Action-Reaction and Cause-Effect

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.

Alt Left: Why Male Rule Works and Female Rule Always Fails

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 have 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, “Hey women, how bout going back and fixing the dumbass rules you thought up that are now making you so miserable?”

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 usually 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 humans 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 are at least capable of fixing their fuckups. 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! Bottom line is this utopian proposal is not working. So men dive in with their hands and try to fix it, all the while saying that they screwed up when they did it before. So now let’s do it right!

Because men hate things that don’t work. There’s nothing a man hates more than a nonfunctional object or policy.

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.

We’re fixers. Women aren’t fixers.

So Male Rule works and Female Rule fails.

Eastern Thinking Versus Western Thinking

Say you don’t love something or hate something but instead that you have a whole range of feelings towards it ranging from love to hate to everything in between, and most Westerners will either look at you in awe like you are a Godhead or condemn you as a crazy person, with the latter reaction being the norm.

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.

Alt Left: The Great Logical Disconnect at the Core of SJWism: People Are Basically Shitty, Amoral, Predatory Mammals

The problem with SJWism is it says Reality isn’t reality. What’s real for SJW’s is this fake Utopian SJW world they believe in.

Except the real world doesn’t work like that. In the real world, we are cavemen and cavewomen, and he world runs on hate, jealousy, envy, lust, greed, lying, manipulation, sociopathy, Machiavellianism, and other awful things, and as far as sex goes, being mammals, we like to rut in the mud like pigs in a pen. And when it comes to sex, SJWism is off on some other planet.

So SJW’s are constantly running up against a world that doesn’t work the way their utopia says it’s supposed to work. Instead of saying their utopia is crap because humans are predatory mammals barely a step above grizzly bears when the real world doesn’t match up with SJW Utopia, to SJW’s that means the real world (reality) is wrong because the SJW Utopia (the fake world) is always right.

Except it’s never been tried except on paper. And what little evidence of it we do have in practice shows that it causes nothing but chaos and dysfunction, just like Female Rule. Which makes sense because feminism is at the core of SJWism, and as feminism (Female Rule) doesn’t work, neither does SJWism.

It would be all very nice if humans were as groovy and kind and nice and utopian and pretty and empathic and free of evilheartedness as the SJW Utopia demands, but alas, people are people, and humans are massively flawed in the Goodness Quotient because our mammal brains keep ordering us to act bad, wherein “acting bad” just means “acting how a typical amoral, surivival-oriented mammal always acts.”

Because the Real World runs screaming headfirst into the fake SJW Utopian World, smashing it all to bits, this logically infuriates SJW’s, who say the Real World is wrong. Not just wrong but Evil. Hence all the wild efforts of Cancel Culture to “cancel” people for acting like people instead of programmed utopian robots.

The Real World is fake! The true real world is our fake Utopian SJW World!

You can’t fool all the people all the time, thank God, and obviously illogical-on-their-face arguments like the bolded above are eventually going to run up against the Logic crowd who are going to figure out, brainwashed though they may be, that’s it’s the Real World, flawed and shitty as it is, that is the real thing, and the Utopian World, full of goodness and light and everything nice, that doesn’t even exist except in people’s heads. Sooner or later people open their eyes and figure out the SJW Emperor hasn’t any clothes after all. Let the rest of the Woke scream about his great outfit. We, the rational, can see that he’s naked as a jaybird.

Don’t Fight Dirty in Life

Don’t fight dirty in life as a good general rule. The exception would be if you are dealing with someone who is truly incorrigible and evil. Then fight as dirty as you want. But even then, I find myself limiting my evilness.

That’s what my enemies have been doing to me all through my life. I refuse to fight dirty in general. That right there proves that I am infinitely better than most of my enemies. Men, if you are going to fight, as a general rule, try to fight fair. No one ever does or almost no one ever does, but there’s always a first time, and you can always be the only one.

I am a gentleman. An honorable man. An honorable man generally refuses to fight dirty. He fights clean. He’s fair in both love and war. Fighting dirty is for pussies and fags. It’s weak and gay. When you fight dirty, you are a little bitch. Why? Because that’s how a woman fights! Women fight dirty! Why? Because they are weak and this is the only way they can fight. Women give the silent treatment and “accidentally” burn the dinner. It’s dirty as Hell but it’s the only way they stand a chance against us men.

All subordinated and weak people and organizations fight dirty. Slaves fight dirty against their masters.

Small armies have to fight dirty to even stand a chance against a powerful foe. If they fight fair, they’d be decimated in the first battle. Big armies write rules about fighting fairly in war because if you’re strong, you can afford to fight fair. Even if you fight by the rules, you’re still probably going to win. There’s no reason to stoop.

As a man you don’t need to fight dirty. It’s like pulling hair, kicking, and biting in a fight with another man. That’s what a woman does because she can’t punch. So she fights dirty. Ever seen a girlfight? Dirty as Hell. Hairpulling, sucker punching, biting, kicking, and as I have recently learned, stripping the other woman’s clothes off in front of a crowd. The purpose obviously simply being to humiliate her. Which is what it does.

Don’t even fight dirty with words like my enemies do. You’re a little bitch if you do. Fight clean like a man. At least you will be able to look yourself in the mirror the next day without wanting to smash it.

Game/PUA: About That “Consent” Issue Again

I was on Twitter debating SJW’s – obviosuly a waste of time, or worse, actually dangerous to your health – and this dumbass yet earnest and naive feminist chick actually tweeted that if you want to flirt, you should just ask permission. The usual “Mother may I?” ask first gayness feminism has been demanding of us men. That’s the stupidest thing I ever heard. Remember how feminist idiots have been demanding that we ask permission to do anything with a woman like faggy little boys? It doesn’t work.

The Net is full of feminists saying that when some man asked permission to do something sexual, it turned her off and she left. She wanted him to just jump her bones, dammit.

“Can I flirt with you? Mother may I?” God that’s stupid! How dumb do women think we are? See above. Even women themselves hate it when we act like this, the very way that they demand that we act. So women don’t make sense. But they’re not really supposed to. They’re supposed to bear and raise children and keep the peace and keep us male motherfuckers in line by setting some damned limits on us. What happens when women don’t place any limits on us depraved men. Take a look at gay male society, if you can stomach it. That’s how men act when women stop being basic goalkeepers of male behavior. Women need to be protected from us men. And we men need to be protected from our own Goddamned selves.

I never really ask permission to do anything with women.

Basically, my attitude towards this “Consent” Psychosis that’s hit the US in the wake of the #metoo sewer overflow is:

I’m a man, dammit. If I want something I take it!

You don’t ask permission to do anything sexual with a woman, at least not the real vanilla stuff.

Want to hold her hand? Take her hand in yours.

Want to put your arm around her? Put your Goddamned arm around her.

Want to kiss her? Think about it very well at first. Then just fucking do it.

If you are unsure, put your chin in your hand and go in real slow. You can say in a barely audible tone, “Okay?” But saying with the most extreme confidence. Put this idea in your head when you do it.

“I’m irresistible to women. No woman on Earth can possibly resist me when I kiss them. I’m sexier to women than any guy on Earth.”

They’re all lies of course, in escalating absurdity, but it doesn’t matter.  You put those lies in your head and you believe in them and trust them like your car’s brakes. Don’t doubt them for one bit or they may not work as well. Life is about convincing yourself that the most ridiculous lies in the world are 100% true and infallible, and then convincing yourself of that with as little doubt as possible. It doesn’t particularly matter if what you believe is true or not. If it’s true but believing in it screws you up, what good is it? If it’s a lie but it brings you success to believe this lie, go ahead and believe it.

She’s in your car? Put your hand on her leg. Do it in a very casual way as if you are rolling down the window. If you’re not sure if she will like it or not, you can always look at her with this, “Ok?” look on your face. At the same time think, “Woman, if don’t think this is ok, you are the stupidest fool on Earth. So I know you’re going to say it’s ok.” I’m not sure if people can mindread, but when I think “brainwash” things like this, for some reason, they usually seem to work. Or at least they did when I was young and beautiful. Now I’m old and headed towards ugly fast, and all that stuff that worked great when young and fair is falling on its face now that I’m old and splotched.

On the other hand, the feminists are right in a sense when it comes to this consent thing. You do need consent from a woman to do sexual things with her.

But you don’t ask first, you just do it. Then she either likes it or not.

If she likes it, cool.

If she doesn’t like it, she’ll let you know.

If she’s not into it but she likes you, she will say something along the lines of, “Not now, let’s wait a bit, ok?…Not so fast, ok. I just walked in the door,” etc.

If she doesn’t like you, she will bat you away, push you away, etc. And she won’t be very nice about it. That means not only are you not getting laid tonight. You’re also not getting laid by this chick ever. When this stuff starts out bad, it never turns around. Good turns bad in life but bad almost never turns good. Women are not like Coke machines that you can punch and hit until a can comes out. More like you’ll “punch and hit” all night and she’ll just get more and more angry. And you? Well, you’re being rapey. Which is, in my humble opinion, a dick move.

As with so many female societal proposals, they’ve got the music written perfectly, but they never know the words.

Love Your Mother – She’s the Only Woman Who Will Never Leave You

Now I love my Mom more than any woman on Earth, maybe even any current girlfriend.

Face it, damn it. My Mom’s the only woman who never left me! No matter what, through thick and thin, she was always by my side giving me support even when I didn’t deserve it. Whereas girlfriends came and went with the wind or even the breeze when I was on a losing streak.

After all, let’s face it, girlfriends come and go, but you’ve always got your Mom, and if she has any sense, she lets you be a man even though she might not like it. And she loves you with all her heart and all her soul probably even better than any of her daughters.

Guys get out of prison. They give them $200 and a bus ticket. Most of these hardasses head straight to Mom’s house, at least for a bit. And all but the very worst ones are taken in by their mothers. “He’s my boy!” And at the same time, the mom and the daughter might barely have spoken in 20 years.

So in that way, most of us men are momma’s boys in a sense. We aren’t momma’s boys in the sense of pussy-whipped cucks who need Mom’s permission for everything. We are momma’s boys in the sense that we all love our mothers, even the biggest players. In fact, the more of a player a man is, the more he tends to love his Mom. After all, players love women, and your Mom was the first and most important woman in your life and you will always see at least a bit of your mother in every woman you date. If you love your mother, you love women. If you hate your mother, watch out. You may have problems with women.

But I love her in a different way than I love my girlfriend. Perhaps it’s better to say that they are both way up there on some elevated level. But I guarantee that at any given time, my Mom’s making me way less crazy than whatever woman I am with. On the other hand, I can’t fuck my Mom, and the love I have for her is not satisfactory. I need the romantic love of a girlfriend.

Alt Left: Life’s Not About Who You Like – It’s About Who You Hate Less

I basically hate cops.

Except I hate ghetto Blacks way worse.

So in the rather disgusting hierarchy of hatred that masquerades as modern life, by default, I end up supporting the police, who I’ve hated since my ill-fated adolescence! Note that I don’t mind some cops and I actually like some, so it comes down to an individual basis.

With the choices we had this summer, how could I not support the cops? It was the cops and the Republican fascists versus ghetto Blacks and the Cultural Left intellectual abortion that clings to them, remora-like – the BLM boneheads, the AntifaVirus, and the Woketard crowd, with an emphasis on the particularly insipid and dangerous Critical Race Theory gang, which is even stupider and more dangerous than most SJW passions.

Of course CRT theory isn’t falsifiable, so it fails right out the starting gate without even getting to the hypothesis stage, but all Woke SJW Theory is like that. I always say that in the Sciences, you are either doing science or you are doing Politics, or doing as I call it “A Politics” or “A Form Of Politics.” Parallel to that, you are either practicing Empiricism, hopefully including Occam’s because without Occam’s there is no empiricism, or you are doing Propaganda. Science and Empiricism versus Politics and Propaganda. Part of the reason that modern life is so infuriating is that in our quotidian lives, we get far too much of the former and a serious dearth of the latter.

Pretty soon you have a landscape where Critical Race Politics is lining up with Q, and there’s pretty much nobody in between, all others having been shoved into one moronic corner or the other. That’s modern US politics – a boxing match of fucktards, the booby prize being control of this bucking bronco we arrogantly call a country.

So to my very own shock I was rooting for police all summer! And for the first time in my life I saw cops as humans and felt sorry for them. Imagine my shock to read polls that showed that 57% of the population disliked cops more than I did! Frankly, even I was and still am appalled at the anti-police sentiment in the US. It’s ridiculous. I will say though that a lot of good has come out of this. Bodycams, attempts to be evenhanded, taking police brutality seriously, making cops accountable, on and on. Speaking of, how bout next stop jail? They beat people up all the time in there for no good reason and not one damn thing is done. Cops on the street are controlled. Jails are The Inferno.

Life’s not about who you like. If it was, there wouldn’t be much to live for.

It’s about who you hate less!

No, I Don’t Lack Credibility or Legitimacy

Related to the Delphi Murders, as you well know, I am widely hated. People say have never been right even one time, lie about and make up everything I say and in general am not a credible source. I will use this piece as a general reference to my credibility instead of addressing it endlessly in every post.

However, they have been saying exactly this about many different things I ever written over the last 15 years,  Consistently, I was shown to be right and they were wrong. Not one hater ever apologized and all continued to describe me as discredited and said that nothing I had ever said had been shown to be correct.

Particularly that I have no credibility and have never been right about anything. On the contrary I have been right about many things. I’m even correct about many of my political, philosophical, and other intellectual views because I think over all of these positions intensively before I make a decision about which position or philosophy to take.

As far as the matter at hand, many of my Delphi rumors have been proven correct, mostly correct, or somewhat  correct over the years. When Leigh Kerr came out with his leaks from case documents, many of my haters on Reddit kept remarking at how similar Leaker’s shocking leaks were to and how closely they resembled many of the things I had been saying for years. Well, of course. It’s always like that. The thing is these same people who said so much of what I said was proven right are now saying I have no credibility and I’ve never been right about anything. See how people are?

I recently had a long relationship – mostly just a friendship – with a young woman aged 27-28. She was 30 years my junior. One thing she kept saying over and over is how wise I was and how I had so much wisdom. Of course. I have had other young people on the Net who called me “sensei.”

I am currently the chosen mentor of a few young men in their 20’s, though I don’t mentor them enough. They chose me as their mentor. And I have heard that there are young women whom I am a mentor to, all in their 20’s. They say I’m their hero, idol, or mentor. A man in India recently wrote me and said his father, a very learned man, read my stuff and said that it was most wise and correct view of life he’d ever read in 60 years.

I attracted a huge legion of haters that grew and grew as I got more and more famous, well, Net-famous anyway. Related to this website and the articles I wrote, I have had three offers to be on TV and one offer to be in a documentary movie in Canada. One of the shows that wanted me on was Inside Edition. Yes, Inside Edition invited me on their show. All of you haters out there – how many of you have been offered to appear on the famous TV show Inside Edition? Not one of you.

I’ve been interviewed once on real radio and several times on Net radio, often for a full hour. These have ceased because the politics of the site and mine have drifted apart.

I can’t believe how many well-known people are familiar with this website. I recently had an offer to interview a TV-famous talking head pundit who has been on TV, the radio, and podcasts many times. He has written a few books proving that Republicans have been stealing our elections with voting machines for decades. He asked the name of my site and I told him and he said, “Oh yes! Great website! I’ve read it.” What? What? This famous guy who writes books and goes on TV reads my website?  But he wasn’t the first.

I don’t know it requires to be a “professional freelance journalist,” but I would say that anyone with a BA in Journalism who has a blog qualifies. See here on Rational Wiki, where the excellent authors of this website refer to me as a freelance journalist.

Alt-left

Possibly the earliest reference to an “alternative left” comes from the blog of freelance journalist Robert A. Lindsay in August 2015.[5] Lindsay, describing some on the far-left moving away from identity and social justice politics and moving towards focusing more on Economic Populism, proposed the alt-left as a “mirror” of the alt-right and described it as left-wing on economics and right-wing on social issues.[5][6]

In general the “Alt-Left” could be considered more radical than the “Realist Left”, being to their right on social issues and to their left on most everything else.

It has also been said that I am not a “legitimate” journalist. Look. I graduated from J-School. If you’re doing journalism, you’re a journalist. Julius Stryker was a journalist, an ugly one yet still legitimate. He was hanged for his journalism. Der Strumer was a magazine, a legitimate magazine.

There are no legitimate and illegitimate journalists, newspapers, or magazines. There are only journalists, newspapers and magazines. If they exist they are legitimate.

Really all bloggers who are writing about topical events are journalists. Are they professionals? I have no idea, but some of the better ones may as well be. It really doesn’t matter whether a journalist is paid or not. Does it matter whether an artist’s work sells or not? Does it matter whether a musicians is in an actual money-making band. Does it matter if a writer’s work is published or unpublished? Not really. Plenty of great artists who never sell their stuff or make a nickel off of it.

Also I have published numerous pieces for money in magazines and small local papers. I have even published short fiction in literary magazines. In addition, I recently published a chapter in an academic book on  Linguistics published out of a university in Turkey. It took me five years to write it. I had to make it through two peer reviews with the top names in the field and it passed. So, yes, I am a published author.

I also write for peer reviewed academic journals. In addition, I have refereed for a journal. That means serving on the peer review board. The field I published in is Linguistics.

Yes, I was an assistant editor of a large magazine for a while, but that was 40 years ago.

My enemies trash my writing skills but the general opinion is that I am very good. They’ve been saying this since I was seven years old, believe it or not. I started a novel at age nine. In particular, I do not see many grammatical or spelling errors in my work. This is another accusation. My writing has better punctuation and spelling that most people I write to on the Net.

Since my enemies insist that I am seriously mentally ill, I may as well come clean. I’ve been diagnosed probably ~30 times over the years by clinical psychologists and psychiatrists. It is true that I do have a mental disorder, and I do take psychiatric medication for it. Not that there’s any shame in that, despite what my enemies think. I have been diagnosed with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, which is an anxiety disorder. Most people with OCD are not crazy and do not appear crazy. Maybe a bit distracted. Maybe a little nervous like most anxiety disorder types. Most people I meet don’t treat me like I’m nuts. I don’t say weird things or engage in strange behavior. I’m the most normal guy around.

Furthermore, I’m pretty shy, so I don’t even talk much, and when I do, I have a very soft voice. If you meet me, I look like this brainy nerd soft spoken intellectual college professor guy with preppy clothes. Some people from the Net – my fans – came out to meet me and they were shocked at how introverted I was. I pretty seem like this nicest guy you’ll ever meet. This is of course the complete opposite of how my enemies describe me. If you told people who know me all the crazy stuff my enemies say about me, they would probably fall over laughing because I’m not anything like that.

I do not have any personality disorder on Axis 2. My personality is healthy. I don’t have any issues with sociopathy. I’m not narcissistic at all, but I do have high self-esteem, which is not the same thing.

I generally do not have any serious mood disorder, but I do feel a bit down a lot. I doubt it meets criteria for anything. I don’t suffer from mania.

I don’t have any psychotic disorder and I never have. I’ve never been psychotic for a day in my life.

Perhaps my writing rambles a bit. Who knows? A lot of us writers ramble on. It’s not pathological and it’s not even a sign of bad writing. Read James Joyce, Virginia Woolf, Thomas Wolfe, or William Burroughs some time. Some of the greatest authors of all “rambled.” We ramble because we write too much. That’s why they have these people called editors. Because most of us serious writers ramble and go on and on and write forever, as in way too much. Editors exist to cut the typical good writers prose down to size.

I’ve already stated many times that I never made up a lie one time on here. I am a professional, and this is a violation of professional ethics.

Many critics think it’s ridiculous that I get access to good sources, official documents, including confidential sources with important people who give information that is secret or supposed to be under wraps. I was trained to do this. I know how to interview and how to acquire, cultivate and keep sources around. I know how to get secret and official documents that are supposed to be confidential.

I talk to people all the time who tell me they will get in trouble if it gets out that they talked to me. I honor strict confidentiality and will do anything to protect my sources. So, yeah, I do know how to get “inside sources,” “special sources,” etc. I’m trained to do that. I’m sort of an investigative reporter because I specialize stories where a lot of the information is supposed to be secret. I’ve also broken some pretty huge stories that even caught the attention of documentary film makers.

In addition, I founded a brand new political movement, so I am a political activist. At one time this movement had 18,000 members on Facebook groups. It’s a movement with its own carefully thought out political philosophy with position statements, manifestos, etc. A political scientist, a professor at a university in Poland, found out about my movement and wrote a couple of articles about it for political science journals. So it was important enough to get written up in the journals.

Alt Left: The Rind Et Al Study on Long-term Effects of Child Abuse: Its History and Ramifications

A famous study on childhood sexual abuse was done 20 years ago by Rind et al. I think I still have a copy of it on my desktop here.

It provoked wild outrage. Even the idiotic American Psychological Association denounced it, notable as one of the most anti-scientific statements this anti-scientific organization has ever issued. Even the US Congress got in on the act. The Congress passed a resolution condemning the study! Congressmen, mostly Republicans, stood up and denounced it forcefully.

The problem? The study came up with the wrong answer. In other words, the truth was wrong and society preferred to believe pleasant lies over unpleasant truths, so the paper was condemned for discovering the wrong facts.

Usually when theory and facts do not match up, we say that the theory was wrong and go back to the drawing board.

However, in this case and with all ideological arguments by ideologues and politics types, when the theory and the facts don’t match up, the facts are wrong, and the facts are not the facts! Why? Because the theory is said to be automatically a priori true. The theory must be true. It cannot be false. So the facts must be wrong and we need to change the facts, wipe out the truth, and say that reality isn’t real, instead, what is real is some fantasy world that doesn’t  exist.

A number of fake “studies” were undertaken by other behavioral “scientists” taking about the Rind findings and finding fault with this or that conclusion. None of the fake studies denouncing it were worth a hill of beans. That they made it into the journals at all shows that pathetic anti-scientific nature of the social sciences, sadly also including Psychology, which has been trying to become more of a science for a long time now.

But by the very fact that it is a social science means that Psychology will always be a fake science in some ways because its findings have to do with people, and the science of people will always be twisted by politics, ideology, bias, and mostly emotional reaction.

It’s hard to get emotional about a new finding in math or physics. Who cares! But findings in the social sciences are inherently emotional because we are always emotional about ourselves and our fellow humans, and anything people are strongly emotional about will always be tainted by bias, propaganda, politics, and ideology. In other words, lies. This is why the social sciences will always be doomed to the charge of being fake sciences and will always carry the guilty burden of physics envy.

Ritter et al conducted a meta-analysis of a huge number of studies on the effects of childhood sexual abuse on children as adults. Child abuse was mostly defined as sexual abuse below age 13, so sex with teenage girls and boys, a massive minefield, was left out.

The available evidence shows that consensual sex with teenage girls and boys and adults causes little if any damage to teenagers. This behavior is illegal not because it is harmful to the teens, as I doubt that it is. Instead it is outlawed because society’s morals say that members of society do not wish to live in a society where adults are free to have sex with teenagers of various ages.

It’s seen as unsavory, unpleasant, disgusting or revolting, and often morally wrong. But this behavior is not psychologically disordered in any way. This is a moral and legal problem, not a psychological one.

Unfortunately we are now in the midst of a truly insane mass hysteria around the sexuality of teenage girls in which 90% of the population has thrown reason out the window and gone batshit insane, out and out lies are widely believed, and science and facts are no where to be seen.

In fact, the people who quote the science and the facts about this question are attacked as pedophiles! Because I guess only pedophiles believe in science and truth when it comes to this sort of thing. If you don’t want to be called a pedophile, just spout the usual lies about this subject. As long as you keep lying and don’t ever resort to facts, you’re in the clear!

Fact: nothing published in an academic journal has ever produced evidence suggesting that teen/adult relationships are harmful or predatory. Literally not even one. Anthropological and historical studies all over the world have found that such relationships are common in many societies and no harm was reported in any society ever studied.

How do I know this? I’ve studied them. A particularly large one was done out of Germany in the 1950’s. You can find this evil science of banned truths on the Net, though I can’t tell you where to look. The pedo advocate sites have links to it, but I don’t want to send you there. I suspect the motives of those who wrote this study, but the science seems good.

Furthermore, historically speaking, I’ve learned from the Psychohistorian sites that teen/adult relations were normal in most of the world including the West up until 1900. Zero harm was reported.

Sadly, mass molestation of children was also reported in the West from Roman and Greek times until 1900. Under the crowded urban conditions that arose with the onset of capitalism and the Industrial Revolution, where families were packed together in tiny spaces, a great deal of molestation went on. I’m not happy about this at all, but it’s notable that no ill effects were observed in Greece and Rome until the pre-1900 West.

Perhaps the reason for this was that molestation of children was simply an expected fact of life. If you grow up as a female and get molested and all of your woman friends also got molested, it’s seen as a normal thing. There’s usually nothing inherently wrong with this behavior absent physical damage. Things that are normalized in any society tend to cause little if any damage.

I disagree here with some folks like psychohistorians who argue that all sexual abuse of children under any circumstances, normalized or condemned, results in inevitable terrible lifetime damage to the person. They also believe that many other things experienced in childhood cannot but cause horrible lifelong damage.

I doubt if that is true. If you grow up in a society that normalizes this or that behavior, outside of extreme perversion, aggression, and sadism, it’s probably seen as normalized and shrugged off. In other words, the damage of most of these things is relative and depends on the degree to which your society condemns or pathologizes the behavior.

However, for small children, the true victims of child molestation, it is quite different.

Granted, the victims were interviewed when in college so the abuse was a long ways away. Conceivably if they had interviewed them earlier as minors, they would manifested more damage. The findings were shocking:

Rind et al found that the long-term effects of child sexual abuse were typically neither pervasive nor intense, and men reacted much less negatively than women. Ritter et al also found that less than 10% of victims were traumatized. The most common effects were shame, blame, and confusion.

To explicate that further, the effects were shame about having been abused, blame for themselves for allowing it to happen to them, and confusion about the abuse itself.

The confusion may manifest in various ways. A female friend of mine from 10 years ago was molested. Of course she absolutely hates my guts now, but that’s not an unusual reaction for women who get involved with me in some way or another. I’m used to it.

She told me that she was molested by a pedophile in her church group when she was 8 years old. The molester was a young man and he does appear to have been a pedophilic or preferential molester. She told me, “It’s confusing because it feels good but it’s wrong.” This is part of the thinking behind the confusion that kids experience after being abused.

She also told me that she had completely gotten over it by age 50, but she seemed to have gotten over it much before then. I knew two other women (I actually got involved with these two whereas with the other one it was more email and hot phone conversations) of the same age who were sexually abused as girls, one by a probable pedophile and the other by her opportunistic teenage older brother. They both told me that they had gotten over it by age 50 but implied that they had gotten over it much before then.

The shame, blame, and confusion are apparently short-term effects in most victims, and at the very least have dissipated by college age.

The implication is that children or minors may experience those effects for some time in their youth, but these effects mostly go away by adulthood, and there is no lasting damage in almost all (90%) of cases. The study also found that where the molestation was consensual or non-coerced, there was little if any long-term damage. However, when coercion was involved, damage was much more likely and could easily last into adulthood or perhaps an entire lifeftime.

Unfortunately, pedophiles have gotten a hold of the Rind et al study and like to wave it around to try to push for legalization of child/adult sexual relations.

That’s not my intention here. I don’t care if most victims get over it. Good for them. I’m happy that they are not damaged in the long term.

Nevertheless, this behavior still needs to be outlawed because I don’t want to live in a society where adults are allowed to have sex with young children below age 13. I don’t have to have a reason. I just don’t like it. That’s all the reason I need.

Repost: All the World’s a Polygraph, and We Are All Liars

Repost from the old site. This is a great old article from the old days.

In reference to the title, I was working as a linguist/anthropologist, when one day this new woman from New York came to work for us. She was a bitch from Day One. She knew it all, and boy did she! She was pissed, and after a bit, I figured it out. She’d slaved her butt off to get a college degree, and here she was, slaving as a secretary. What a failure.

She was a vegetarian, and when I told her I ate meat, she gave me these dagger eyes and said pointedly, “I know. All meat-eaters smell terrible to us vegans.” It went on and on like that with her for some time.

Being an introvert and pretty much of a puss at work (I call this the “office puss” role that men who work in offices must play), I kept on smiling and sucking up to her and trying to be nice. Whenever anyone’s mean to us, we introverts usually figure we fucked up and that’s why they are properly treating us with the contempt, scorn, coldness or indifference we deserve. So I kept trying to act better, and she kept being a bitch.

One day she came to me all apologetic and baffled. “I don’t know what’s wrong?” she shook her head sadly. Turned out I wasn’t the only recipient of her bitch-rays. The whole office was.

“The boss told me that I’m not being nice to people, but I just can’t see it. I think I’m nice to everyone but she says everyone says I’m mean. None of this makes any sense to me.”

I’d already figured her out long ago. She was a headstrong, independent type. Within a few weeks of moving from New York to California, she had herself a decent guy and had already moved him in. Good work. Boy, women have it so tough. They can get laid anytime they want. I’m crying so hard for them now I can barely type.

She had the “got it together” mindset that tended to look down on 90% of the population as fuckups. It’s true that I’m a huge fuckup but you don’t need to say it over and over. Look. I get it. I know I’m a fuckup. I heard you the 98,681th time. I don’t need to be reminded of it all the livelong day.

And one thing you need to know about angry people is that 95% of the time, 95% of angry people deny their anger and general shittiness, especially when they are beating up on weaker people, which all angry ever people do anyway. I’m not sure what the psychological mechanism is, but I think it’s important to know this. Ever heard an angry person say, “I’m an asshole but I just can’t stop. I need Assholes Anonymous”? Of course not.

Anyway, she came from New York and brought her New York Bitch attitude with her. Back there, it’s normal. I guess they say, “Have a nice day” the same way we say, “Fuck you.”

She was here to apologize to me for being a bitch, on bosses’ orders under penalty of being fired if not done, though she had done nothing. Would I accept her apology? Sure. Was she being a bitch?

“Well, yeah, she was, I nodded.”

Then I started to explain.

“Look, kiddo.”

I sat down on the curb with her.

“This is how you do it. You need to start faking your feelings.”

I asked her how she felt about her boss and her co-workers.

I think she hated the boss, but I’m not sure about the co-workers. I’m not sure how she answered that. She liked me just fine even though she treated me like shit, but only for the love of God she just could not not see it.

I said,

“Look. The boss pisses me off too. And some of these co-workers really piss me off. But I’m not sure if they know it. What do I do? I disguise my feelings.

“Here is what you do. Go ahead and feel any way you want about your boss and co-workers, but adjust your feelings when you have to actually deal with them.

“Say you have to go talk to the boss. Forget that you hate her. Walk into the room, smile and act like you love her. Don’t fake it, because that shows. Actually brainwash yourself into thinking she really is the greatest boss in the world and believe it as hard as you can.

“Then after you walk out the door, mutter under your breath what a bitch she is. This is what you do. You play roles all the time. I usually don’t show people my true feelings, and I’m always putting on some kind of show or other.”

She was dumbstruck.

“You actually do this? How long have you been doing this?”

“Oh, ten years at least, maybe even longer.”

Then she started in about how this was awful, as it was not genuine and honest. It was lying. This was horrible and dishonest and probably even ought to be illegal. Anyway, it was immoral. In New York, everyone wears the heart on sleeve, and that’s why they are all so ornery. But at least they are moral.

This thing I was arguing, it was so…Californian! To put on a mask, lie to everyone all the time, always fake it, never be real, etc..

“Well,” I suggested. “What good is being honest when it gets you fired?”

She did agree that I had a point.

“Look,” I said. “Another thing you can do is save it up. All day long, no matter how much you hate the boss, every time you think of her, think of how actually you really love her and she is the greatest boss on Earth.”

“At 5:03 PM, as you are pulling onto the highway to drive home, you may begin cursing the evil boss. If need be, you may curse, swear, and pound upholstery all the way home. But the next day at work, you put all that away, and stride smiling into the office to work for the greatest boss on Earth again.”

She acted like this was really evil, but I suggested it was better than getting your ass fired. She nodded humbly. She asked me if I did this at work. All the time, I assured her.

Then she went on her way.

Every time she saw me after that, she was always smiling at me, but she had this weird look on her face like she was looking at me trying to figure out what I really thought of her or what in God’s name was going on in my head.

It’s the way you look at some weird object when you can’t figure out what the heck it is, turning it over, poking around at it, putting it up close and then far away, showing it around.
I was a Goddamned walking enigma, what do you know?

I’d given her the evil secret of lying your life away, but you had to admit, at least it kept her ass off the curb.

Game/PUA: Even Normal Sex Is a Bit BD/SM, I Have to Admit

Referring to this post, :

Jason writes: Women shouldn’t like this stuff. Nonetheless, they always have a desire for men who aren’t “too nice”. In that case, it’s advised to play “hard to get” a lot. Well, the other option is actually becoming a sadist – lol.

You know how many women, especially young women aged 18-20, have dumped me recently for being too nice to them? A number of them did.

They literally wanted to be treated like crap and not just in bed but outside of it too. I don’t mind rough sex and I can be pretty dominant and dom a woman pretty hard. I’m just really aggressive with them. But it’s all just a big game. When it’s over, I love or like her as much as ever. I love women. I like them far more than men. I like and love the women I am with. I don’t want to hate them and treat them like crap. If I like or love her, why do I want to hate her? It’s perverse and bizarre. If you like or love people, you don’t’ abuse them and treat them like crap.

You know how many women literally want to be with a man who hates them and treats them like crap? A lot! Could be up to 1/3.

Forget that. And like I said, I don’t mind rough sex at all. It’s just I can’t take it all the way into the hardcore BD/SM stuff because that scene is literally the ultimate in sicko stuff. All the men are sick and evil, and all the women are hopeless, pathetic, have low self-esteem, and absolutely hate themselves. There’s no way you can have any kind of love or even “like” in a relationship like that.

Sure, maybe the woman gets hooked into the guy and worships him. But he feels nothing but contempt for her. And most of them take it to 24/7 total power exchange Dom/Sub stuff, which to me is totally sick and weird.

What I have heard is that all women coming out of these relationships after 5+ years seem to have been harmed. The damage to them looks exactly like the damage to a battered women, and a lot of them Stockholm their doms just like battered women Stockholm their abusers. The relationships themselves look exactly like a classic abusive relationship, except the women like it! It’s a consensual abusive relationship.

If you’re into this stuff as a woman, number one, you’re sick, and number two, you’re crazy.

For the men, number one, you’re sick, and number two, you’re evil.

The guys are not that screwed up. They’re just assholes. A lot of men love being assholes. Look how many men are abusive in their relationships and with their kids.

Men are naturally sadistic at least a bit, and women are naturally masochistic at least a bit. Think of the sex act itself. Of course you can do a lot of sex acts in a very slow, tender, sweet, kind, and loving way, but that’s not how it goes a lot of the time.

A lot of the time, he’s being a bit sadistic and she’s being a bit masochistic. He’s pounding away at her in an aggressive or even violent way, and she’s just laying there while some maniac  pounds away at her insides. That’s degrading right there!

In that sense, think a lot of even normal sex is degrading to women. It almost has to be. That’s why so many women like this sort of thing. Not only do most women want to be dominated in bed, but you would be shocked at how many women love gross disgusting, degrading and humiliating sex acts and behavior. I admit I do name-calling. And those are degrading terms that I use with them.

Many women react to degradation, humiliation, and grossness by going absolutely insane horny out of their minds, multi-orgasmic, cum drunk, in another world, forget their own names, won’t remember 90% of it, and are so horny they will do just about anything, you name it.

Of course there are women who dislike this type of sex. I’ve met them.

But there a lot of others who do not! Man, you have no idea. If we are talking about women who like degrading and humiliating name-calling and disgusting behavior and therefore consequently liking being degraded and humiliated to some extent per se, then you would be literally blown away by how many women love to be treated like that.

From 18 year old girls to 52 year women, that’s my experience. I didn’t meet that many JB’s like this when I was young enough to be having sex with them from 16-21, so I don’t know how common this is in 13-17 year old girls, who are absolutely sexual beings in the full sense that any woman is. Anyway, I was way too vanilla back then. But even way back then, a lot of the girls acted like a wild animal in a cage.

But grown women? Hell yeah. From waitresses to heiresses, so many of them love it, though I’ve never been with an heiress yet.

Problem is once you give men permission to act sadistically in bed, a lot of them are going to love it and take that ball and run as far as they can with it. And maybe get carried away. I would advise women to not encourage this behavior in their men too much. You’re playing with a lit firecracker.

With this sort of behavior, as the sadism increases, so does the excitement in the male. It’s almost a blood lust, probably genetic. But who knows how nutty he’ll get? I think a fair amount of these women murdered in bed by their partners or dates are a consequence of letting this sort of sex get out of control. The guy may have not even set out to kill her. He just got wrapped up in the moment, kept getting more excited and consequently sadistic in a feedback loop and lost control of himself.

Have you heard of predators that go into a “killing frenzy?” Bobcats can do it. My neighbor told me once that a friend of his raised ducks. There was a huge commotion one night. He didn’t know what it was but he didn’t check. He got up early. At 6 AM, there was a bobcat sleeping in his duck pen and 19 dead ducks. The bobcat hardly ate any of them. He just went into a “killing frenzy.” Large pet dogs can do it too, especially to chickens and ducks. They don’t even eat them. They just kill them. And tear them apart too.

This exact same mechanism you see in the bobcat can happen to us men if we don’t watch this sadistic part ourselves from boyhood like a hawk if and when you let it out to play. You better keep him on a tight leash.

I sure as Hell do. You don’t even want know what my inner maniac wants to do or at least what I think it wants to do because I think it mostly operates subconsciously. But he’s been locked up in a cage deep inside me for most of my adulthood. And that’s where he’s staying! I have done much harm to innocent people in my life as a result. I will get into a fight if you hit me. I killed a man, or at least I tried to kill him once at age 17.

That makes me sound like a maniac, but you must understand that he and his psycho friends were trying to kill my friend and I. Sometimes in life it comes down to kill or be killed. And you better choose kill. You try to kill, injure the person so badly they can’t get up and chase you, or knock him out cold. And then you flee as fast as you can. If you don’t disable the guy, permanently or temporarily, he’s liable to chase you. And a lot of people can run faster than you do.

I’ve already had 3-4 men try to murder me so far in life, and I’m not even a wild person. But I have a wild side, I love parties and nightclubs and even dangerous scenes. Men are simply dangerous as Hell. Women go on and on about men killing women. Fine.

But 80% of the people men kill are other men. Women get off easy. Most of us men have been in serious fights with other men. Some men were beat up regularly as boys. Many others have been victims of violent crime as adults. I know I was a victim of a serious violent crime once. I was kidnapped (a hitchhiker took control of my car), threatened with death, beaten, had beer thrown at me, and sexually assaulted (Well, he grabbed my penis). He also threw my car into reverse when it was going 55 mph. I somehow got him out of my car but even then he was pounding at the windows trying to get back in. I never even went to the police.

I was a serious mental wreck for about three weeks. I was a student teacher at the time. Then it just went away and I haven’t felt much about it since. God knows how it’s effected me subconsciously though. But we men tend to get over things. Maybe too fast. How? We bury it. Suppress it or better yet repress it. Most men are dormant volcanoes due to all the bad feelings of terror and rage they’ve been stuffing away their whole lives.

This sexual sadism is dangerous stuff if you are a man. I’d advise extreme caution. You’re playing with fire. If you don’t put a leash on this sort of thing, you can end up with an injured or even dead woman, or a serious legal problem, arrest, possible jail or prison, and a lifetime of guilt.

We, especially we men, need to control our lusts. Sexual lusts, avarice, blood lusts, lusts for drugs and food, all of them. We are wired to be gluttons, but gluttony doesn’t work. It tends to be a short trip to a grave. Life is about, possibly more than anything else, controlling that damned wild animal, that predatory mammal, that raging terrified beast, inside of us.

One of the Worst Mistakes You Can Make in Life Is to Assume People are Logical, Sensible, or Rational

Because they are just not any of those things.

There is no way to understand people until we understand that we are not purely logical creatures. Our emotions make it so we can never be such.

Probably one of the stupidest attitudes one can have in life is to assume that people are logical and sensible. They’re just not. People are irrational. If you think people are or should be rational, you will be disappointed and angry at other people your whole life. You will see others are idiotic, crazy, senseless, etc.

But once you figure out that our emotions color our thoughts and actions and there is an “emotional logic” behind a lot of behaviors, you can start forgiving people a lot more and your feelings about your fellow humans will mellow and become more kind. Furthermore, a lot of behavior you thought was crazy now makes sense if we plug it into “emotional logic.”

Why Do the Worst People Act the Best and the Best People Act the Worst?

If you spend a bit of time on Earth with your eyes open instead of half-shut like most folks, after a while you figure out that only only do the worst people feel the best, but also the best people feel the worst. This is part of the problem with the self-esteem movement. As self-esteem rises, behavior tends to deteriorate. Low self-esteem is unfortunate, but most such people often behave very well. By pushing excessive self-esteem on people, we are creating societies full of narcissistic, uncaring, callous people.

You are free to think about why this is – the paradox that the best act the worst and the worst act the best, but I think I’ve got it.

The worst people feel best because the worse someone acts, the less guilt they feel because people free of guilt tend to act bad. Guilt is like the brakes on a car. A person with no guilt is like a car with no brakes. It’s a menace to the other cars on the road.

The best people feel the worst probably because feeling the worst makes them act the best. In other words, extreme levels of guilt, though not optimal, seem to prevent most bad behavior, along with preventing a lot of behavior that is only slightly bad (and therefore normal) or not bad at all. This would be akin to a false positive.

So while high guilt levels select most bad behavior as bad and stop it, they also stop a lot of common and normal behavior on the false assumption that is seen as bad by society, and in addition (and here we come to the false positives) it selects a lot of perfectly normal behavior as bad.

So this sort of person has a selective device inside of them that is scanning the world for bad behavior that the might be engaging in or might choose to engage in. As such, it is preventing all sorts of behaviors – all bad behaviors for sure but also a lot of good behaviors.

These people are actually too good. They are nearly saints. But being a saint is quite painful, especially when one lives in a world of sinners. The saintly stride is a painful way to walk through life. In the car analogy above, this person is like someone who drives two-footed with one foot always on the brakes. Not only does this wear out the breaks but it also makes the person overly cautious on the road.

They drive slowly and wait too long to make turns. They’re not really hazards, but their overly inhibited driving obstructs other drivers and slows them down. Furthermore, it gets in the way of getting things done the same way excessive guilt often leads to a rather restricted and excessively cautious life.

Alt Left: “Child Molester” and “Pedophile” Are Not Synonyms

~75% of child molesters are non-pedophilic molesters. They’re no more pedophiles than any other man. This shows again that there is a difference between the terms pedophile and child molester. Most of this molesting tends to be in the family whereas pedophilic molesters tend to molest outside the family, in part because they often have no children of their own.

There is nothing wrong with these non-pedophilic molesters sexually and probably even psychologically – their sexual interests are quite ordinary. They are “normal” in the way that most criminals are “normal” – that is, they are not the slightest bit crazy. The fact that criminals in general are not crazy and in fact are often remarkably sane is in part what makes them so dangerous. If they were crazy we could protect ourselves from them better. The fact that they are so sane is what enables them to get away with their crimes and also makes them hard to catch.

Rather these are simply bad men who are opportunistic and will have sex with females in general – women, children, no matter. A female relative or child is also a very easy target for these very manipulative men. In some cases it is an alternative if the wife has cut off the sex. The best description of these men is that they are simply criminals. They are users and their behavior is part of a pattern of control and abuse, often combined with verbal and physical abuse.

It is hard to say how girls how girls are effected, for it is mostly girls who are effected by intrafamilial child molesting in part because most gay men do not have children nor do they have access to them. Most molesting of boys does not occur in the family, and in fact such molesting is not very common.

Instead most boys are molested by homosexual pedophiles. And of course there are homosexual pedophiles  – the woke crowd claims that homosexuals and pedophiles cannot be one and the same and yet they can.

They tell this lie because sadly gay men do have a pretty high rate of child molesting, mostly probably of the pedophilic variety.

A logical explanation for this is that both homosexuality and pedophilia are probably developmental disorders, as is biological transsexualism. Something goes wrong developmentally with the fetus in the womb, hormonally in the case of male homosexuality and biological transsexualism but due to unknown factors in the case of pedophilia. It would stand to reason that developmental disorders might tend to overlap due to a common cause.

Pedophilia may be caused by subtle brain damage. Neurological soft signs – typically evidence of subtle brain damage – are very common in pedophiles. Furthermore, pedophiles tend to have lower IQ’s than non-pedophiles, once again suggestive of mild brain damage. 

In some ways it is worse if your own father is doing it to you. Nevertheless, most seem to get over it with time. The behavior of non-pedophilic molesters is outside the purview of mental health because we just talk about whether behavior or persons are crazy or not. And these men are not crazy. They’re just bad. We are talking about matters of morality and law, not matters of psychology and psychiatry.

There is often significant Cluster B Axis 2 Personality Disorder pathology as is the case with most men who use and abuse others. These men are fairly easy to rehabilitate absent significant psychopathy because significant guilt is not uncommon, and they are not pedophilic, so they can easily fulfill their sexual needs without resorting to children. Probably in India, Morocco and most of the Third World, most molesting is by non-pedophilic molesters because pedophilia proper is not well known in these places, and most men, even gay men, tend to marry and have children due to societal pressure.

Alt Left: Two Different Types of Sexual Orientations – Gender/Sex and Age

There are different types of sexual orientations.

Sex/Gender Orientation

First is the orientation to persons or objects of attraction. Heterosexuals are primarily attracted to the opposite sex. Homosexuals are mostly attracted to their own sex. Bisexuals have significant attraction to both sexes.

Sexual Orientation and Sexual Behavior Are Not Synonymous

Sexual orientation is somewhat independent of behavior. Heterosexuals are quite capable of homosexual behavior, and many homosexuals engage in some heterosexual sex. Bisexuals may be behaviorally heterosexual or homosexual for long periods of time.

Orientation is what you are primarily attracted to – behavior is who you have sex with. In cases such as ancient Sparta, the two did not line up very well at least for teenage boys and young men.

Age Orientation

The second is age orientation.

Teleophilia

Most people, including me believe it or not, are teleophiles – that is, they are primarily attracted to mature persons. This usually means age 16+ because 16-17 year old adolescents are almost indistinguishable from adults in terms of their sexual features.

As the age of the person declines below age 16, teleophilic attraction tends to decline, however, all men still have measurable but much lower attraction even to girls aged 7-13. Some studies show that normal male attraction to girls declines steadily from age 16 to a very low level at age 7, and below age 7, there is no measurable attraction. This is probably correct and any man with significant attraction to very small girl children below 7 is no doubt quite pedophilic.

Girls still have female features of women, especially after age 7, and these features grow more prominent from age 7-12. Around age 10-11, most girls develop very long legs; in short, the legs of a woman. Normal males are attracted to girls this age mostly to the extent that they like their legs, since their legs look like an adult woman’s.

The more a minor looks and acts like a woman, the more attractive she will be a normal male. The more a minor looks and acts like a child, the less attractive she will be to a normal man. The opposite is true for a man with a pedophilic or hebephilic attraction.

For instance, letting little girls under age 13 wear makeup is probably a very bad idea because many normal men say that when little girls put on makeup, they start to look a lot more attractive to men. I can concur that this occurs. It also makes me very uncomfortable. A little girl is not a sexual creature, as she has no sex drive per se. Why sexualize a non-sexual creature? Childhood for both boys and girls below age 13 should be sexless. Normal children have little or no interest in sex.

Note that since teleophiles react maximally in the lab to 16-17 year old girls and most Americans consider such a strong attraction to be “pedophilia,” the remarkable conclusion is that the current feminist and social conservative hysteria about “pedophilia” means that 100% of normal American men are pedophiles! That sounds like the very definition of a mass hysteria right there!

Ephebephilia

There are also ephebephiles like Jeffrey Epstein who are primarily attracted to girls age 15-19 or mid to late adolescents. Girls this age often have significant to fully developed adult features and bodies. Psychiatry has decided that ephebephilia is completely normal, therefore, there was nothing wrong with Epstein psychologically.

Epstein was not a pedophile in any sense of the word despite continuous descriptions of him in this way. Nevertheless, most men are probably not ephebephiles.

Women reach their peak attractiveness to normal men at age ~23. Men reach their peak attractiveness to women at age ~27. As you can see, women prefer their men a bit older and men prefer their women a bit younger. This seems to be a natural tendency of the human race as even the Romans remarked up this fact of human nature.

A man can still have a child when there is snow on the roof (when his hair is White), but a woman’s time is short.

– Roman saying of unknown provenance.

Hebephilia

Hebephiles are primarily attracted to pubertal persons around the age 12-15. All attraction is gone by age 16. Hebephilia is quite a bit more normal than you might think. 26% of all men react as strongly or stronger in the lab to 12-14 year old girls than they do to women.

In most cases there is strong attraction to mature females too, so most of these men never act on this attraction as adults. Hebephilic attraction is generally antisocial in adults, whereas attraction to mature persons is pro-social. Faced with strong prosocial and antisocial attractions, most probably focus on the prosocial attraction and repress or suppress the antisocial one.

Considering that idiot popular culture (99% of people) would say that any man as or more attracted to 12-14 year old girls as to adult women is clearly a pedophile, our ludicrous culture would easily class a minimum of 26% of all men as pedophiles. That’s 28 million “pedophiles” in the US, idiots. Good luck executing all of them or locking them all away forever!

It is important to note that hebephilia per se is not considered to be a mental disorder in any way. In other words, it is quite normal. Nevertheless acting on it is a moral and legal problem but probably not a psychological one as in mental health we don’t deal with crime as mental abnormality per se. We are only concerned if people are crazy or disordered or not.

Pedophilia

Pedophiles have a primary attraction to children under age 13. It is quite common. 3% of adult men or 3.3 million American men are pure pedophiles of this type. Substantially more common are men who are as attracted to children under 13 as they are to mature persons. 18% of all US men fall into this category for a total of 21% of all men being as attracted to children under 13 as they are to adults, a shocking figure. Our current culture would clearly call all of these men pedophiles. So once again we end up with 20 million “pedophiles.” Good luck executing or imprisoning for life 20 million American men, moral hysterics!

Note that we don’t even bother to call all men who react maximally to children under 13 pedophiles! We would have to call 20% of all men pedophiles, and no one wants to do that. In mental health, we are mostly concerned with the 3% pure pedophiles because the only way they can satisfy their sexual urges is with a child under 13. This makes these men dangerous almost by definition. Hence it is recommended that they get with an empathetic therapist regularly to keep from acting on their attraction and offending.

Here probably even more than with hebephiles, most of this 18% of men above probably repress or suppress the antisocial attraction to children under 13 and instead focus on the equally strong attraction to mature persons.

In contrast to hebephilia, pedophilia is considered a mental disorder if it is upsetting to the person or if they have acted on their urges with children under 13. It is interesting to note that pedophiles who have never molested children and are not bothered by their attraction are considered to be completely normal psychologically.

Ishay Landa, Marx, Nietzsche, and the Contradictions of Capitalism

https://beyondhighbrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Landa-Marx-Nietzsche-Contradictions-Capitalism.pdfLanda, Marx, Nietzsche Contradictions Capitalism

If you ever wanted to know what Critical Theory is like, well, here you go. It’s actually pretty good stuff as long as they keep away from the Identity Politics SJW crap. Most people writing this stuff are not writing it in some retard SJW PC format. It’s more like pure philosophy. Nietzsche is hard enough to get through himself, and Marx is even worse, but there’s a lot of valuable stuff in papers like this. Of course, it’s all coming from a Marxist framework, more or less, but then, I’m kind of sort of maybe could be possibly a little tiny bit perhaps a Marxist. Well, kinda.

If you can understand any of this at all, good for you. This stuff is brain fry to the nth power. A lot of literary criticism is like this now, and it’s often about as thick. I feel that most of it is quite worthwhile. I realize there are people making fun of something of this stuff such as the BS coming out of Social Text (which is more SJWism and IP to the hilt). In general, the more SJW and IP the critical theory is, the more bullshitty it is. It makes sense because SJWism and IP is nothing but a bunch of steaming lies anyway.

Alt Left: Repost: The Moriori and the Dangers of Pacifism

The saga of Moriori is instructive.

The Maori have long been known as ferocious headhunters and cannibals who had one of the cruelest and evillest cultures on Earth. The Moriori seem to be a Maori split dating back to about 1500 or so. They left New Zealand and colonized the Chatham Islands. The Chatham Islands are small, very cold and isolated, and there is not a lot of food other than from the sea.

Moriori legend has it that initially, widespread tribal warfare, headhunting and cannibalism was practiced as the normative cruel Maori culture. On such a small island, this savagery was disastrous, and soon the population plummeted to near extinction. A leader arose among the Moriori, Nunuku-whenua, who preached a new doctrine of extreme pacifism, Nunuku’s Law. Nunuku’s Law was strictly adhered to 300 years.

Fighting was allowed between males, but it had to be conducted with each armed with a stick the width of a finger. At the first sign of blood, the duel was called off, and the beef was considered settled. Homicide, rape and other crimes were reportedly rare to absent among the Moriori for centuries.

In 1835, the Chatham Islands were invaded by Maori warriors, who promptly proceeded to slaughter, cannibalize and enslave the Moriori. The Morioris gathered for a meeting to decide whether or not to fight the invaders. Many young men argued for fighting back, but the elders decided that Nunuku’s Law could not be violated for any reason.

The Moriori ran away and hid and were found and dealt with by the Maori.

Rightwingers have used this episode to exemplify the folly of pacifism.

Morioris were forbidden to marry each other, and Moriori women were forced to marry Maori men. It was a true genocide. From 1835-1862, the population declined from 1,600 to 100. Tommy Solomon, the last pure Moriori, died in 1933.

Tommy Solomon on his yearly visit to Christchurch. He was definitely a big fellow! He married a Maori woman, so his descendants are technically not pure Moriori.

Although popular myth says the Moriori were exterminated by the Maori, several thousand mixed-race Moriori still exist today. The Moriori language is extinct, but efforts are being made to raise it from the dead.

The saga of the Moriori gives the lie to the notion that race is destiny, at least among Polynesians.

It is commonly thought that Polynesians selected for extreme aggression on their long sea voyages to colonize distant islands. Food may have run low on these voyages, and the survivors may have killed others and cannibalized them to survive.

Perhaps the biggest and strongest were the ones most likely to survive the voyages, and this explains the huge size of Polynesians, probably the largest race on Earth, and possibly their high levels aggression and outrageous cruelty.

In modern Westernized societies, Polynesians characteristically become an Underclass with high crime, violence, gang membership and general pathology. In traditional societies, they often do well.

Whatever Polynesian genes look like, the saga of the Moriori shows that they are not doomed to high crime rates or Underclass pathology.

Genetics is the clay, culture is the sculptor.

The Difference Between the Masculine and Feminine Principles in Terms of Aggression

Even though women drive most of us straight men so crazy that most of us would rather hang out with the boys and few of us are ladies’ men, gay men will still hang around women because they do so for other reasons. I assume women drive gay men crazy same way as they drive most of their sisters nuts, but maybe gay men have figured out how to put up with it. After all, I’m sure women drive other women nuts, and I’ve talked to a number of women who actually hate women themselves and much prefer men to women due to all the terrible things other women have done to them in their lives.

Lesbian relationships are notoriously unstable because you have a marriage between two Feminine Principles.

The Feminine Principle, being emotionally based, is pretty wild and chaotic, sort of like wild weather or a dangerous trek through mountains, swamps, forests, jungles, or deserts. The Feminine Principle is Nature Unleashed since it is earth-based and rooted in nature. Not human nature but nature as in rocks, trees, animals, and weather.

The Male Principle, being sky and thought or idea-based,  is more calm but also cold, yet it retains greater potential for danger. Bad things come from the sky, bombs and falling airplanes, lightning, and extremely dangerous weather that kills hundreds to thousands at a time. Meanwhile, who dies walking through the desert or the woods? Some do, but trekking in nature is not a major cause of human death. Wild weather is also a part of  nature, hence it is both Male and Female Principle based. And its sudden  unpredictability when things change dramatically and quickly also mirrors the Feminine Principle.

The sky is calm and placid, even unmoving and seemingly uncaring most of the time.  When it gets violent it gets real violent real fast, and things get deadly and scary and even massively deadly, like hundreds of people killed in a few days. In this sense, the Male Principle is quiet most of the time, but it has a potential for danger that is downright scary.

Right now the weather, which comes from the sky, has gotten so out of whack that it threatens the whole human race. The Feminine Principle would never try to exterminate mankind. It would just drive us all so crazy that we wished we were dead. The Male Principle is downright genocidal or exterminationist, such is the nature of its all-encompassing violence.

Or maybe gay men are so much like women that they drive people nuts too, except it’s worse because it’s like the bitchiest woman from Hell except you fill her tank full of Testosterone Superfuel and a ton of ugly aggression and meanness.

So gay men hanging around with women is people who drive people nuts hanging around with other people who drive people nuts, which is basically a description of straight women’s friendships with other women.

I think gay men tone it down around women or perhaps something is missing between the gay men – female relationships that is present in the straight female-straight female relationships – competition, envy, sensitivity, etc. Gay men and straight women seem to form some sort of an armistice with each other that they do not form with their own.

Gay men’s relationships also tend to be unstable as you have two Feminine Characters (inherently unstable), while toned down by a calmer Male Principle as gay men actually have a combination of Male and Female Principles, but at the same time the instability is testosterone-fueled, which causes the worst catty bitchfests among gay men.

As I said, an angry gay man is like the worst bitchy woman you’ve ever met who seems like she’s not only a psychobitch but maybe she might kick your butt along with “a screw you I don’t care about you FOAD” Male Principle iciness, and even exterminationism and anihilationism that is the dark side of the Male Principle at its worst. This utter coldness is something that women often find hard to muster up for people who don’t really deserve it, as they so often pity others and have a hard time with cruelty to people who are essentially innocents.

Furthermore there is the intensity of the love-hate super-passion that lovers create, which in the gay male case is driven to sheer female levels of flake by their Feminine Principle inside of them and is fueled to violent, homicidal, or exterminationist extremes by their Male Principle and testosterone.

I’m not saying gay men are bad. I’m just saying that men in general and testosterone-poisoned, much more aggressive and way meaner than women, and are downright dangerous because of that if you ever make them mad. Most straight guys are chill as we all realize that we can all murder each other on a dime anytime we want, so the world of Man World is insanely polite.

We are being so obsequious to our fellow men because we are all trying not to murder each other. You act cautious around dangerous things and beings. And that’s what men are.

This is why women’s relationships have far more aggression, fighting, meanness, and sheer catty Hellishness than men’s relationships – because it’s limited in how far it can escalate, it’s mostly verbal, and dies down real fast and turns into mutual hugging. Women can fight like wildcats because it’s their nature and they are limited to how aggressive or mean they can become.

And they’re unlikely to become violent at all. That’s why they can tear each other’s hair out, bawling afterwards over something some woman said to them (“Did you hear what she said to me?”), and then two days later, they’re saying, “Here’s a hug!” and hugging each other like old friends. The grudges probably don’t last long either.

Men on the other hand are almost like tigers or grizzly bears, and you have to try to humor them and calm them down all the time like any dangerous living thing.

Ever seen a fight start to break out between two men? See the way five or ten guys jump up, get between them, and break them apart? They’re not doing that because they’re nice guys. They’re doing that because they don’t want a murder scene breaking out right in front of them. Because for one thing, dangerous fights between men seem to suck in other men, who then get hurt or die themselves. You want to stay alive? You pull fatheads, loudmouths, and psychos apart do they don’t murder each other and so they don’t murder you too.

They’re doing that because fights between men are dangerous as Hell and have a tendency to escalate very quickly. It’s like you see a small fire burning over there and you over while it’s small and easy to put out so the whole building doesn’t go up in flames. Follow?

Escalate quickly means getting physical or worse, and quite possibly pulling out weapons and trying to or succeeding in murdering each other. It’s terrifying the speed at which a conflict between males escalates. So at party of 20 men, five or six jump in and tear two pugilists apart to de-escalate the scene. Every other guy is thinking, “If we don’t stop these guys, somebody’s going to get hurt.” And most men aren’t psycho enough to relish the thought of that.

Two women get mad and nothing happens except ugly words, a lot of fuming, crying and looking for shoulders to bawl on. It fades pretty quickly and the next you see them, they’re BFF’s again.

Women are far less dangerous than men and unlikely to physically kill despite the fact that they might murder your ego and soul.

But you go a few rounds in life, and after a while, you’ve been ego-smashed and soul-murdered more than a few times by women and you toughen up, turn into an icy rock, and get a lot harder to ego smash or soul murder. Now you’re prepared to deal with the rollercoaster ride of associating with women and all the nuttiness doesn’t bother you that much because its been there, done that X200. So you’re cynical. So what? You might be getting laid and at least you’re not some incel with his dick in one hand and a rope in the other.

Why the Genetic and Normal Evil of Boys Must Be Destroyed before They Become Men

The evil in boys in the natural state of males, genetic. It is schooled out of us by maybe our mothers, except that being boys, despite the fact that we love them to death we don’t listen to them because…what male listens to a woman? It’s removed from us mostly by other boys, but especially men in our families, and older brothers and relatives, etc.

The men really come down on you if you stay evil too long. You’re supposed to drop the boyish evil. If you retain it too long, people get worried, for good reason. The boyish evil is schooled out of you harshly verbally or maybe even psychically. There’s also ostracization and being told that you’re acting like a boy, not a man, and that you are immature, and no teenage boy wants to be told that.

This is done because the boyish evil must be smashed out of us before we become men because otherwise all of us men would just murder each other. I’m serious. Boyish evil is not acceptable behavior for a man. You’re acting like a kid. You’re not a real man. You’re still a boy.

But more important than that, you’re being a dick because retention of boyish evil causes you to attack your fellow boys and men, and that’s considered dickish to asshole behavior. You lose friends after a while. And along the way, someone’s going to hit you. Men who are dicks and assholes to other men can’t get away with it forever.

Male society has a way of self-policing. It’s called The Rule of the Punch in the Face. You violate the basic rules too much in too outrageous of a way, and you’re going to get hit. Real simple. The only thing that keeps Man World halfway sane at all is the threat of a punch in the face.

Now that we live under Female Rule in a feminist matriarchy, this tool has been taken away from us. Try to enforce the rule and you get the cops called on you and prosecute for assault or battery. In the olden days, an asshole would get beaten up and get a punch in the face and all of the men who saw it would get together and whisper, “I didn’t see a thing, did you?” “Nope, not a thing.”And the guy who enforced the Rule would get a handshake and everyone would offer to buy him a beer.

Further, it’s considered bad karma. If you go too far, other men will also act like you are scary and evil, and will refer to you as a psycho. Even though I am definitely dangerous and can be psycho if you make me mad enough, I don’t appreciate being called one. Because in the Ted Bundy sense of the word, I’m definitely not.

The truth is so brutal that only someone with an Oriental philosophy that doesn’t care for pretty lies and has no problem equivocating and thinking in terms of grey and not black and white can see it. It is this: Women and men are both half good and half bad. To put in the terms speak of on here, both the Masculine and Feminine Principles are half good and half bad.

However, I believe that our basic bad side of a man is still there, it’s just that most of us put it in a maximum security prison in our guts, and we swear to never let the POS see the light of day. Nevertheless he does come out now and again, and it’s usually not good. Usually there’s an altercation between another man. If you are lucky if there’s just verbal fighting and threats, maybe throwing stuff or destroying an object or two. It very quickly spirals out of control.

Yet it does come in handy now and again when you have to try to kill someone, and for one too many men, that moment comes at least once in a lifetime. I can’t tell you how men have told me that another man or men tried to kill them, and they didn’t even go to war where it’s a quotidian thing.

And in an amazing few cases, friends have told me that they actually committed homicide. In both cases, they were mugged by male attackers with weapons on city streets very late at night. Things got ugly real fast and in self defense, my friends grabbed the weapons and killed the men with it. In one case they grabbed the guy’s knife and stabbed him to death. The other case may have been the same. Both times they didn’t stick around to find out what happened. They just left him for dead. And neither went to the cops. That’s a real stupid thing to do in a case like that.

Game/PUA: We, the Men, Would Like to Officially Complain That You, the Women, Are Driving Us Insane

I always hated the misogynistic line, “If women didn’t have vaginas, no man would ever talk to them.” Just horrible! I would think, “Hey, I like women, come on! What are you, some woman-hater? Screw that. I love women!”

Guess what? Here I am in my 60’s and I finally figure that, as horrible as it sounds, Goddamn it, it’s true.

The only reason we talk to women is because they have pussies and most of us are pussy addicts if not pussy beggars. And they didn’t have vaginas, we wouldn’t even give them the time of day. Why give her the time of day? What for? Why risk it?

That’s for straight men.

Hell, we men bash women all the time, and guys who don’t are suspected cucks, wimps, milquetoasts or pussies. Because any sane, normal man will quickly be driven insane by women.

I always wondered why players and ladies men loved women like crazy like a heroin addict loves his dope, seemed to understand them very well, and nevertheless were very cynical about women.

Then I figured it out. The more you are around women, the more they drive you insane.

The incels should be sane. They never talk to women. Instead they’re wretched, suicidal, furious, and pathetic. Why? Because they don’t have a woman. I don’t get it. Why do they want a woman? So they can get even crazier than they already are? They’re already completely insane. Starting to hang around women will just push a lot of them over the edge. That’s why I think these guys need to calm down and get more stable first, work on building self-esteem, toughness and resilience, personal growth, etc. T

They need to get sane and get their shit together first. Then go out and try to get chicks. Trying to get women when you’re half nuts yourself won’t work and you’ll only get a lot of failure. Which will cause you to go from half nuts to full-blown nuts.

The player is around women all the time, reaping the joy, sex, and love that flows from all of that, and he’s in Pussy Heaven half the time. It’s the finest life any man could ever wish to live. You can die tomorrow with a smile on your face.

On the other hand, you have to pay for those times with the wages of bad times. That’s how life goes. Want good times? Fine, go out and have a bunch of bad times, get paid for them, come to our Life Store, hand in the wages of your tragedy and we’ll trade you 1 to 1 for some times. You purchase good times with bad times.

You pay for good times with bad times. Want good times? Cool. But you will have to pay for them with bad times. They go together. In other words, you can’t really have good times without bad times. Yes you can have bad times without good times if you are miserable enough, but life is cruel, and good times must be paid for with the wages of misery.

I’m a Ladies Man. I’m not calling myself that. That’s what women call me. So I’ll defer to them, ok, so as not to brag. I would like to point out that a Ladies Man is simply a man who prefers the company of women to that of men. A gay man is around women all the time, but he’s not a Ladies Man. He’s one of the gals. Hell, a Ladies Man could be a virgin, but he’s typically not because women don’t like to hang out with virgins.

If they’re letting some straight men hang out all the time, it’s probably because some of them want to fuck him. Otherwise why bring him around? They probably think we drive them nuts as much as the opposite. A Ladies’ Man is often goodlooking. Why? Because women like to hang around with hot guys. They like hot guys who like women, who are successful with women, who are friendly, easy-going, not too pushy and still cool. And yeah. They’re keeping around the Girl Gang all the time because at least one of them wants to fuck him. 100% guar-an-teed.

Most men prefer the company of men and hanging with the boys to the company of women, which they are often associating with mostly to get laid.

There’s this general idea that women drive you crazy. So you hang around with them some limited amount so you can still get laid and hope they don’t drive you too nuts.

But that doesn’t change the fact that women are difficult as Hell, always driving you crazy and cannot be figured out or understand by any known sentient being.

A lot of the time, if I’m feeling bad it’s because some bad thing happened with a woman. If I’m sucking on the Tequila bottle too much it’s because they latest chick went best love affair of my life to worst enemy ever all in a rollercoaster of a couple of days.

Like I’m talking to her on a dating site and things are going smoothly, and I try to escalate just a bit, and I go back the next day and she’s ghosted me and blocked me without a word because I said one sentence she didn’t like. Dating sites have made all of ghosting stuff so much easier.

It was harder back when we had phones and barely had answering machines. You’d know it was over when she was screaming like a banshee into the receiver for God knows what reason. It’s happened more than once and it used to smash my soul like a sledgehammer and send me into days of depression. Now that I’m a goddamned rock I handle it a lot better, but it’s still hard take. You’re crushed for hours, not days.

Sure, when you’re getting along with them, it’s a blast, but they’re flaky and unstable as Hell, totally unpredictable, and can turn on you like a dime for little or no reason.

When you are around women all the time, you are dealing with weirdness, nuttiness, and flakiness all the time. Most of us are putting up with this shit at all for the reward at the bottom of the cereal box: pussy.

Delphi Murders Update January 21, 2021

This post has been updated two times. See here for the March 26 update and here for the even more insane April 4 update.

This is a long-awaited update to the Delphi Murders case. You wonder why I have not published, but it was due to how I was treated. I was reported to the police probably 40 times for being the murderer or for being a “pedophile” (I wasn’t aware that being a pedophile was against the law). I was reported to the IRS 20 times. I was interviewed by a detective as a suspect in the murders. Too bad I hadn’t left California in 3 1/2 years!

I wrote a lot about sexual aspects of the case and this got turned into an idea that I was writing about my sexual fantasies of raping and murdering teenage girls! None of these things other than being the killer would mean anything even if it were true. After all, it’s actions not thoughts that count in this world. But if it makes you feel better, there’s nothing to any of it. I received more death threats than I can count.

Getting down to lesser complaints, it was said that I deliberately made up lies about this case out of whole cloth in order to get more hits! It was said that I was ripping people off by charging for the forum but if you knew the time I put in, I doubt if I made minimum wage.

At first it was free, but we had to get rid of that. See all those posting restrictions on public forums. We were trying to avoid that. We started charging $10 to get in, but we had spies and enemies paying the $10 and then taking our private material out of the group and posting. We went up to $20 to keep spies and enemies out. It worked.

The site’s not monetized so that doesn’t matter, but I have a BA in Journalism and have worked in the field. If there’s one thing that will kill your career, it’s that, and my records clean after decades of published journalism. We charge money for a private forum that met to investigate the crime. There was a tremendous amount of information about the crime there – in fact, it was one of the largest databases for materials about this case around.

We made it private because we were talking about real people as suspects and doxxing people. I’m not sure if there’s a legal liability there, but we were trying to avoid that. It was also done to protect the privacy of our members. Contrary to rumor, we never listed anyone’s name as a suspect for the crime. We did bring up some names but mostly to say that they were cleared or they were not involved. Their names were brought up because they were being passed around.

Some of these people have made it a mission to hunt me down and do unknown threatening things to me. I never realized that pointing out someone was innocent was deserving an ass-beating! We did have one suspect that we were looking at for a long time, but we never published his name one time on this site nor did I publish it anywhere on the Net.

I have never published the names of people we were investigating on the site or anywhere else. Some people got mad because we were looking at them, but don’t worry. We investigated everyone and their brother for this crime. Not many people were off-limits. And of course we looked at family members.

Another rumor says the families hate me. I wouldn’t care if it was true but I do have a good relationship with one of the three parents.

We never had an “secret, special, inside or otherwise sources.” We listed anonymous sources a lot because that’s what we do in journalism! The anonymous sources somehow drove people into a frenzy.

Law enforcement worked with some of us a little bit, but not much. They requested some material from us and we gave it to them. A local sheriff’s deputy was one of the most active members of our group. It was and is extremely difficult for us to get law enforcement (LE) sources, but now and then, we get lucky.

It somehow got out that we had a prime suspect in this case. It was more like my prime suspect. He’s done a number of very suspicious things in relation to this crime, including recording numerous videos inferring that he killed the girls. A lot of his other behavior was suspicious too. Turns out we now feel that he was a dead end and he’s not implicated in the crime.

He’s still a lousy person and he threatened to murder me many times. But he didn’t kill those girls and that’s all that counts. Contrary to rumor, his name was never published one time on this site or anywhere else on the Net. I’d apologize to him but he sent me too  many death threats to bother with that and he’s a scumbag anyway. A scumbag? Sure. A homicidal scumbag? Guess not.

Anyway, we recommend that people turn their attention away from this man.

He’s just one of many, of course. There have already been several false confessions in the crime already.

We do have a lot of new information that I have never seen published anywhere but some of the Facebook groups seem to have been privy to some of this data. Anyway, the rest of the world has never heard of it, so here goes.

The motive for the crime has been revealed:

For a long time there was much controversy about whether there was a sexual assault in this crime. I always thought there was because any time a man murders two teenage girl strangers in this fashion, there’s almost always a sexual component, rape, torture, sexual sadism. The rape and torture are motivated by the sexual sadism.

Anyway, the motive for the crime was the rape of Abbie Williams. I will sit back and let that settle for a bit. I don’t have any specifics on what exactly he did to her sexually, but the sex act was definitely consummated, let’s put it that way. I’m not sure if she was raped while alive or dead. That’s unclear.

Both girls appear to have been bound with ropes behind their backs. We know this because Libby German’s fingernails were covered with bruises and dirt. That means she was digging her fingers into the ground behind her back while being assaulted.

Libby German had numerous defensive wounds on her hands and arms. It appears she put up quite a bit of a fight.

The girls were controlled with a gun. You can see the gun clearly in his right jacket pocket. I can’t believe people still think it’s a rumor. A fifth grader could have figured that out. He pulled the gun on them and  controlled them with it.

The video of UNSUB (the suspect) was taken by Libby’s cellphone. There were also trail cams active at the time. We do not know what photos, if any, were captured there. The murders themselves may even have been recorded by trail cams, but this is uncertain. An audio of the murders may also have been recorded on Libby’s phone. This is uncertain. Obviously this material cannot be released. The reason only the small snippet of voice recording has been released is that that is all there is. There is a lot of other recording from the phone, but it is all muffled and inaudible.

The girls were both definitely marched across the creek by UNSUB.

The pack around UNSUB’s lap is as we said forever a deer kit. Deer kits contain ~5 different knives that are used to cut up a deer carcass after you kill it. This is a bit disturbing because it implies that he may have seen the girls were like wild animals that get hunted legally every year. We do not know if that is a go-pro on his forehead, and we also do not know if the crime was recorded.

But we are now 100% certain that UNSUB brought his own camera or whatever sort to the crime, and he used to it take pictures at the crime scene.

We are also now certain that Abbie also had a phone during the crime. Her phone also played a role in the crime.

Abbie was raped, correct, and the sex act was completed, that is, UNSUB ejaculated. I don’t have any further details than that nor do I know the nature of the sex acts. Hence, police absolutely have DNA because they have sperm cells from UNSUB’s semen. In addition, they have epithelial cells from UNSUB’s skin. The samples match.

There are reports that the crime occurred over an extended space. Supposedly the “crime scene” starts at the Robinson family’s backyard near the dump spot and extends 1,000 yards to the dump site. We don’t know what that means. Maybe it means he was chasing them as they were running away from him and he was attacking them while they ran. But we still don’t know if this rumor is even true.

It is still not known that the girls were killed at the dump site or that they were murdered on the day they disappeared at all. There are continuing rumors that they were removed from the scene and taken to a barn (apparently the Mears’ barn) where they were kept for some time and then returned to the crime scene, dead.

The Mears barn was prominent in one of our theories for a while and it is interesting that it is coming back.

We had an investigator at the barn and he talked to the owners. He mentioned a rumor that the girls were murdered in the barn and he said that their faces both went hard, cold, and pale. They said nothing. He considered that an ominous sign. Also we did discover a small flower set in the barn that looks like the sort of flowered memorials that are left at death sites along highways. In addition, the barn was absolutely searched by cadaver dogs during the search of Lucas’ property.

The rest of his property was also searched by the cadaver dogs. We don’t know what they found. Keep in mind that none of this means that the barn was used in the killings, but it is only interesting that this old theory we thought was dead and buried has experienced a recrudescence. There is a problem with the barn information at the moment, in that it is all coming from a single source, and some people think she is trying to misdirect theories about the crime. Everything about a barn or that barn is completely speculation at this point.

For the moment, we assume that the girls were killed at the scene. Indeed, reports said, “It was all over in 40 minutes.” That means that they were dead by 3 PM. UNSUB was seen hiking away from the crime scene at 3:15 PM. So you can see, there is also evidence that they were killed at the scene. Arguing against that once again are reports that the site was searched more than once the night before.

In addition, Ron Logan described the crime scene as “pristine.” I assume that this is when the police left, but how many homicide sites are “pristine?” It seems a bit odd. Once again, we have no evidence that they were killed away from the dump site and the theory that they were killed at the site remains the best one.

If they were killed in the barn then they would have been returned to the dump site later, probably in the middle of the night. Investigators discovered the dump site by following two sets of footprints downhill from the graveyard to the crime scene. This descending pair of footprints is not explained and it hard to figure a theory for why they are there.

We now have repeated statements that the dump site was absolutely searched during the searches the night before. There were no girls there when they searched. Of course, maybe the girls were there, and searchers were mistaken that they searched the site.

The crime scene was absolutely disturbed. At least two and possibly more searchers touched the bodies. Two searchers tried to revive the girls by mouth to mouth resuscitation. This seems odd if we were dealing with 21 hour cold corpses. Anyway this has contaminated the crime scene.

There is no evidence that police botched the investigation in any way. Everyone is saying that because that’s what people say when a killer cannot be found. But quite a few killers are very hard to catch even by the best police and a large number are never caught and die with their secrets. A homicide case open for three years or even a cold case is not evidence of a botched investigation. Botched investigations are not common in the US.

As I said, the murder weapons were knives as we knew from the start. Libby had her throat cut so badly that she was nearly beheaded. There was a scarf tied around her neck at the funeral to hide this wound. People have attacked this story endlessly, but it is fact. For one thing, I spoke to Libby’s mother and she verified the wound to me and in tears told me that she was the one who tied the scarf around her neck to hide the wound.

The story that Libby was wearing a scarf at the funeral has also been attacked with attendees saying  they never saw a scarf on either girl. However, we are in possession of a photograph of Libby’s funeral. In the photo, you can see her casket and you can make out Libby inside of it. Indeed she has a scarf tied around her neck. We have decided not to release this photo. I assume all of this stuff will come out at some time or another as old crime scene photos of all sorts tend to make their way onto the Net after a decade or two.

There is also a strong rumor that Libby was attacked with a gut knife. A gut knife is included in a deer kit. It is used to for gutting a deer. Libby was stabbed in her abdomen to such an extent that her intestines were protruding from her body. This leads to the horrifying implication that he gutted her body as if it was a dead deer. One wonders if UNSUB is a deer hunter? Additional evidence supporting the story of Libby being gutted in this way is in the form of several reports of detectives in hardware stores a week or two after the crime, asking if anyone had bought a gut knife recently.

There are continuing rumors that the crime scene was staged and that UNSUB left a signature or particular style that was his own at the scene. We reported earlier that UNSUB had stabbed the girls with sticks and branches. Sticks and branches were shoved into both girls’ vaginas and anuses. In addition, Abbie was impaled with a large branch which was plunged into her body right below her solar plexis. The cause of death of Abbie continues to be a single knife wound to the heart.

We heard this rumor first when someone in the community had crime scene photos and published them to his blog the evening of the crime. He thought the killing was some sort of a Satanic ritual and he was the first source about the story of sticks and branches being shoved into the girls’ bodies. We talked about a possible Satanic theme to the crime in early blog posts and were ripped to pieces over it. The reason we wondered about that was due to this young  man’s crime scene photos and his description of them.

This rumor was later verified by the wife of a detective. He could not sleep at night and finally broke down and told his wife about the murders. She also stated that sticks and branches were shoved into the girls’ bodies.

Now we have a third source, a detective from a different branch of LE. This confirms once again the story about sticks and branches being shoved into the girls’ bodies. So we now have three sources for that story.

However, there is no evidence for the Satanic nature of the crime. This was only theorized early on due to the bizarre things that were done to the girls’ bodies. Both bodies were staged and posed.

UNSUB may have used some sort of bleach to kill DNA at the crime scene. In the photo, UNSUB  has a bottle of something in his left pocket. We could never figure out what it is but it seems to be toilet cleaner. This consists of a lot of bleach. Some substance containing bleach, possibly toilet cleaner, may have been thrown onto the body of at least one of the girls. It was tossed onto her the area of her genitalia and lower abdomen. We don’t know which girl he threw this stuff on.

Abbie was nude below the waist and Libby was completely nude so the killer disrobed the girls.

We published rumors that one of the girls was in the early stages of pregnancy. We have been ripped to pieces over this story probably more than any other. However, we recently were able to verify the story via a sheriff’s deputy in a neighboring county. He said that the autopsy revealed that one of the girls was in the early stages of pregnancy. We are not going to reveal which girl was said to be pregnant but maybe we will later. So we now have many unverified and one excellent verified source for this story.

Perhaps the strangest of the new evidence is that Abbie and the murderer had known each other for 3-4 months before the crime. So she knew her killer and he knew her. He apparently met her on social media. A social media link was reported by police early on. Since he was on her social media, he absolutely knew that both girls were on the trails that day.

There are stories that the journey to the bridge was a last minute decision but we now have information that it had been planned since at least the previous Friday. We have a report that people were discussing Abbie and Libby’s upcoming trip to the bridge at a local bar on Friday night. And there seems to have been continuing discussion over the weekend.

As you can see, the killer was very prepared. He knew exactly where the girls would be and at what time. The idea of a random serial killing is nonsense. The killer has no DNA match in the many databases in the Rust Belt that were searched. But LE may have been able to identify the killer by DNA in some other way.

There is now a story that the killer took photos of the presumably dead girls at the crime scene. Photos of the dead girls from the crime scene were sent to Abbie’s phone after the murders, possibly on the evening of the crime.

This killer seems to be using cellphones and social media. And we can’t find him? Color me confused.

Police may or may not have a particular suspect that they are looking at. We are getting conflicting  stories on that. But if they do have a suspect, the killer may be a local. There is also a rumor that the killer may have a close relationship with the girls’ families. This means someone either in the extended families or in their extended friends group. Keep in mind that this not yet v verified. However, a familiar name from early in the investigation of someone in and around the extended families has been mentioned. I do not know if LE actually considers this man to be a suspect.

There are persistent rumors that LE may have a suspect, but simply do not have enough on them to file. We received this information for the first time from an LE officer who works for the Presidential Secret Service, the branch that protests Presidents, their families, and even Presidential candidates. We received this story about one month after the crime.

The implication is that LE have a lot of evidence, but problems with the case have made it difficult to file against any possible murderer. This is presumably making the DA balk at filing charges as DA’s will not take a homicide case to court unless they think they are pretty sure that they can win it.

LE investigated many suspects. They also looked very hard at a family angle.

A well-known and prominent member of one of the families was kept under surveillance by a detective for nine months after the  crime. The detective even followed this person when they went on a vacation with their families a considerable distance away. The surveillance ended after 10 months. We don’t know why this person was being investigated and tailed, but apparently LE thought they might have had something to do with the crime. This person is no longer under investigation and LE don’t think he was involved.

“The Inner Landscape of the Psychopath,” by Hervey Cleckley

This is one of the finest descriptions I have ever read of the psychopath. I’ve been studying them for decades now, and I still don’t understand them. They simply don’t make sense. I can’t see how they can do what they do without feeling guilt or caring what others think. With this article though, I am at least starting to get a picture of the inner dynamics of the psychopath.

The work below is a classic, of course, and it is the first major work in psychiatry that attempted to describe psychopathy. It is still just as relevant today as it was 80 years ago. This is a chapter from Cleckley’s book.

It’s intense reading. It’s not so much hard to understand as it is dense. There are some many concepts packed into even one paragraph that it gets slow-going. This is especially true for me as, with an article below, I have to form a “picture” in my mind to truly understand a lot of the prose. When I write I also think in pictures. I get a picture, try to figure out what’s in it and what it’s about, and then set about describing the picture in words the best I can. Most art forms are similar. We writers make paintings and movies in our head, the raw material of our prose.

The section below is 31 pages including my mad scribbling. If there’s anything you can’t understand or follow in this piece, feel free to bring it up in the comments and I will try to explain it as I pretty much understood everything written below. It took me a while, but I did get it.

That said, this piece is a serious “brain fry.” I call brain fries any prose that pushes your mind to its absolute limits, like going to the gym and pushing your body to its limits. You have to go slow because there are so many concepts being pushed so quickly, but if you concentrate hard enough, you can figure out most brain fry prose. A lot of people who like simplistic writing or don’t want to work their brains at Autobahn speed probably think texts like this are a nightmare or a pain in the ass. They’re not having a good time when they’re reading it. It’s one frustration after another.

And just because I understood everything below doesn’t mean everyone else can. Keep in mind I have a genius IQ of 147. So a person with a 147 IQ can muddle through everything below and figure it all out. 99.9% of the population is below 147, and I don’t have the faintest notion how well they can get through stuff like this or how much they can understand of it at different IQ levels. If you understand everything below and know your IQ, you might want to comment to tell us that you got it all, give us your number, and tell us what sort of a ride it was machete slashing through this word tangle.

The Inner Landscape of the Psychopath

From: The Mask of Sanity, by Hervey Cleckley, 1941, 5th edition

The surface of the psychopath, however, that is, all of him that can be reached by verbal exploration and direct examination, shows up as equal to or better than normal and gives no hint at all of a disorder within.

Nothing about him suggests oddness, inadequacy, or moral frailty. His mask is that of robust mental health. Yet he has a disorder that often manifests itself in conduct far more seriously abnormal than that of the schizophrenic.

Inwardly, too, there appears to be a significant difference.

Deep in the masked schizophrenic we often sense a cold, weird indifference to many of life’s most urgent issues and sometimes also bizarre, inexplicable, and unpredictable but intense emotional reactions to what seems almost irrelevant.

Behind the exquisitely deceptive mask of the psychopath the emotional alteration we feel appears to be primarily one of degree, a consistent leveling of response to petty ranges and an incapacity to react with sufficient seriousness to achieve much more than pseudoexperience or quasi-experience. Nowhere within do we find a real cause or a sincere commitment, reasonable or unreasonable. There is nowhere the loyalty to produce real and lasting allegiance even to a negative or fanatic cause.

Just as meaning and the adequate sense of things as a whole are lost with semantic aphasia in the circumscribed field of speech although the technical mimicry of language remains intact, so in most psychopaths the purposiveness and the significance of all life-striving and of all subjective experience are affected without obvious damage to the outer appearance or superficial reactions of the personality. Nor is there any loss of technical or measurable intelligence.

With such a biologic change the human being becomes more reflex, more machinelike. It has been said that a monkey endowed with sufficient longevity would, if he continuously pounded the keys of a typewriter, finally strike by pure chance the very succession of keys to reproduce all the plays of Shakespeare.

These papers so composed in the complete absence of purpose and human awareness would look just as good to any scholar as the actual works of the Bard. Yet we cannot deny that there is a difference. Meaning and life at a prodigiously high level of human values went into one and merely the rule of permutations and combinations would go into the other.

The patient semantically defective by lack of meaningful purpose and realization at deep levels does not, of course, strike sane and normal attitudes merely by chance. His rational power enables him to mimic directly the complex play of human living. Yet what looks like sane realization and normal experience remains, in a sense and to some degree, like the plays of our simian typist.

In Henry Head’s interpretation of semantic aphasia we find, however, concepts of neural function and of its integration and impairment that help to convey a hypothesis of grave personality disorder thoroughly screened by the intact peripheral operation of all ordinary abilities.

In relatively abstract or circumscribed situations, such as the psychiatric examination or the trial in court, these abilities do not show impairment but more or less automatically demonstrate an outer sanity unquestionable in all its aspects and at all levels accessible to the observer. That this technical sanity is little more than a mimicry of true sanity cannot be proved at such levels.

Only when the subject sets out to conduct his life can we get evidence of how little his good theoretical understanding means to him, of how inadequate and insubstantial are the apparently normal basic emotional reactions and motivations convincingly portrayed and enunciated but existing in little more than two dimensions.

What we take as evidence of his sanity will not significantly or consistently influence his behavior. Nor does it represent real intention within, the degree of his emotional response, or the quality of his personal experience much more reliably than some grammatically well-formed, clear, and perhaps verbally sensible statement produced vocally by the autonomous neural apparatus of a patient with semantic aphasia can be said to represent such a patient’s thought or carry a meaningful communication of it.

Let us assume tentatively that the psychopath is, in this sense, semantically disordered. We have said that his outer functional aspect masks or disguises something quite different within, concealing behind a perfect mimicry of normal emotion, fine intelligence, and social responsibility a grossly disabled and irresponsible personality. Must we conclude that this disguise is a mere pretense voluntarily assumed and that the psychopath’s essential dysfunction should be classed as mere hypocrisy instead of psychiatric defect or deformity?

Let us remember that his typical behavior defeats what appear to be his own aims.

Is it not he himself who is most deeply deceived by his apparent normality?

Although he deliberately cheats others and is quite conscious of his lies, he appears unable to distinguish adequately between his own pseudointentions, pseudoremorse, pseudolove, and the genuine responses of a normal person.

His monumental lack of insight indicates how little he appreciates the nature of his disorder.

When others fail to accept immediately his “word of honor as a gentleman,” his amazement, I believe, is often genuine. The term genuine is used here not to qualify the psychopath’s intentions but to qualify his amazement. His subjective experience is so bleached of deep emotion that he is invincibly ignorant of what life means to others.

His awareness of hypocrisy’s opposite is so insubstantially theoretical that it becomes questionable if what we chiefly mean by hypocrisy should be attributed to him.

Having no major values himself, can he be said to realize adequately the nature and quality of the outrages his conduct inflicts upon others?

A young child who has no impressive memory of severe pain may have been told by his mother it is wrong to cut off the dog’s tail. Knowing it is wrong he may proceed with the operation. We need not totally absolve him of responsibility if we say he realized less what he did than an adult who, in full appreciation of physical agony, so uses a knife.

Can a person experience the deeper levels of sorrow without considerable knowledge of happiness? Can he achieve evil intention in the full sense without real awareness of evil’s opposite? I have no final answer to these questions.

Attempts to interpret the psychopath’s disorder do not, of course, furnish evidence that he has a disorder or that it is serious. For reliable evidence of this we must examine his behavior. Only here, not in psychopathologic formulations, can we apply our judgment to what is objective and demonstrable.

Functionally and structurally all is intact on the outside. Good function (healthy reactivity) will be demonstrated in all theoretical trials. Sound judgment as well as good reasoning are likely to appear at verbal levels. Ethical as well as practical considerations will be recognized in the abstract. A brilliant mimicry of sound, social reactions will occur in every test except the test of life itself.

In the psychopath we confront a personality neither broken nor outwardly distorted but of a substance that lacks ingredients without which normal function in major life issues is impossible.

Simon, Holzberg, and Unger, impressed by the paradox of the psychopath’s poor performance despite intact reasoning, devised an objective test specifically to appraise judgment as it would function in real situations, as contrasted with theoretical judgment in abstract situations.

These workers are aware that the more complex synthesis of influences constituting what is often called judgment or understanding (as compared to a more theoretical “reasoning”) may be simulated in test situations in which emotional participation is minimal, that rational factors alone by an accurate aping or stereotyping can produce in vitro, so to speak, what they cannot produce in vivo.

Items for a multiple choice test were selected with an aim of providing maximal possibilities for emotional factors to influence decision and particularly for relatively trivial immediate gratification impulses to clash with major, long-range objectives. The same items were also utilized in the form of a completion test. The results of this test on a group of psychopaths tend to support the hypothetical interpretation attempted in this book.

If such a disorder does indeed exist in the so-called psychopath, it is not remarkable that its recognition as a major and disabling impairment has been long delayed.

Pathological changes visible on the surface of the body (laceration, compound fractures) were already being handled regularly by medical men when the exorcism of indwelling demons retained popular favor in many illnesses now treated by the internist. So, too, it has been with personality disorders. Those characterized by gross outward manifestations have been accepted as psychiatric problems long before others in which a superficial appearance of sanity is preserved.

Despite the psychopath’s lack of academic symptoms characteristic of those disorders traditionally classed as psychosis, he often seems, in some important respects, but not in all, to belong more with that group than with any other. Certainly his problems cannot be dealt with, medically or by any other means, unless similar legal instrumentalities for controlling his situation are set up and regularly applied.

I believe that if such a patient shows himself grossly incompetent in his behavior, he should be so appraised. It is necessary to change some of our legal criteria to make attempts at treatment or urgently needed supervision possible for him, the most serious objections are primarily theoretical. Perhaps our traditional definitions of psychiatric disability can stand alteration better than these grossly defective patients and those about them can stand the present farcical and sometimes tragic methods of handling their problems.

This is not to say that all people showing features of this type should be regarded as totally disabled. It is here maintained that this defect, like other psychiatric disorders, appears in every degree of severity and may constitute anything from a personality trait through handicaps of varying magnitude, including maximum disability and maximum threat to the peace and safety of the community.

In attempting to account for the abnormal behavior observed in the psychopath, we have found useful the hypothesis that he has a serious and subtle abnormality or defect at deep levels disturbing the integration and normal appreciation of experience and resulting in a pathology that might, in analogy with Henry Head’s classifications of the aphasias, be described as semantic.

Presuming that such a patient does fail to experience life adequately in its major issues, can we then better account for his clinical manifestations? The difficulties of proving, or even of demonstrating direct objective evidence, for hypotheses about psychopathology (or about ordinary subjective functioning) are too obvious to need elaborate discussion here.

If the psychopath’s life is devoid of higher order stimuli, of primary or serious goals and values, and of intense and meaningful satisfactions, it may be possible for the observer to better understand the patient who, for the trivial excitement of stealing a dollar (or a candy bar), the small gain of forging a $20.00 check, or halfhearted intercourse with an unappealing partner, sacrifices his job, the respect of his friends, or perhaps his marriage.

Behind much of the psychopath’s behavior we see evidence of relatively mild stimuli common to all mankind. In his panhandling, his pranks, his truancy, his idle boasts, his begging, and his taking another drink, he is acting on motives in themselves not unnatural. In their massive accumulation during his career, these acts are impressive chiefly because of what he sacrifices to carry them out. If, for him, the things sacrificed are also of petty value, his conduct becomes more comprehensible.

Woolley, in an interesting interpretation of these patients, compared them with an otherwise intact automobile having very defective brakes. Such an analogy suggests accurately an important pathological defect which seems to exist.

In contrast with an automobile, however, the braking functions of the human organism are built into the personality by reaction to life experience, to reward and punishment, praise and blame, shame, loss, honor, love, and so on. True as Woolley’s hypothesis may be, it seems likely that more fundamental than inadequate powers to refrain is the inadequate emotional reactivity upon which the learning to refrain must be based.

Even with good brakes on his car, the driver must have not only knowledge of but also feeling for what will happen otherwise if he is to use them correctly and adequately.

Some of the psychopath’s behavior may be fairly well accounted for if we grant a limitation of emotional capacity. Additional factors merit consideration.

The psychopath seems to go out of his way to make trouble for himself and for others.

In carelessly marrying a whore, in more or less inviting detection of a theft (or at least in ignoring the probability of detection), in attempting gross intimacies with a debutante in the poorly sheltered alcove just off a crowded ballroom, in losing his hospital parole or failing to be with his wife in labor just because he did not want to leave the crap game at midnight (or at 3 A.M.), in such actions there seems to be not only a disregard for consequences but an active impulse to show off, to be not discreet but conspicuous in making mischief.

Apparently he likes to flaunt his outlandish or antisocial acts with bravado.

When negative consequences are negligible or slight (both materially and emotionally), who does not like to cut up a little, to make a bit of inconsequential fun, or perhaps playfully take off on the more sober aspects of living? Dignity might otherwise become pompousness; learning, pedantry; goodness, self-righteousness.

The essential difference seems to lie in how much the consequences matter. It is also important to remember that inclination and taste are profoundly shaped by capacity to feel the situation adequately. A normal man’s potential inclination to give the pretty hatcheck girl $100.00 would probably not reach awareness in view of his knowledge that this would result in his three children’s not having shoes or in his having to humiliate himself by wheedling from a friend a loan he will never repay.

If, as we maintain, the big rewards of love, of the hard job well done, of faith kept despite sacrifices, do not enter significantly in the equation, it is not difficult to see that the psychopath is likely to be bored. Being bored, he will seek to cut up more than the ordinary person to relieve the tedium of his unrewarding existence.

If we think of a theater half-filled with ordinary pubertal boys who must sit through a performance of King Lear or of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, we need ask little of either imagination or memory to bring to mind the restless fidgeting, the noisy intercommunication of trivialities, the inappropriate guffaws or catcalls, and perhaps the spitballs or the mischievous application of a pin to the fellow in the next seat.

Apparently blocked from fulfillment at deep levels, the psychopath is not unnaturally pushed toward some sort of divertissement. Even weak impulses, petty and fleeting gratifications, are sufficient to produce in him injudicious, distasteful, and even outlandish misbehavior.

Major positive attractions are not present to compete successfully with whims, and the major negative deterrents (hot, persistent shame, profound regret) do not loom ahead to influence him. If the 12-year-old boys could enjoy King Lear or the Ninth Symphony as much as some people do, they would not be so reckless or unruly.

In a world where tedium demands that the situation be enlivened by pranks that bring censure, nagging, nights in the local jail, and irritating duns about unpaid bills, it can well be imagined that the psychopath finds cause for vexation and impulses toward reprisal. Few, if any, of the scruples that in the ordinary man might oppose and control such impulses seem to influence him. Unable to realize what it meant to his wife when he was discovered in the cellar flagrante delicto with the cook, he is likely to be put out considerably by her reactions to this.

His having used the rent money for a midnight long-distance call to an old acquaintance in California (with whom he bantered for an hour) also brings upon him censure or tearful expostulation. Considering himself harassed beyond measure, he may rise from the dining room table in a petty tantrum, curse his wife violently, slap her, even spit on her, and further annoyed by the sudden weeping of their 6-year-old daughter, throw his salad in the little girl’s face before he strides indignantly from the room.

His father, from the patient’s point of view, lacks humor and does not understand things. The old man could easily take a different attitude about having had to make good those last three little old checks written by the son. Nor was there any sense in raising so much hell because he took that dilapidated old Chevrolet for his trip to Memphis.

What if he did forget to tell the old man he was going to take it? It wouldn’t hurt him to go to the office on the bus for a few days. How was he (the patient) to know the fellows were going to clean him out at stud or that the little bitch of a waitress at the Frolic Spot would get so nasty about money? What else could he do except sell the antiquated buggy? If the old man weren’t so parsimonious he’d want to get a new car anyway!

And why did he (the father) have to act so magnanimous and hurt about settling things last Saturday night down at the barracks? You’d think from his attitude that it was the old man himself who’d had to put up with being cooped in there all those hours with louse-infested riff-raff! Well, he’d thanked his father and told him how sorry he was.

What else could a fellow do? As for that damned old Chevrolet, he was sick of hearing about it. His grudge passing with a turn of thought, he smiles with half-affectionate, playfully cordial feelings toward the old man as he concludes, “I ought to tell him to take his precious old vehicle and stick it up his _____!”

Lacking vital elements in the appreciation of what the family and various bystanders are experiencing, the psychopath finds it hard to understand why they continually criticize, reproach, quarrel with, and interfere with him. His employer, whom he has praised a few hours before, becomes a pettifogging tyrant who needs some telling off.

The policeman to whom he gave tickets for the barbecue last week (because he is such a swell guy) turns out to be a stupid oaf and a meddler who can’t mind his own business but has to go and arrest somebody just because of a little argument with Casey in the Midnight Grill about what happened to a few stinking dollar bills that were lying on the bar.

It is not necessary to assume great cruelty or conscious hatred in him commensurate with the degree of suffering he deals out to others. Not knowing how it hurts or even where it hurts, he often seems to believe that he has made a relatively mild but appropriate reprimand and that he has done it with humor.

What he believes he needs to protest against turns out to be no small group, no particular institution or set of ideologies, but human life itself. In it he seems to find nothing deeply meaningful or persistently stimulating, but only some transient and relatively petty pleasant caprices, a terribly repetitious series of minor frustrations, and ennui.

Like many teenagers, saints, history-making statesmen, and other notable leaders or geniuses, he shows unrest; he wants to do something about the situation. Unlike these others, as Lindner has so well and convincingly stressed, he is a “rebel without a cause.”

Reacting with something that seems not too much like divine discontent or noble indignation, he finds no cause in the ordinary sense to which, he can devote himself with wholeheartedness or with persistent interest. In certain aspects his essential life seems to be a peevish bickering with the inconsequential.

In other aspects he suggests a man hanging from a ledge who knows if he lets go he will fall, is likely to break a leg, may lose his job and his savings (through the disability and hospital expenses), and perhaps may injure his baby in the carriage just below. He suggests a man in this position who, furthermore, is not very tired and who knows help will arrive in a few minutes, but who, nevertheless, with a charming smile and a wisecrack, releases his hold to light a cigarette, to snatch at a butterfly, or just to thumb his nose at a fellow passing in the street below.

A world not by any means identical but with some vivid features of both these underlying situations can be found in Huysmans’ Against the Grain and in Jean-Paul Sartre’s Nausea. In the satirical novels of Evelyn Waugh, also, an atmosphere difficult to describe sometimes develops – an atmosphere that may give the reader awareness of attitudes and evaluations genuinely illustrative of deeply distorted or inadequate reactions to life.

The leading characters depicted therein show a peculiar cynicism which is more conscious and directed and purposive than the behavior of the psychopath. But none of the characters presented show even an approximate awareness of what is most valid and meaningful and natural in human beings. A negative response to life itself, an aversion at levels more basic than ordinary morals or the infraconscious foundations of taste and incentive, is conveyed subtly and impressively.

It is difficult to illustrate by incident, by the expressed attitude of the characters depicted, or by any clearly implied evaluation of the authors the specific quality of what is evoked in these novels as the essence of an unhappy, mutilated, and trivial universe in which all the characters exist. The sense of pathology pervades to levels so deep that rational scrutiny cannot reach and meet the fundamental implications; nor can inquiry satisfactorily demonstrate its precise source.

If the actual world and man’s biologic scope were only that conveyed in these interesting works, it would perhaps be less difficult to account for obsessive illness and for the psychopath’s career as reasonable reactions to a situation where no course is possible except one profoundly pathological in one way or another.

Thoughtful contemplation of what is depicted in these works of fiction suggests a world as fundamentally altered as what Straus presents as the world of the obsessive patient. In the effective and terse implication of general emotional incapacity in these characters, the authors succeed in evoking awareness of a sort of quasi-life restricted within a range of staggering superficiality.

This, rather than those aspects of the works that apparently brought them popularity, may deserve high literary appraisal as concise and valuable communications of something that is by no means easy to convey in direct language. Such a superficiality and lack of major incentive or feeling strongly suggest the apparent emotional limitations of the psychopath.

What Straus and Havelock Ellis have brought out is not discernible in the reactions of the psychopath. It is, as a matter of fact, somewhat veiled in the reactions of most obsessive patients. Observation of the psychopath makes it increasingly plain, however, that he is not reacting normally to the surroundings that are ordinarily assumed to exist. I cannot clearly define the specific milieu which such a patient encounters and to which his reactions are related.

There is much to suggest that it is a less distinctly or consistently apprehended world than what Straus describes as the inner world of the obsessive patient. It is my belief that it may be a world not less abnormal and perhaps more complexly confusing. We should remember, however, that we have no direct evidence to prove that a deficiency or distortion of this sort exists in the unconscious core of the psychopath.

We can only say that his behavior strongly and consistently suggests it. This discussion has been based, of course. on a hypothesis that the psychopath has a basic inadequacy of feeling and realization that prevents him from normally experiencing the major emotions and from reacting adequately to the chief goals of human life.

Beyond the symptomatic acts of the psychopath, we must bear in mind his reaction to his situation, his general experiencing of life. Typical of psychoneurosis are anxiety, recognition that one is in trouble, and efforts to alter the bad situation. These are natural (“normal”) whole personality reactions to localized symptoms.

In contrast, the severe psychopath, like those so long called psychotic, does not show normal responses to the situation. It is offered as an opinion that a less obvious but nonetheless real pathology is general, and that in this respect he is more closely allied with the psychotic than with the psychoneurotic patient. The pathology might be regarded not as gross fragmentation of the personality but as a more subtle alteration. Let us say that instead of macroscopic disintegration our (hypothetical) change might be conceived of as one that seriously curtails function without obliterating form.

Let us think of the personality in the psychopath as differing from the normal in some such way. The form is perfect and the outlines are undistorted. But being subtly and profoundly altered, it can successfully perform only superficial activities or pseudofunctions. It cannot maintain important or meaningful interpersonal relations. It cannot fulfill its purpose of adjusting adequately to social reality. Its performance can only mimic these genuine functions.

The persistent pattern of maladaptation at personality levels and the ostensible purposelessness of many self-damaging acts definitely suggests not only a lack of strong purpose but also a negative purpose or at least a negative drift. This sort of patient, despite all his opportunities, his intelligence, and his plain lessons of experience, seems to go out of his way to woo misfortune. The suggestion has already been made that his typical activities seem less comprehensible in terms, of life-striving or of a pursuit of joy than as an unrecognized blundering toward the negations of nonexistence.

Some of this, it has been suggested, may be interpreted as the tantrum, like reactions of an inadequate personality balked, as behavior similar to that of the spoiled child who bumps his own head against the wall or holds his breath when he is crossed. It might be thought of as not unlike a man’s cutting off his nose to spite not only his face, but also the scheme of life in general, which has turned out to be a game that he cannot play.

Such reactions are, of course, found in nearly all types of personality disorder or inadequacy. It will perhaps be readily granted that they are all regressive. Behavior against the constructive patterns through which the personality finds expression and seeks fulfillment of its destiny is regressive activity although it may not consist in a return, step by step, or in a partial return to the status of childhood and eventually of infancy. Such reactions appear to be, in a sense, against the grain of life or against the general biologic purpose.

Regressive reactions or processes may all be regarded as disintegrative, as reverse steps in the general process of biologic growth through which a living entity becomes more complex, more highly adapted and specialized, better coordinated, and more capable of dealing successfully or happily with objective or subjective experience. This scale of increasing complexity exists at points even below the level of living matter.

A group of electrons functioning together make up the atom which can indeed be split down again to its components. The atoms joining form molecules which, in turn, coming together in definite orderly arrangement, may become structurally coordinating parts of elaborate crystalline materials; or, in even more specialized and complex fashion, they may form a cell of organic matter. Cells of organic matter may unite and integrate to form the living organism we know as a jellyfish. Always the process is reversible; the organic matter can decompose back into inorganic matter.

Without laboriously following out all the steps of this scale, we might mention the increasing scope of activity, the increasing specialization, and the increasing precariousness of existence at various levels up through vertebrates and mammals to man. All along this scale it is evident that failure to function successfully at a certain level necessitates regression or decomposition to a lower or less complicated one.

If the cell membrane of one epithelial unit in a mammalian body becomes imporous and fails to obtain nutriment brought by blood and lymph, it loses its existence as an epithelial cell. If the unwary rabbit fails to perceive the danger of the snare, he soon becomes in rapid succession a dead rabbit, merely a collection of dead organs and supportive structures, protein, fat, and finally, inorganic matter. The fundamental quest for life has been interrupted, and, having been interrupted, the process goes into reverse.

So, too, the criminal discovered and imprisoned ceases to be a free man who comes and goes as he pleases. A curtailment in the scope of his functioning is suffered-a regression in one sense to simpler, more routine, and less varied and vivid activities.

The man who fails in another and more complex way to go on with life, to fulfill his personality growth and function, becomes what we call a schizophrenic. The objective curtailment of his activities by the rules of the psychiatric hospital are almost negligible in comparison with the vast simplification, the loss of self-expression, and the personal disintegration which characterize his regression from the subjective point of view. The old practice of referring to the extremely regressed schizophrenic as leading a vegetative existence implies the significance that is being stressed.

Regression, then, in a broad sense may be taken to mean movement from richer and more full life to levels of scantier or less highly developed life. In other words, it is relative death. It is the cessation of existence or maintenance of function at a given level.

The concept of an active death instinct postulated by Freud has been utilized by some to account for socially self-destructive reactions. I have never been able to discover in the writings of Freud or any of his followers real evidence to confirm this assumption.

In contrast, the familiar tendency to disintegrate, against which life evolves, may be regarded as fundamental and comparable to gravity. The climbing man or animal must use force and purpose to ascend or to maintain himself at a given height. To fall or slide downhill he need only cease his efforts and let go. Without assuming an intrinsic death instinct, it is possible to account for active withdrawal from positions at which adaptation is unsuccessful and stress too extreme.

Whether regression occurs primarily through something like gravity or through impulses more self-contained, the backward movement (or ebbing) is likely to prompt many sorts of secondary reactions, including behavior not adapted for ordinary human purposes but instead, for functioning in the other direction. The modes of such reactivity may vary, may fall into complex patterns, and may seek elaborate expression.

In a movement (or gravitational drift) from levels where life is vigorous and full to those where it is less so, the tactics of withdrawal predominate.

People with all the outer mechanisms of adaptation intact might, one would think, regress more complexly than can those who react more simply. The simplest reaction in reverse might be found in a person who straightway blows out his brains.

As a skillful general who has realized that the objective is unobtainable withdraws by feints and utilizes all sorts of delaying actions, so a patient who has much of the outer mechanisms for living may retire, not in obvious rout but skillfully and elaborately, preserving his lines.

The psychopath as we conceive of him in such an interpretation seems to justify the high estimate of his technical abilities as we see them expressed in reverse movement.

Unlike the general with the retreating army in our analogy, he seems not still devoted to the original contest but to other issues and aims that arise in withdrawal. To force the analogy further we might say that the retiring army is now concerning itself with looting the countryside, seeking mischief and light entertainment. The troops have cast off their original loyalties and given up their former aims but have found no other serious ones to replace them. But the effective organization and all of the technical skills are retained and utilized destructively.

F. L. Wells has expressed things very pertinent to the present discussion. A brief quotation will bring out useful points:

The principle of substitutive reactions, sublimative or regressive in character, has long been known, but Kurt Lewin’s (1933) experimental construction of the latter is especially apt, if not unquestionable mental hygiene. A child, for example, continually impelled to open a gate it is impossible for him to open, may blow up in a tantrum, grovel on the ground, till the emotion subsides sufficiently for him to become substitutively occupied, as with fragments of gravel and other detritus he finds there, by which he forgets his distress about the gate. […]

The human personality has the adaptive property of finding satisfactions at simpler levels when higher ones are taken away, fortunately so if this keeps him out of a psychosis, otherwise if it stabilizes him in contentment at this lower level (“going native”) or if the satisfactions cannot be found short of a psychosis (MacCurdy, 1925, p. 367). All such cases have the common regressive factor of giving up the higher-level adjustment (opening the gate) with regressive relief at a lower level (playing with the gravel).

Another illustration given by Wells emphasizes features of the concept that are valuable to us:

Consider, for example, the group of drives that center about the concept of self-maintenance, the “living standards” of civilization. This means the pursuit of the diverse means to surround oneself with the maximum of material comfort in terms of residence, food, playthings, etc., for the purchase of which one can capitalize his abilities.

That the normal individual will do this to a liberal limit is taken in the local culture as a matter of course, probably more liberally than the facts justify. For this pursuit involves a competitive struggle beset also with inner conflicts (e.g., ethical), which by no means everyone is able to set aside.

Among regressions specific to this category are those undertakings of poverty common to religious orders, but this regression is quite specific, since these orders often involve their members in other “disciplines” from which the normal individual would flee as far (Parkman, 1867, Chap. 16).

It is quite certain, though hard to demonstrate objectively, that many an individual in normal life regresses from these economic conflicts only in less degree. He does not take the vow of poverty like the monastic, nor does he dedicate himself to the simplified life of the “South Sea Island” stereotype, but he prefers salary to commission, city apartment to suburban “bungalow,” clerical work to (outside) sales.

A thought expressed by William James in 1902 and quoted by Wells deserves renewed attention:

Yonder puny fellow however, whom everyone can beat suffers no chagrin about it, for he has long ago abandoned the attempt to “carry that line,” as the merchants say, of Self at all.

With no attempt there can be no failure; with no failure no humiliation.

So our self-feeling in this world depends entirely on what we back ourselves to be and do. It is determined by the ratio of our actualities to our supposed potentialities; a fraction of which our pretentions are the denominator and the numerator our success: thus, Self-esteem = Success/Pretensions.

Such a fraction may be increased as well by diminishing the denominator as by increasing the numerator.

To give up pretensions is as blessed a relief as to get them gratified; and where disappointment is incessant and the struggle unending, this is what men will always do.

The history of evangelical theology, with its conviction of sin, its self-despair, and its abandonment of salvation by works, is the deepest of possible examples, but we meet others in every walk of life. .

How pleasant is the day when we give up striving to be young-or slender! Thank God, we say, those illusions are gone. Everything added to the self is a burden as well as a pride.

Something relevant to the points now under consideration may be found also in Sherrington’s comment on reactions (or inlaid precautions) against unbearable pain or stress in the human organism. He says:

Again in life’s final struggle the chemical delicacy of the brain-net can make distress lapse early because with the brain’s disintegration the mind fades early – a rough world’s mercy towards its dearest possession.

There are, it seems, many ways for this to occur without signs of any change which we yet have objective means to detect, chemically or microscopically. Such changes may occur under the stimulus of agents that do not have direct physical contact with the brain or with any part of the body.

Withdrawal, or limitation of one’s quest in living, appears in many forms.

The decision for taking such a step may be consciously voluntary, but it seems likely that many influences less clear and simple may also play a part. In the earliest years of human life a great deal of complicated shaping may occur, with adaptive changes to promote survival by an automatic refusal (inability) to risk one’s feelings (response) in the greatest subjective adventures. In adult life such decisions sometimes emerge in clear deliberation.

The activity of the psychopath may seem in some respects to accomplish a kind of protracted and elaborate social and spiritual suicide. Perhaps the complex, sustained, and spectacular undoing of the self may be cherished by him. He seldom allows physical suicide to interrupt it.

Be it noted that such a person retains high intelligence and nearly all the outer mechanisms for carrying on the complicated activities of positive life. It is to be expected then that his function in the opposite (regressive) emotional direction might be more subtle than those of a less highly developed biologic entity.

The average rooster proceeds at once to leap on the nearest hen and have done with his simple erotic impulse. The complex human lover may pay suit for years to his love object, approaching her through many volumes of poetry, through the building up of financial security in his business, through manifold activities and operations of his personality functions, and with aims and emotions incomparably more complicated and more profound than that of the rooster.

When complexly organized functions are devoted to aimless or inconsistent rebellion against the positive goals of life, perhaps they may enable the patient to woo failure and disintegration with similar elaborateness and subtlety. His conscious or outer functioning may at the same time maintain an imitation of life that is uniquely deceptive.

Perhaps the emptiness or superficiality of life without major goals or deep loyalties, or real love, would leave a person with high intelligence and other superior capacities so bored that he would eventually turn to hazardous, self-damaging, outlandish, antisocial, and even self-destructive exploits in order to find something fresh and stimulating in which to apply his relatively useless and unchallenged energies and talents.

The more experience I have with psychopaths over the years, the less likely it seems to me that any dynamic or psychogenic theory is likely to be established by real evidence as the cause of their grave maladaptation.

Increasingly I have come to believe that some subtle and profound defect in the human organism, probably inborn but not hereditary, plays the chief role in the psychopath’s puzzling and spectacular failure to experience life normally and to carry on a career acceptable to society. This, too, is still a speculative concept and is not supported by demonstrable evidence.

Alt Left: Sadism and Creativity in Society Are Related to Economic and Societal Structure

Another interesting post from commenter Brian. He ties societal sadism and Social Darwinism into economic changes and ties societal creativity into societal structure, in particular its degree of flexibility.

I completely agree that there is a sadistic tendency in people that is expressed toward those deemed socially inferior. I’ve seen it and, having been in foster homes for a time growing up, experienced it.

I’ve often wondered at what seems to be a mean-spiritedness of the culture in general during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and if this mean-spirited character was linked to industrialization and to the growth of severe inequalities in society, both class and race based.

Those inequalities existed before the industrial revolution, but industrialization marked a new level of complexity in social organization, and the rise of many “new men” as elites. In the transformation of a society toward a new economic system and set of social relations, old inequalities are exacerbated, and the new elites who have risen to the top seem eager to shore up their position by waging a reactionary crackdown on dissent and calls to moderate their avarice.

The Social Darwinist, let-the-undeserving-poor-rot, bootstrap mentality of the upper class was encouraged in the general population by those who had risen to the top as a way to justify their behavior, and it had the effect of drawing out the worst tendencies in human nature in society at large. It was a bully’s ideology and encouraged ordinary people to let out their inner sadism, which ordinarily – without authoritative encouragement – would have been more repressed.

This is how you get gleeful lynchings, the hanging of elephants from a giant chain, the proliferation of freak shows where people can satisfy their inner monster by laughing at folks with severe genetic deformities.

I wonder if this witches’ brew of inhumanity cooked up by the propagandists of the new robber baron class was a factor precipitating World War I. Indeed the displacements of industrialization along with repression of the working class by disconnected and haughty elites and the whole toxic culture this gave rise to poisoned Europe just as badly as it had the United States.

The periods of the cruelest treatment of ordinary people tend to coincide with episodes of great economic expansion, the rise of new men and new families to positions nearer the top of society, and the complexification of society in general.

Another example is a century earlier in Britain, around the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. This was the very beginning of the industrial revolution – or the first industrial revolution, as opposed to the second which I was referring to above – and began with the Enclosure Acts that forced peasants off the common lands so they could become the new urban class of industrial laborers.

During this time the Bloody Code reached its bloodiest extreme and more than two hundred crimes could be punished by death, even as a number of minors were executed for rather petty crimes. These were the classic Dickensian times, and they are marked by great new opportunities for moneymaking that attracted a class of people willing to subject other humans to appalling degradations for their own profit.

When we think of the medieval period, we often think of brutal tortures. But in fact such tortures, while they occurred in the medieval period, were used far more extensively in the Renaissance and early modern times than in the medieval period as was the death penalty in general.

Once again, what we find at that time is a transformation in the socioeconomic system, specifically moving away from feudalism in Western Europe and the rise of a new middle merchant class across much of Europe, starting in Italy. Perhaps the use of such punishments is meant to break the spirits of those who suffer most during such transitional periods so they are less of a threat to the elites, especially the new and very insecure/paranoid elites.

I suspect that what we see today, with the mean-spirited attitude of the neoliberal age – the expansions of the prison system going back to the 70s and 80s (the very dawn of the neoliberal age) and the electronics and digital boom – is another such period of social complexification, economic transformation, dispossession of whole sections of society and even of regions in general like the rust belt, and the rise of many new men (and women now) into the ranks of the ruling class.

For around forty years I’ve been seeing among the upper middle classes and above is an increase in callousness, selfishness towards and even dehumanization of various groups of people, from Blacks to working class (now often poor) Whites and anyone who isn’t at least upper middle class.

To address the idea that such periods help to breed out criminal genes from a population, I do not doubt this is true. These phases of societal transformation seem to yield a more docile population on the other end of them. But I think this process will eventually eliminate the spark of genius in our population and in the West in general.

It largely has eliminated this spark already. At least in the realm of the social sciences of fundamental thought like philosophy, modern European philosophy having seen its best days some two to three centuries ago. Other fields that are downstream of basic thought have been able to flourish since then, but they will stagnate, and some are stagnating already.

Going back to civilizational and race theory, the difference between White civilization and Asian seems to be that White civilization has been far more creative for centuries now, despite Asians having higher average IQ’s. The spark of genius requires a high IQ but also creativity and originality, which mostly comes from people who are off-kilter and don’t easily fit into a very conventional, static society that looks down on new ideas or unusual behavior.

You, Robert, have mentioned before that many very intelligent and interesting people work in odd jobs and have little to show for their talents. I think such people have struggled in any society, but they struggle more as society becomes more closed-minded and starts distrusting anyone who isn’t stable, conventional, and predictable; in other words, someone who fits ready social expectations.

A lot of academics are very bright, but few have that special spark of brilliance in them, and if anything, having that is a detriment for someone in academia today.

As our society stiffens we will likely become less creative, whereas in the past few centuries, we’ve seemed to be able to accept originality even if many geniuses are not exactly paragons of stability. I am not saying that Asians are without creativity or the spark of genius, just that as their populations became more controlled and regimented, they exhibited fewer instances of real inspiration.

We are moving towards greater control and the consequent heavy formalization of life which sucks the naturalness out of life. We should probably expect relative cultural stagnation, at least compared to what we’ve been experiencing for centuries in the West.

The problem with African peoples and societies is an excess of naturalness or primal behavior, which, while it is energetic and creative, lacks the mental and social channels to develop it.

Higher intelligence on the other hand takes that same primal energy the Africans have in excess and focus that energy into socially accepted interests and goals. The problem with Asian societies is there is a serious lack of primal behavior, though I suspect some genetic potential for creativity remains in their populations and could be freed up if they loosened up a bit.

As to our current period of neoliberalism in the West, I think whatever good it did in juicing the development of the new electronic and digital economy is already finished and have been since probably 2008. At this point neoliberalism’s effects on society are very detrimental and could even touch off serious convulsions across Western society if it isn’t moderated.

Continuing on this path can only benefit a small handful of elites and only if they are able to maintain control. But they are gamblers, so they will try, and they seem unlikely to concede much to the population for the sake of reconciliation.

Masculine and Feminine Characters: An Inquiry into Essential Forms

I published this earlier but I may as well republish it. Let me know what you think.

Masculine and Feminine Characters: An Inquiry into Essential Forms

By Robert Lindsay

In June 1903, the Austrian philosopher Otto Weininger published a great book called Sex and Character – A Fundamental Investigation. He was 23 years old, a mere boy. The book did not receive negative reviews, but it caused little interest either.

Weininger was attacked Paul Julius Mobius, who accused Weininger of plagiarism. Depressed, Weininger left for Italy. He returned to his parents’ house in late September and stayed there for five days.

On October 3, 1903, Weininger checked himself into the building where Beethoven had died, now a small inn. At 3 AM the next morning on October 4, Otto Weininger pointed a pistol at his chest and put a bullet in his heart.

Weininger’s dramatic death quickly made him a cause célèbre in Vienna, inspired several imitation suicides and roused quite a bit of interest in the book.

It was roundly praised, even by Sigmund Freud. Freud had met Weininger the year before. Freud stated that Weininger has a striking air of “genius” about him. Ludwig Wittgenstein also praised the book and stated that it was an influence on his early writings. It was also praised by August Strindberg and even James Joyce

Weininger’s book created quite a stir, and Weininger has been accused of being both a misogynist and a Jewish anti-Semite or self-hating Jew. Both characterizations are probably innacurate.

Nearly 100 years later, Weininger’s book still has its champions, while his reputation has suffered in the era of the Political Correctness and the Cultural Left in the West. Nevertheless, Weininger’s place on the canon of great philosophers seems secure.

Weininger felt that there were two essential characters in human beings, the masculine aspect and the feminine aspect. He felt that both aspects were present in all humans.

In the chart below, I lay out scores of human characterological variables and how the Masculine and Feminine Characters represent each one.

The first five variables are by Otto Weininger, but the last 56 are by me. Please note that I don’t necessarily agree with Weininger’s five variables in total, only that it is a good starting place. I have also used the terms Masculine Principle and Feminine Principle to refer to these terms.

Characters         Masculine*           Feminine* 


Principles

Activity             Active                 Passive

Consciousness Conscious           Unconscious 

Thinking           Objective            Subjective

Genius              Yes                      No

Productivity      Productive         Nonproductive

Awareness          Conscious Mind    Unconscious Mind

Energy               Generative           Receptive

Mind                  Thinking               Feeling

Emotion             Stoic                    Moody

Tactile                Callous                Sensitive

Humor               Slapstick              Irony

Weather             Calm                   Unsettled

Temperature       Cold                    Warm

Graph                Linear                  Scatterplot

Empathy            Poor                     Rich

Pain                   Inflict                   Receive

Confrontation     Forward                Withdrawal

Reaction            Contemplative       Reactive

Style                 Deliberative           Unthinking
 
Intensity            Concentration        Distraction

Denial style        Projection              Fantasy

Egotism style      Narcissism            Histrionic

Pathology           Sociopath              Borderline

Defense             Anger                    Denial

Ego desire          Expansion              Dissolution

Destructive         Other                    Self 

Annihilation        Totalizing               Self only

Depression         Projection              Introjection

Survival             Self                       Others

Reliance             Self                       Others

Criminality         Dangerous             Petty thief

Psychopathy      Violent menace       Prostitute

Compassion       Indifference            Mercy

Wakefulness      Aware                     Unaware

Alertness           Wide Awake            Sleepwalking

Planning            Methodical              Conspiring

Morality             Strict                      Contingent

Aggression         Direct                     Subterfuge

Violence             External                  Internal

Warfare              Bully                      Victim

Hierarchy            Dominant               Submissive

Force                  Blunt                      Subtle

Texture               Harsh                     Smooth

Resistance           Extreme                 Yielding

Linear                 Straight                  Jagged

Presentation        Forthright               Devious

Surface               Clear                      Opaque

Understand         Simple                    Complicated
 
Logic                  Linear                      Circular

Analysis              Logic                       Intuition

Strategy             Straightforward         Wily 

Movement          Stiff                          Flowing

Grain                 Coarse                      Fine

Essence             Sky                           Earth

Instrument         Blunt                        Subtle

Transport           Highway                    Stream

Route                A to B                       Roundabout

Tour                  Autobahn                  Scenic route

Flight                Soar                          Flutter

Hobby               Monomania                Dilettante

Truths               Multiple                     Singular

Theory              Branching                  Obsessive

Fact                  Durable                     Momentary

Interpretation    Nonpersonal              Personal

Manichean         Grey area                 Black and White

Systematics       Categorizing             Noncategorizing

Science             Empirical                  Intuitive

Philosophy         Tough                      Dream State

Ubermensch      More common           Less common

Body                 Hard                        Soft

Tissue               Sinewy                     Fatty

Signal               Weathervane            Antenna

Telepathy           Poor                        Mindreader

Broadcast          Subwoofer                Subliminal 

Travel                Itinerary                   Lark  

Decision            Plotted                      Whimsy

Confusion          Certainty                   Perplexed

Party                 Kegger                      Cocktail  

Social                Optional                    Mandatory

Sex                   Compulsion                Choice

Intellectual         Paradise                    Boredom

Bird                   Hawk                        Hummingbird 
 
Birdsong            Crow                         Warbler 

Love                  Auxiliary                    Requirement 

Danger              Physical                     Psychological 

Grudge              Discard                      Retain  

Jealousy            Weak                         Strong

Armistice           Reconciliation             Cold Peace

Storm               Thunderstorm             Spring Shower

Bipolar              Mania                         Depressive

Alt Left: SJW’s Are Trying to Create a New Version of “New Soviet Man”

You can only tilt at windmills for a while before a lot of people will figure out that it’s futile. Of course some keep trying to bail out the ocean and denying reality forever. We call those people Identity Politics types or SJW’s.

The problem with SJW’s is that they refuse to acknowledge that humans are humans. Most of the things SJW’s are screaming about are simply humans acting like humans or God forbid, men acting like men. Why have all of those men been getting fired lately for #metoo garbage.  They were fired for acting like men. I’m afraid all men can do is act like men, just as all Mexicans can do is recreate Mexico. Perhaps as a higher version of itself, but nonetheless…

SJW’s and IP types remind me of the Soviets trying to create “the new Soviet man” or “the new man.” As a Leftist, that’s all fine and dandy of course except when it runs into the wall of human biology and human nature. In which case you are just building castles of sand.

No matter how much time you spend building them, they wash out with the next tide. Since humans can’t do anything but be human and men can’t do anything but be men, Identity Politics is doomed to fail. You can only re-engineer, or try to re-engineer, humans so much. At any rate, humans and men will keep relapsing back into humanness and man-ness despite any and all efforts. It’s a fool’s game.

I think also people resent being told they’ve been evil their whole lives. I know I do. I know I resent it when I wake up and find that with every new week there’s another damned word I’ve been using my whole life that is banned as evil bigotry. At some point I’m afraid we’re going to run out of words to ban. Blacks are already complaining about “blackmail, blacklisted, black holes,” etc. Let me know when we stop calling out the language police.

Worse, I wonder  how any of this matters. If we stop saying “blackmail” because it hurts Black people’s poor widdle feelings, what is that ultimately going to do for the issues that plague Black America? And how many Black people stew every time someone says “blacklisted?” And suppose we do ban the word at least somewhat? What will happen? SJW retards will beam and feel a swell of accomplishment in their chests.

Ok. And then? Then the next weekend another several dozen people will be shot in  Chicago in only 24 hours, that’s what. Another year will close where Los Angeles sets a new record for homicides. Another seven year old girl will get shot coming home from school. Another funeral will get shot up. Almost all of the people shooting these guns and getting hit by these bullets will be Black people.

You clowns actually thought that Black people in those cities are massacring each other because they’re mad that we use the word “blackmail” that makes them look bad? You morons actually thought that by banning a few perfectly good words that no one but idiots worry about anyway you were going to stop the ongoing Black bloodletting in our cities?

Alt Left: A Theory about Race, Personality, and Civilizational Trajectory with Assistance from Spengler, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche

A great new and very long comment from someone who is apparently a new commenter. A fascinating theory about race and personality and how they tie in with civilizational trajectories, be they forward, backward, or flat. He utilizes and owes a debt to Spengler first, then Schopenhauer, and last Nietzsche to help flesh out his theory.

I’d really like to see what you all think of this post. Please feel free to comment if you can make it through and figure out what he’s talking about. It’s a bit dense but it’s not really that complicated and a lot of you ought to be able to understand it pretty well.

Brian: This is a theory that’s been turning around in my head for around a decade, and I won’t go over every detail, just the gist of it, since to think out every caveat would take too long, and it’s not like a primary interest of research for me, but suffice it to say there is Spenglerian influence here, and through him, Nietzschean and Schopenhauerian influence. I’ve often called it the “I think we’re turning Japanese” theory.

The idea here is that Whites are in the middle of a spectrum between Blacks and Asians, where Blacks are the most chaotic, as you say, and Asians are the most orderly and staid, personified by the Spock stereotype.

The Germanic peoples, who pretty much seeded all of Europe during the Migration and Viking period, were, 2000 years ago during Rome’s heyday, barbarians, quite wild, living for the day, warring with each other to the point where, aside from the Battle of Teutoborg Forest, they could not unite with each other to fight a common enemy, which made them easy pickings for Rome.

The Celtic culture never took off into a high civilization due mainly to the Roman conquests of Gaul and Iberia and also of much of Britain, which eliminated the source-lands and most of the territory in which the Celtic culture had grown. So the civilization that arose after the collapse of the western portion of the empire was seminally Germanic: even France is heavily Germanic (land of the Franks), though it lies in between the more fully Germanic Northern Europe and the more Mediterranean Southern Europe.

Through the Dark Ages and High Middle Ages, the tribal polities of Northern Europe gradually coalesced into larger nations with, it must be stated, the help of the stabilizing factor of the Catholic Church. And by the Renaissance, Europe was becoming, artistically and intellectually, the most dynamic place in the world so that by Early Modern times, European art and science had eclipsed anything that had previously existed in the world.

Note how Asians beat Europeans in math and science in terms of raw ability, but Europeans have produced more than the Asians, which led to the core Asian lands (mainly China, Japan, and Korea) being not directly colonized by European empires but certainly feeling colonialism’s effects and even, especially for China, its boot heels. From the wild and more primitive European stock of two millennia ago eventually arose a civilization more advanced than what Asia had produced over thousands of years.

I suggest that the reason for this was that, although primitive, the Germanic peoples were also like a ball of energy that, if properly tamed, which of course means diminishing some of their raw energy, could produce an explosion of civilizational progress, and this taming is exactly what happened over the course of the Medieval Period.

The Church was a great factor, with its universalist vision of all reality being centered on a single thing, i.e. God (basically it’s a rational vision of the cosmos as opposed to a fragmentary and irrational understanding of it).

But another factor in this shift is likely social selection.

Over that 1,500 years of interaction with Rome and then of forging their own kingdoms after the constant interference from Rome had ended with the collapse of the western part of the Empire, European societies were able to grow into nations, become more complex and therefore more demanding about the intellectual demands on their own people and, whether through sexual selection initiated by women or through some other factor, began “weeding out” those who were too dumb or wild from the gene pool.

So by around 1500-1600, there existed a civilization with much of the raw energy of a primitive people but now harnessed and directed to intellectual and artistic ends, ready to make a gigantic mark on the world.

The point is that primitive peoples are like stores of raw energy or pools of potential that can, in the right circumstances, be transformed into a flourishing of civilization that even outdoes what groups with higher (or previously higher) IQ’s have accomplished. The white IQ might have increased during that transition from tribal chieftainships to modern states, with the selection pressures that such a transition brings.

Spengler believed that Western civilization was becoming old and sclerotic, ready either to dissipate or, like East Asia, ossify for a very long time, its main ideas having already mostly been expressed. He saw Russia as the next civilization to rise, since it was in that nether phase of being quite brutal compared to Western Europe and its descendant nations overseas, but nevertheless already being quite tamed.

Perhaps this explains why Europe, for centuries, has had a visceral fear of Russia, from the Great Game in the 19th century to the Nazi invasion and destruction of the country down to the present-day Establishment fear of Russia and Putin. Perhaps there is a sense that if Russia can break free of the West and get its act together, its potential is great, and in time – centuries perhaps – Russia could eclipse the ever-more sclerotic West.

But even more long-term, if this theory is correct, I can see Latin America rising as a major civilization. It would have to go through centuries of real nationbuilding first as Europe did in the Dark Ages and High Medieval Period into the Renaissance, but there is certainly great natural vigor among Latin American peoples, already somewhat tempered by the widespread infusion of Spanish and Portuguese (not to mention some German and other European) genes in those populations.

Perhaps in a millennium, when the raw potential has been converted into actionable works through a combination of genetic selection and cultural controls, Latin America will be a great civilization offering new artistic and scientific insights to the world and perhaps being expansionist, as civilizations born of wild people getting their act together tend to be. There seems to be a golden mean when a people is no longer too primitive but not yet too domesticated when that people makes its mark.

Which brings me to Africa. Africa today is comparable to Germania in Roman times: getting the first inklings of advanced civilization from the West, which had often mistreated it, and struggling to form real nations in the face of their own enormous divisions and external interference. Africans are chaotic but also wildly creative, especially musically – and music is the closest thing to the human Will or Engine of Life, as Schopenhauer teaches.

Africa in the coming centuries and millennia could go through a filtering that eliminates from the gene pool many of the wildest elements, for example through frequent warfare and sexual selection by women who demand more intelligent mates, as it becomes obvious that the trajectory of society is toward greater complexity.

The continued presence of Christianity and Islam are likely also beneficial for taming the most wild spirit of Africa, whose people are truly at present the most primal version of mankind. But in the intervening centuries or millennia some new religion might come along in Africa as shape the minds of the people as Christianity did to the Europeans during Roman times.

I would think that the Africans, in maybe a millennium or two, after the Slavic nations and the Latin American peoples have “come online” so to speak in the procession of great civilizations, could become the culmination of human civilization, since they are starting with the most raw energy that, were it tamed, would entail the greatest outpouring of intellectual and artistic – i.e. civilizational – creativity that humans could produce.

But a great deal of selection pressure and cultural maturation would be required before this could happen.

Later this century, Africans are expected to comprise ~40% of the global population and with demographic decline occurring in many of the advanced countries, the West could be swamped with Africans and could, over time, even dissipate as a distinct culture. This event would be comparable to the barbarians overwhelming the western portion of the Roman Empire and precipitating the Dark Ages.

But this fits not only my thesis but also the Spenglerian model to which it is mostly in debt. The ensuing collapse of the West could be the opening that Slavic nations need in order to truly rise and express themselves fully. The development of Africa into a high civilization is a process I expect to take many centuries amid the vicissitudes of other civilizations rising and falling.

As for current White civilization which is headed by “The West” or those nations descended from or heavily influenced by the Germanic peoples, I think we are turning Japanese. We are past the Golden Middle Period and into a period where much of our primal nature remains but is channeled by genetic and cultural discipline and we are in effect slowly evolving into more staid, quiet, competitive – i.e. more Asian-like – peoples.

You can see it with the younger generations who are subject to far more social controls than even I was when younger, and I am not that old. The younger generations seem socially skittish, often autistic, and very different from kids even thirty years ago. Of course much of this is due to technology, but much is also due to our societies becoming increasingly rule-based and micromanaged.

And it is our culture itself that is insisting on this bureaucratization and rationalization of social life, with technology being merely a tool to push this cultural tendency forward.

As one final note, my theory might not work if indeed the different personality types and intelligence levels of the major races cannot change over a millennium or two in such a way that a wilder and less intelligent race can be pared down through social selection to a more disciplined and intelligent race.

If this is not a long enough span of time for such a transition to unfold, then the rise of the Northern and Western European peoples from tribal barbarians 2,000 years ago to the epitome of civilization just a few centuries ago was not due to a lack of enough intelligence to produce such a civilization.

Instead it occurred because this spark already existed during the Roman Empire, except that its expression was limited by a lack of social development until those cultural constraints needed to mold it into an advanced civilization had taken shape.

If this was true, then difference between the primitive culture and the high civilization it became was sociocultural, not genetic.

But even if this were true, it could mean that Africa could still rise as a high civilization, only that it will take longer, since a lot of not sexual but social selection would have to occur in order for this to happen.

Sheryl Crow, “If It Makes You Happy”

A truly excellent song. That’s some real rock and roll too! 1996. Apparently we were still making some good music all the way into the 90’s.

Obligatory Doomer essay follows:

Look in the comments section where many folks are harping on about their painful nostalgia for the 1990’s. The 90’s were literally the good old days! Sad!

Yeah, I know. That 1990’s. I don’t get it either.

Well, I guess no matter what decade it is, the time you came of age is always the good old days, and everything that comes after, no matter how good, never quite reaches that peak. That’s why most people’s musical tastes are formed from 15-30 and stay that way for life.

I must say that’s truly pathetic. I knew modern music was crap, but I had no idea modern life blew too. I dropped out so long ago I barely even know what year it is. Don’t even ask me for the month, much less the date or especially the day of the week. They all run together for me anyway, especially as every day’s a weekend, except it’s one where not much is happening. Oh well, could be worse. At least I am free! Free and broke, sure. But free nonetheless.

Recall when they say you can have Blacks, freedom, or security, except you can only pick two? As long as we are playing that game, remember most of us peons either have money or time but never both. Only the idle rich living off their rents can afford such hedonism. And they often complain of boredom. Maybe we need a little shittiness in our lives, just to stir things up, to clear the air, to make us see clearly again, no? But then life always steps in, piles it on, throws a turd in the punchbowl and wrecks the party.

Too much bread and circuses. Nah, that’s boring. Then we’ll just take dope every day and live in a haze and burrow away from life. No wait. We’re all already doing that. The overdose deaths tell us as much.

tl/dr: Modern life must truly be horribly pathetic if people are actually, literally nostalgic for the fucking 1990’s. The 90’s! No, really. I’m not kidding. Just when you think you see every bad movie that’s ever bad made, you look outdoors and realize that even the worst B-cinema can’t compete with the depths of shittiness to which “actually existing reality” can plunge, especially in the Current Year.

What a man to do as long as he’s moored on this Clown Rock? Don’t ask me. I never have any solutions to anything, mostly because there aren’t any. We’re lucky if we can settle for amelioration or more commonly, merely arresting of the decline.

Well, there’s always the dope. And the booze. Which reminds me. There’s a Tequila bottle sitting here next to me that’s calling my name. See ya all in a bit.

Love and Hate Are Very Close

Love and hate are very close, and if you can’t see that, you were dozing in Life Class.

Most people strongly resist that counterintuitive assumption, as it upsets too many of our carefully set-out apple carts. Those apples taste good and we spent a long time collecting them and we don’t like to see them dirty and bruised on the ground.

Furthermore, we humans have a hangup over the word “hate.” Supposedly it doesn’t really exist much, mostly we just “don’t like” folks, albeit strongly, instead. I beg to differ. That’s crap that we don’t hate. Of course we do. That’s not a mud puddle I would recommend wallowing in, but many things are worthy of righteous hatred. As are many people. It sounds cruel, but if they don’t want to be hated, how bout acting halfway decent?

It’s ok to hate. Just recognize that hate is a powerful tool, sort of like LSD. It’s strong stuff. Too much and you can cause a lot of problems. Use it carefully. Set limits on it. But fear it not. It is after all the other side of the mirror of love and one could argue according to moral philosophy that one cannot exist without the other, that is, without hate or evil there can be no love or good as these things only exist in opposition to each other.

Alt Left: A Chinese View of Time

Rambo said: Deng Xiao Peng said he could see democracy happening in China in a relatively short period of time. He was asked, ” what do you think, another 25 or 50 years maybe?” To which he replied, ” I could see it happening in maybe a thousand years.” To the Chinese, 1,000 years is looked upon as a short time. You’re talking about a nearly 5,000 year old country that has never known freedom and democracy. That’s why when countries like the U.S. negotiate with them, that has to be kept in mind.

Nixon asked Chou En-Lai in 1971 what he thought about the French Revolution in 1790. His reply?

It’s too soon to tell.

Which is pretty similar to what Deng said. The Chinese always take the long view, unlike us dumb Americans. And that’s smart of them and dumb of us.

This is literally how the Chinese think. All stages of the past are completely blurred together, and all are together with the present. I’m not aware they talk much about the future. I know this because I did a lot of research on their forums. Absolutely fascinating people. People would be talking about their family lineage, as their ancestors are very important to them. In fact, their basic religion is probably some form of ancestor worship.

They would be talking about their family lineages and drift back and forth between the present day, the 20th Century and then back to the 16th-19th Centuries, making historical references all along the way. And of course there were all sorts of references to the old dynasties like the Shang Dynasty (probably the very first Chinese dynasty) and many others. And now we are going all the way back to Old Chinese thousands of years ago.

I don’t understand Chinese history so I can’t make sense of these dynasties, but the Chinese’ view of time was fascinating. The year 400 was yesterday, today is 1600, and tomorrow is the 19th Century. It’s as if the past, present, and future were all happening at the same time, which is actually an interesting philosophical way to look at time. This is in fact how I view Time.