Evil. One should confront evil, yet compromise with an enemy is a good thing
In the Eastern approach, there is no Good and Evil. Everything is gray. The ends justify the means, and one should not compromise with an enemy.
The advice was to conduct negotiations in such a way that the Soviets would not look like compromising to the domestic constituency. Make negotiations mostly informal. Avoid formal deals that might be seen as defeats by the ordinary Russians.
I would not say that Russians are Easterners, having nothing in common with the Chinese or Indians, yet the ethical systems between them and the West are obviously different.
Oh, and Lefevre was the guy who coined the term Evil Empire.
I find it interesting that he ties Eastern European (as in Slavic?) thinking with Russian thinking. What about in the Baltic states? They’re so Westernized. And the Czechs are so Western they are barely even Slavs. And what do we do with the Romanians? The culture and religion of the East, yet the language of the West? I suspect they are more Eastern than we think. The Balkans, Greece, …Hell, even Bulgaria, are more Southern European or better yet, Southeastern European.
I know everyone over there hates the Turks and I don’t blame them, but I’m afraid that they’re more Turkified than they think, especially the Greeks. Or perhaps the entire region is Southeast Europanified, Southeast European being different from both Eastern and Southern Europe. The Turks like to delude themselves that they are part of general Southeastern Europe, but that is just more Muslim arrogance. They’re so much closer to the Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians, and Kurds that they hate so much than they will ever admit. Religion isn’t as big a part of human culture as everyone thinks. In a lot of areas, it’s almost a cultural “add-on.”
I do like this part though:
In the Eastern approach, there is no Good and Evil. Everything is gray.
Reminds me of the great line from Rumi:
In that field
Beyond good and evil
I will meet you there
That is just so perfect, I am sorry. And it’s so…Eastern…Hell, it’s almost downright Chinese for Chrissake. Rumi was an Iranian Shia Sufi poet. I wonder to what extent Iranian thinking is “Eastern?” I hate to say like Chinese, but I sense a deep vibe of Chinese philosophy in that bit of terse poetry.
Part of the essential Female Character is an insane level of Puritanism. Of course it’s combined with a Nymphomaniacal Sexuality. To observers, this makes no sense as it’s a contradiction, but you will never understand women until you figure out that both of these things running at the same time are an essential part of the Female Character.
Feminism is a problem because it took Female Thinking, which is part functional and adaptive and part retarded and dysfunctional (like Male Thinking), and institutionalized, weaponized and finally coded into law this screwed up thinking.
Furthermore, feminism as a science and a way of perceiving reality if forever fucked because it says that the Ultimate Truth about Reality lies in the female view of the world and the Female Character. Well, no it doesn’t. The Female Character, like so many things (or everything?), is half good and half bad. Half of the stuff women believe makes sense, and the other half is a bunch of stupid crap best ignored by any man. Anyone claiming that a philosophy that is 50% stupid bullshit is a proper tool for the analysis of reality is out of their head.
It’s not pathological for a man of any age to have sex with a teenage girl of any age. That’s clear from the debates around DSM-5 Hebephilia which wished to pathologize men who have a preference for girls under 15 over mature females. The criteria would probably have been been severe and persistent fantasies of pubertal girls, so that would rule out most men. However, fully 21% of all men are more attracted to girls under 13 than they are to mature females!
I realize that figure is shocking, but bear with me. It’s been born out by study after study.
I did some research on the local Yokuts Indians from a site in the 1600’s-1700’s. They had a series of skeletons of young women who had all died. They were between ages of 27-35. The assumption was that this was a woman’s lifespan among this primitive tribe. She was dead by age 31! If a woman is going to be dead by age 31, she’d best start having kids at age 16 or maybe even younger. If she starts breeding at age 16, her children will be 15 when she dies. Starting at 15, her kids would be 16 when she died. Starting at 14, her kids would be 17 when she died.
In Mexico, they marry their women and start breeding them at age 14, and it is usually an adult man who marries her. In most primitive tribes, there is a coming of age ceremony around age 15. Even today among most primitive tribes, girls and boys are both considered full adults at age 15. According to modern, advanced American thinking, 100% of the people in primitive tribes today are child molesters and pedophiles! See how stupid that sounds? 95% of the American population actually thinks like this.
You might think it’s terrible for a teen’s mother to die when the teen is 15-17 years old, but back then, that was just normal. The kids would not be left adrift anyway as by that age, they were all no longer boys and girls but full-fledged men and women.
Furthermore, sad events that are normalized in your society may not be very traumatizing. Much of the trauma occurs because people are told that something horrible has happened to them. Before they get told that, they were often not sure of how to process the event. If instead we told that that what happened was wrong or bad but it was no big deal and they would get over it, you would see the trauma rates collapse.
Tell someone they’ve been traumatized and guess how they act? They act traumatized! In our society, we’ve decided that 50% of life is traumatizing, especially with the snowflakes and their safe spaces and microaggressions. No wonder so much young people seem so nuts these days. We’ve been yelling at them that they’re being traumatized all the time all through childhood and teen years and it doesn’t even get better when they grow up. So they act, duh. Traumatized! Of course once you have a Traumatizing Society, you need to set up a huge Trauma Industry dedicated to making mountains out of molehills and ensuring that grown adults remain pussified babies long into adulthood.
The modern notion that people are all little tiny children until the day they hate 18 is insane. It’s backed up by notions that the brain is not fully matured by 17. Well, it’s not fully matured by age 24-26 either, so let’s put the age of consent for sex and the majority at age 25! After all, you’re only an adult when your brain is mature, right?
Truth is that people mature at different ages. In early times in the West, children were considered “little adults” and were often treated as such. It’s not known if they matured earlier then but maybe they did. Treat someone like a kid, they act like a kid. Treat someone like an adult, they act like an adult.
Although this sounds very groovy and compassionate to our postmodern, late capitalist, metrosexual, 3rd Wave feminist ears, the truth is that for 200,000 years of our evolution, no human gave two shits that the brain didn’t fully mature until age 25, although they probably had some notion of the idea. They simply didn’t feel it was worth thinking about because frankly it isn’t.Our present culture infantalizes teenagers and young adults to an extreme degree. Infantalizing humans doesn’t seem to be a good idea to me, but maybe “modern people” have other ideas. After all, treat someone like a baby and they act like one, right?
Further, most primitive tribes allow both boys and girls to start having sex at puberty, around age 13. The girls often have sex with boys, but sometimes they have sex with men. For instance, the typical marriage among the Blackfoot Indians was between a man aged 35 and a 15 year old girl. Our “modern, scientific, compassionate” society would state unequivocally that all Blackfoot men were pedophiles or child molesters for the thousands of years that the tribe was in existence.
Isn’t that a stupid way to think? Look how stupid we are! We’re surrounded by all these damned gadgets, we are so technologically advanced that we’re about to become literal aliens, we can cure or help most diseases, we understand most of the most important questions, including the biggies or we’re on our way to figuring them out. Unified Theory, here we come!
But some goddamned primitive Indian with a digging stick and a rock to grind acorns in who doesn’t know the first thing about technology, science, or medicine has more wisdom we “advanced” clowns do. For Chrissake, we may be advancing technologically, but we’re going backwards in terms of wisdom. How pathetic is it that Silicon Valley ultra-technologists have less wisdom that some primitive tribe eking out an existence in the jungle? Are we too civilized for our own damn good? It’s possible to get so “civilized,” protective, pampering, and fussy that you’re not even rational anymore. That my modern colleagues have less wisdom than some spearchucker in the jungle is a pretty sad statement!
From age 13-15, most girls are not very fertile, so it’s hard to get pregnant.
The debate around Hebephilia ended up concluding that even having a strong preference for pubertal children as sex partners was not mentally disordered. Further, it wasn’t even abnormal! Having been in chatrooms full of these guys, I’m not so sure about that, but it’s best to keep as much sex crap out of the DSM as we can.
It was even decided that having sex with 13-15 year old girls if one had a preference for them was not mentally disordered either because most crimes are not mental disorders and most criminals aren’t nuts. Instead, the argument was that these men weren’t nuts – instead they were just criminals, with being criminal and being nuts as two different things!
Of course most crooks aren’t nuts. They’re just bad. Are there disorders called Murder Disorder, Mugging Disorder, Fraudster Disorder, Batterer Disorder, Attempted Murder Disorder, Burglar Disorder, Robber Disorder, Forger Disorder, etc.? Well, of course not.
In mental health all we care about is if something is nuts or not. Hence we don’t care much about criminal behavior because most crooks aren’t nuts. We leave that to the judicial system to deal with and moral philosophers to decide what to allow and forbid. If people are disordered, we say they are abnormal. If people are not disordered, we say they are normal.Obviously a lot of real bad people are not disordered. So we are forced to call a lot of criminal behavior and most criminals normal because neither one is generally crazy. So a lot of very bad behavior and people are “normal” in the sense that they’re not nuts.
So a man of any age having sex with a teenage girl of any age does not make him sexually abnormal, as it’s completely “normal” behavior, as in, it’s not nuts, and even, looking at human history and other cultures, in most places and times, it was more or less normal.
But normal behavior doesn’t necessarily mean ok behavior. It just means that the behavior is not crazy.
The statutory rape matter is a moral and legal problem, not a psychological one.
We in mental health do not like to pathologize crimes and morally unethical behavior as psychological disorder. This is outside of what we care about and off into the lands of moral philosophers, religious thinkers, and legal theorists. It is in the area of right and wrong, good and bad, and good and evil. Most criminal behavior is not driven by psychological disorder. It’s driven by a defective moral conscience.
So whether it should be legal for a man of whatever age to have sex with a teenage girl or whatever age is a moral matter, a moral question. Perhaps you feel it is the worst behavior on Earth. Perhaps you think it’s completely ok and should be legal. Probably you are somewhere between those views. All of those views about this behavior are valid, as everyone and hence society itself is entitled to reasonable moral values of right and wrong.
Why was there an attempt to shove Hebephilia into the DMSO category in the first place. Because it was a game. A game called “Call Em Crazy, Lock Em up as Dangerous Forever, and Throw Away the Key.” Otherwise known as preventive detention. Or putting people in prison for life for the crime of “dangerousness.”
The game here is make a lot of the sexual behavior we dislike into “mental illnesses.” Because the only way we can lock someone up forever on the bullshit charge of “dangerousness” (there’s no such crime) is if they’re nuts. Yep. You can be dangerous as Hell, and as long as you’re not officially crazy and you’re just a mean SOB, it’s all kosher.
Obviously most sex offenders are not the slightest bit nuts, so a scam was made up to call them crazy so we could lock them up forever in preventive detention (which is probably illegal) for the rest of their lives because we think maybe they might sort of kind of a little bit possibly theoretically plausibly do something, we don’t know what, to someone, we don’t who, somewhere, we don’t know where, somehow, we don’t know how.
That’s unconstitutional on its face.
The only people you can lock up like are the dangerously mentally ill, and you are supposed to release them when they get better, except we never do because no matter how much better they get, we always say they’re not better enough. So we wanted to lock all these poor sops away forever, but we couldn’t because they weren’t nuts, they were just bad people, you know, like most criminals? So a scam was created to make up a bunch of “mental disorders” out of what are mostly just kinks and sexual perversions, when it’s doubtful whether any kinky or perverted people are actually nuts.
Generally they’re not nuts. They’re just perverts. Perverts aren’t nuts. They’re perverted. Two different things.
So they made up a fake mental disorder called Pedophilia to lock up all the child molesters forever, although most men in preventive detention are nonpedophilic molesters. Also they never let them out even when they get better because no matter how much better they get, the cops still say they’re not better enough yet. When will they be better enough? When they’re dead! It’s right out of Kafka. They just sit and rot forever. All because, you know, think of the children! And the usual pearl clutching we Americans so excel at.
So we decided all the chomos and short eyes had a “mental disease” called “Pedophilia” that made them “insane” or if you prefer “crazy.” Well, it doesn’t make you insane and it doesn’t even make you crazy. It might make you do bad things, but it doesn’t make you nuts. And since we decided on no rational basis whatsoever that all of these people were permanently dangerous, we have locked them all away forever on the basis that they are “dangerously mentally ill.” It’s all a big joke.
Dangerously mentally ill is supposed to be for the paranoid schizophrenic who grabs a gun and climbs a tower. It’s not for run of the mill criminals. Merely being dangerous as opposed to being nuts and dangerous is not granted the penalty of preventive detention because it’s decided that as long as you’re not nuts, you have at least some ability to control your dangerous behavior because obviously if you’re nuts, you lose that ability.
How about all the other paraphilias? Why don’t we decide they’re all dangerously mentally ill too? There’s nothing preventing it. The peeping toms? The flashers? The fetishists? The masochists? The sexual sadists? The first two are low level criminals so no one cares, the third are harmless except to women’s panties, shoes, and pocketbooks, the fourth only hurt themselves so no one cares, but the fourth? The sexual sadists? One might make the case that some convicted sexual sadists are dangerously mentally ill, but they never go down on this stuff. Only the Chesters. Because, you know, everyone hates Touchers. Think of the children!
One might think that as Antisocial Personality Disorder is in the DSM, a lot of these guys could go down on dangerously mentally ill, but there’s a serious argument whether any personality disordered person is mentally ill per se as opposed to be what I would call sick, character disordered, twisted, etc. Axis 2 people are what I call “soul-sick.” They’re permanently disordered, but the issue is at the core of their selves so they’re not really mentally ill. Instead, they are “sick.”
But nope, no PD’s go down on dangerously mentally ill. We save that for the sex criminals! Because, you know, the sex criminals are really so much worse than your ordinary variety criminals who burgle, rob, thieve, defraud, beat, maim, mug, shoot, stab, torture, and kill people because as long as they’re not fucking anyone while they’re doing it, it’s never quite so bad, you see? Because Puritanism. Obviously it’s so much worse to do bad things when you are fucking someone as opposed to just, you know, doing bad things when you don’t happen to be fucking anyone. Because whether you’re fucking someone or not when you commit your crime makes such a difference!
There has been a very devious attempt lately to sneak another mentally disordered sex offender (MDSO) into the mix.
But first notice that they singled out the sex criminals for permanent preventive detention as opposed to, you know, your garden variety maniacs. But why? Why do only sex criminals deserve preventive detention as opposed to regular murderers, muggers, and robbers? Because moral panic. That’s why.
They went after the rapists. Because of course everyone hates rapists. Except we live in a rape culture that says it’s ok to rape and encourages all men to go rape all they want. But at the same time everyone hates rapists. Makes sense, huh? They tried to sneak in a Rape Paraphilic Disorder in order to round up all the rapists just like they rounded up all the Chesters.
Problem? The vast majority of rapists do not have any sort of a paraphilia about rape. They do it for all sorts of reasons. Some like to hurt people (sadistic rapists), some are angry at or hate women (anger rapists) and two different types do it for different power trips – the Power Reassurance Rapist and another that slips my mind. One of these types is the “gentleman rapist” who actually feels bad about raping you! So there are different kinds, and almost all rapists won’t kill you, except the Sadists (5%) are very dangerous, and the Anger Rapists (30%?) may well hurt you but generally won’t kill you unless you fight them, in which case they might.
But men who have a specific paraphilia about rape? That is, they get aroused more by the idea of raping women than by anything else, possibly to the point that unless they rape or pretend to rape, it just doesn’t move the meter? It’s either very uncommon or nonexistent, depending on who you listen to. But of course, once they sneak in Rape Paraphilic Disorder, they’re going to label allthe rapists mentally ill with this fake illness, and lock them all away as MDSO’s! Neat trick, huh? Thankfully the DSM-5 committees stopped that one coming and dodged the bullet.
DSM-5 Hebephilia was shot down on similar grounds, that this was an attempt to round up men who committed statutory rape with young teens (13-15 year old girls) and missed the deadline for going down on Child Molestation (usually under 13). So this way we get to lock up countless men who bang hot to trot little jailbaits forever as dangerously mentally ill.
Hi, I updated this somewhat. From three weeks ago and made some changes. Hope you enjoy.
Under Female Rule, women are always putting in these utopian feminist policies because, well, women are utopians. Whereas we men know the world is shit and we’re just trying to make it half-tolerable before we take off. The whole idea of utopia causes men to cough out cynical laughs. “It would be nice,” they all agree. “Except it doesn’t work, humans being humans and all that.”
For an example, idiotic #metoo nuttiness that made flirting, dating, and sex all potential career-killers for men has had the logical (Duh!) effect of college-aged men avoiding women like that plague so as not to jeopardize their future careers. All men know that women are dangerous, but they’ve never been dangerous like this.
Give a woman some power and watch her abuse it. Give a woman a punishing tool and watch her abuse it.It’s what the weak do.The weak abuse their power. They abuse their tools.In order to respect and not abuse power and dangerous tools, you have to be strong enough to not have to abuse them in the first place.And women are weak, and like all weak people and groups, they will always fight dirty and abuse power because that’s the only way they have a chance.
So now men are mass-ignoring women, an effect that any moron could have seen would result in women taking #metoo in the usual overboard direction they take everything. What did they think was going to happen? Hey women! Men aren’t like you. Men are rational. If they see flirting, dating, and sex as possible career wreckers, every one of you is going to be seen as a Goddamned black widow spider and avoided at all costs.
So, as request:
“Hey women, how bout going back and fixing the dumbass rules you thought up that are now making you so miserable?”
Ha ha. That question makes me laugh right there, but it’s so typical of female behavior that any male knows exactly what it means.
Of course they never do. Admitting they were wrong would cause them to lose too much face, and women are human after all. Nobody wants to admit they screwed up.
So when women make a mass retarded decision (something they do all the time), they sometimes start screaming about the logical result of their decision, and then they refuse to fix it because they’re too prideful. This is what happens when you let women run society and make the laws and rules. Sheer chaos.
Female Rule fails everywhere it’s been tried.
So women create things with good intentions that end up being complete clusterfucks, and then they often never fix them because they would have to admit they were wrong. On the other hand,men or society at large create things with good intentions that end up being complete clusterfucks, and then they the men will at least to fix the mess because men can admit they are wrong andare at least capable of fixing their fuckups.
It is actually the weak who cannot admit they are wrong. Women never admit they are wrong because they are weak. Same with children. Men who seem powerful and confident and never admit they are wrong are actually insecure. Insecure people are not strong. They may seem strong but they are not because they are too weak to admit that they are wrong. Curiously, it takes a strong person to admit they wrong. The stronger you are, the more you can do it, and the weaker you are, the less you can do it. It’s a paradoxical thing. So men, being powerful, are at least capable en masse of admitting they screwed up.
Men don’t like chaos or idiocy, especially combined as women’s projects tend to result in, and pretty soon men start yelling that somebody screwed up. Who’s fault is it? “Who knows? Who cares!” The men yell. Bottom line is this utopian proposal is not working.
So men dive in with their hands and try to fix it, all the while admitting that someone (maybe them) screwed up when they did it before. Men will take responsibility. “We messed up. We thought this was a good fix but all it did was create new worse problems. Fine, people make mistakes, no problem. Let’s move on, fix them, and do it right!
Because men hate things that don’t work. There’s nothing a man hates more than a nonfunctional object or policy. And they hate things that don’t worse than they hate admitting they are wrong (men hate that too), so if they have to choose between the two, they will admit they were wrong to stop the chaos that they hate more. It’s not a matter of liking something more than something else. People think decisions are based on the concept of liking, but rather they are based on the concept of hating. It’s a matter of hating one thing less than something else, as most decisions in life are.
Men and women both break stuff, but at least men admit they blew it and dive in to fix it, meanwhile women are too ashamed and proud so they do nothing.
Instead, they bitch and live in the chaos, which causes them to bitch more, but understand that women like and need to bitch, so this is really more of a wash than anything else.
We are both breakers. Men break stuff and women break stuff. There’s not a lot of difference there.
The difference is in what you do afterwards.
We’re fixers. Women aren’t fixers.
So Male Rule works but is often unjust while Female Rule fails but is often more just.
Life is about “justice.” If justice doesn’t work then fuck it. Let’s go back to injustice because a lot of time injustice at least works while justice doesn’t work at all.
Problem is most people with genius IQ’s s (1% of the population) pretty quickly figure out that the world is populated by morons and psychopaths. They’re not really morons except that at stratospheric IQ’s, even average IQ people almost seem retarded.
The psychopaths of course run the show and get all the money, stuff, and chicks. Hence why women flock to psychopaths. Psychopaths lie constantly and these lies become known as “culture,” especially as they own the (((media))) and (Hollywood))). Don’t mean to single out any particular ethnic group here but the (((ones))) who run Hollywood and the media are as psychopathic as any Gentile running society.
The morons are too dumb to figure out they’re being lied to, so they go along with the lies. Hence why the psychopaths always try to grab the media, first thing they do. Because most of the morons are so dumb that they actually believe the media, even when it’s lying most of the time.
Genius IQ is hardly a brag. 1 out of every 100 Americans has one. Genius IQ’s are as common as weeds. If you ever went to university, you probably met them teaching your classes and probably sitting next to you.
A famous article called The Outsiders was written a while back. The writer sought out people with IQ’s over 160. Yes, I’ve met one. I also met a 156 IQ woman. She was literally the fastest woman I’ve ever met in my life. Her life was like a rocket to the moon, it was that fast. Most of them were men and most were failures, of course. Most were living at or near the poverty level. If they worked at all it was in basic jobs like at the post office. Most were not married and recent celibacy rates were very high. Most of them were not dating at all. Some were very handsome, too.
Women don’t exactly seek out geniuses you know. They were almost all excruciatingly shy and introverted. There wasn’t any mention of Aspergers Syndrome, though I doubt most had it. Most lived alone in small apartments. As you can see it is actually possible to be so damned smart that you are doomed to fail in society. And almost to a one, they were misanthropes and absolutely hated people. Why? Every single one of them hated people because they said they were idiots.
Well, I concur. Actually, every day I stick around this Clown Rock Flying Through Space, I start to hate people just a little bit more. And I hate them because, yes, they’re stupid. Now, stupid people are just fine. Hey, most humans are idiots, face it. Just because you’re dumb doesn’t mean you’re bad as long as you’re nice. Problem is people can’t settle for being merely stupid. They have been dangerous too! So my opinion is that I hate people more and more every day because they are dangerous idiots. As in so damned stupid that they are a threat to my sanity and maybe even my freedom.
People are dangerously stupid because they can’t think for themselves. They’re all just terrified sheep. They go along with whatever Lies du Jour are being pushed because if you don’t, you get ostracized like me. Of course if enough of them called the liars on their lies, they’d have to give them up and at least go make up some new ones.
Also, people are faddists. They are prone to mass hysterias and moral panics.
To give you an example of how asinine moral panics are, things that were completely normal in the 1970’s (statutory rape) are now regarded as the most evil things on Earth, deserving of life in prison or the death penalty! Dumb or what? Why? Because we’re in the midst of an idiot moral panic about this stuff.
And stuff that was regarded as the most evil behavior on Earth (smoking pot, taking psychedelics, and “drugs” in general) is now shockingly normal, and smoking pot is practically legal. I can’t tell you how many sanctimonious fucks I dealt with back in the day because I smoked pot, dropped acid now and again and like a line of coke at time. And I was never more than a casual user of most of that stuff.
See? The moral panics aren’t even rational! One decade something is just fine. Ten years later you need to get lynched on the spot for it. One decade something is Satan’s work itself. Come ten years and it’s so normal it’s almost laughable.
People who get involved in moral panics are basically sanctimonious shits. I’ve been dealing with hysterical, panicked sanctimonious shits my whole life and I’m really tired of them. I’m tired of being told I’m a bad person. I’m not anyway.
I’m actually starting to look forward to death, and that’s sorry.
People are saying these are different processes, but really they’re the same, no?
By the way, this is a good idea to take out into the world with you when dealing with others. What was the cause of this person’s reaction to me? My behavior or appearance (sort of the same thing but not quite). What was the effect of my behavior/appearance on this person? Their resultant behavior. Even works for bigotry. Bigots are reacting to your appearance mostly, not so much to your behavior. If it seems like self-blaming, well, it is. We are the cause of other people’s reactions to us, right, wrong, or indifferent.
Even if people have evil or immoral reactions to us, we still caused the reaction. Jews caused the evil Nazi reaction by their appearance, by the simple fact that they were Jews. It’s not the Jews’ fault, but that was the cause of Nazi behavior. Why did that woman get raped? She was an attractive young woman who happened to be in the general vicinity of some raping maniac, and her appearance and behavior caused his urge to rape her to unfold. She still innocent because all she was doing was existing as a human being, and he still gets all the years in prison you want to throw at him, but she’s still the cause of his behavior. This is true for just about anything.
Cause and effect. Cause and effect. Cause and effect. It’s how the world goes round. Or the universe, if you prefer to get expansive.
Most Westerners are silly Manicheans, so that sentence is seen as insane. But any intelligent Asian man would just nod his head. Long ago, they figured out that everything’s a grey area. Remember what Mao said about Stalin? “Stalin was 70% good and 30% bad.” That makes complete sense to any intelligent Asian.
To a Westerner, perhaps especially to an American, that sentence is “insane.” And most Westerners would describe it exactly as such. Westerners don’t do grey areas. Neither do Muslims. Nor Jews. Must have to do with those Abrahamic religions, where things are either good or evil and no ifs, ands or butts about it.
The Jews do try to get away from that with their Talmud, which is 13,000 pages of a bunch of rabbis sitting around debating this or that and never really coming to much of a conclusion about anything. Except most Jews never read one page of the Talmud. Tell a Jew about the evil and sick stuff in that book and they will yell at you. Except you’d be right.
Hinduism tried to get away from that too but mostly by deciding that there wasn’t really such a thing as evil, except the only evil being not fulfilling your Dharma, that is, taking care of your loved ones, tribe, caste, etc. And if you have to do that by stealing millions of dollars, Hinduism says that’s a-ok.
Of course Buddhism tries hardest to get away from this the most to the point where Zen will hardly admit that much of anything is true or even worth pondering about. Instead, as Candide wisely opined, one should simply cultivate one’s garden. Do that, think of nothing but what precisely you are doing, and there you will find satori.