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?
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and drift back and forth between the present day, the 20th Century and then back to the 16th-19th Centuries, making historical references all along the way.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.
The Chinese always take the long view, while here in the US we are addicted to the crack of short-term thinking in terms of immediate profits and getting off now, the Hell with the long term view of the economy or our bodies or really anything at all, dammit. Now get off my lawn! NIMBY! Here comes Karen!
And what of the future, oh American sensei?
We’ll deal with that when the time comes. Why bring down the party when it’s ripping along? What are you, some Debbie Downer?
Nope, I’m a guy who doesn’t want to set a time bomb today that will blow up five years from now because I may well be around then, and even if I’m am not, I’m not so sociopathic as to be that callous to my fellow humans who follow in my footsteps.
I am them. They are me. That’s the only and best way to look at your fellow man, hard as it is to make our egos believe that.
Do that line of coke now! Drink a six pack, fuck three whores in a row, get three hours of sleep, and then do it again! And don’t forget another line!
What are you, some party pooper? You’re the guy who always has to throw a turd in the punchbowl, right?
Nope, I’m just some guy who, every decade, decides he’d actually like to spend another decade on this 3rd Clown Rock from the Sun.
As I mentioned in another post, we Americans act like tomorrow is a sure thing. It’s almost as real as the present and for those of us who use like me who the defense of fantasy, it’s probably even more real. But of course the future doesn’t even exist. We are treating something as real that’s not even there.
Other cultures like the Arabs or the Spanish-speaking countries engage in regular use of a phrase called ojala que.. which means “God willing that…” they put this phrase in front of all sorts of discussions about the future. I mentioned the Arabs and this was actually, as one might guess, a borrowing from Arabic and possibly from Arabic culture too. The Arabs after all do tell to leave it all up to God.
There’s something to be said for that. We even have a phrase in English for when someone is stuck in an impossible mind-rut, “Let go and let God…(take over and do it himself).” This is also similar to the Spanish language fatalistic denial of agency that I will get to in a bit.
Ojala que manana seria un mejor dia means “God willing, tomorrow will be a better day.”
The future is completely uncertain and not only that, for a lot of us, it won’t even exist at all even when it happens because we’ll be dead by then, so for us it never happened. The world could blow up tomorrow. Then what of the future, Mr. Can-do American Boosterist? It won’t exist for any of us because we will all be dead.
I’m still not sure how the constant use of the subjective in the Spanish language plays into this, but I suspect it’s part of this fatalistic worldview. Yes the French language uses the subjunctive too, and I don’t know if they are as fatalistic as the French or even if any language that uses a subjunctive a lot develops fatalism as a result or if a fatalistic culture gives way to frequent use of the subjunctive. But I’m getting all Sapir-Whorfian here, excuse me.
We actually have a subjuctive in English in the form of the verb to be: were.
As it were, the Queen ended up ruling all of her Kingdom
If I were king, I would clone 10 copies of Selena Gomez to be my concubines, and I would live happily ever after or until my Viagra supply ran out, whichever came first.
As you can see, we barely use it as we are anything but a fatalistic culture and in fact we have contempt for such cultures and refer to them as lazy and irresponsible. We are a “Carpe diem!” society after all. You don’t sit around and wait for God or the government to get around to doing something, you get off your lazy ass and do it yourself, slacker!
But enough about us. Back to our relaxed cousins to the south. Spanish tends to use the subjunctive far more than it ought to. They literally sprinkle it all over the place. The subjunctive in any language means “maybe, hypothetically, possibly, etc.” and the excessive use of it in Spanish implies to me that something like Ojala que is going on. Spanish speaking Catholic cultures do tend to be pretty fatalistic, and Catholicism, perhaps the ultimate fatalistic religion, surely plays no small part in that.
In another possible element of fatalism or “leaving things up to God,” the Spanish language offers speakers a way out of a lot of mistakes by saying the person who failed in whatever they failed in lacked agency at the time, hence their failure was an act of God and therefore not their fault.
I don’t “fall down,” in Spanish, instead Se me cayo or “It fell down itself to me.” I don’t know about you, but I’d rather have God fall my sorry ass down than be on the hook for doing it to my own self.
I don’t forget anything of course, instead Se me olvido or “It forgot itself to me.”
I didn’t do it, the falling and forgetting did it to me, dammit! It’s not my fault! I was just an innocent victim! Quit picking on me!
I suppose you could say this makes Spanish speakers irresponsible, but it doesn’t seem to have that effect. Instead it seems to have a “don’t sweat the small stuff” effect, and indeed they do seem to take it pretty easy, maybe even too easy with all those siestas and always showing up an hour late to anything.
A book by Guy Murchie called The Music of the Spheres was published in 1961. It’s recommended in one of Kurt Vonnegut’s books. I forget which one now. And yes, I think Vonnegut
It’s little known nowadays and that’s too bad. It’s not that it’s an unambitious endeavor!
From the publisher’s blurb about it:
The first half of the book–Moons of Rock and Suns of Fire–deals with major astronomical phenomena viewed poetically from an imaginary earth satellite. In the second part the realms in which physics holds sway pass in review; the forms and nature of matter, the atom, waves and music, light and color, space and time.
I don’t know about you but I like the second part. Now focus on the last word in that blurb, “time.”
In that book, Murchie posits a fascinating notion. Instead of the past, present, and future all being separate and discreet things not a whole lot related to each other, Murchie says that in terms of physics, the past, the present, and the future are all simultaneously occurring right now as I write this. I know what you’re thinking. There goes Bob with another of his nutty ideas. But hold your horses a second, Hoss, and listen up for a bit.
I think there may actually be something to this and what follows is my version of Murchie’s theory:
The past has the seeds of our present and future within it already, so the present and future are contained in the past. We can say that the past contains the dual tails of the present and future in it. Of course when the past was happening, it had its own past and future embedded in it.
The present was brought here by the past and the future will contain the seeds of the present, so the present contains both the head of the past and the tail of the future in itself.
The future obviously doesn’t even exist. Think about that a bit as most folks don’t realize that. We Americans treat the future as if it’s a sure thing and often as if it will be better than the present. But we are thinking about something that doesn’t even exist yet. But even if it did exist, the future would be literally an outgrowth of the present, which, like it or not, is literally an outgrowth of the past, so the future would contain the heads of the present and future in it. The future of course contains the growth from the seeds of the past and the present, otherwise it wouldn’t even be there.
People are funny when it comes to definitions. You mention some completely abstract concept with no real hard meaning – something that means whatever people say it means- and people dig in their heels and say that the definition of the concept 50 or 100 or 1,000 years ago or yesterday is the only actual meaning of the word, and no other definitions are permitted. Why aren’t new definitions permitted?
Did God divine those definitions for those words? Of course not.
Let’s go lower on the bar.
Did science give us a pretty damn precise definition of those words like science has given us definitions of rocks and trees? Of course not. The Humanities are barely even sciences anyway. Physics envy is a thing and the current replication crisis is not surprising at all and is instead to be expected in any nonscientific enterprise (such as the Social Sciences).
These people seem to be engaging in some sort of magical thinking. They are confusing the words for things with the things themselves. There are words and there are things that the words represent. You can’t blur the boundaries. That’s called magical thinking.
They seem to think there is something special about words and that all words have some sort of ultimate Platonic essence or meaning and that all words can always mean only one thing and never another thing or that meanings of words can never change, as they are set in stone. Heidegger talked about this a lot. Sure, when you say the word rock or tree, you define and actual thing that’s not likely to change a whole lot, if at all.
So those words can’t be messed with – they are what I would call absolute meanings. You can’t decide that the meaning of rock is now tree, and the meaning of tree is now rock. You can, but not in a true philosophical sense. Can we say that the definition of a tree or a rock is whatever people say it is? Not really. I can’t say I’m a rock, and this keyboard is a tree. That’s because those terms have hard and fast meanings or absolute meanings and describe things that aren’t likely to change much if at all.
But what about Communism, socialism, on and on? Those words are not like rocks or trees. There’s no precise definition of what any of those are. Those are just models of political economy that people came up with and defined them by some utterly arbitrary definitions. In other words, those terms have utterly arbitrary meanings (Heidegger goes on about this at length). The meanings of things like this are more like little tags that we put on things to say a this is a this, and a that is a that. We can pull the tags off old concepts and go put them on new concepts all we want to -redefining concepts – because these concepts never had any true or absolute meaning in the first place.
Of course you could decide that communism and socialism now mean quite different models than they used to? Why not? These things are potentially ever-changing, not like rocks or trees.
Capitalists are degenerates. They’re incapable of being honest. Sinclair Lewis said it’s hard for a man to be unbiased when he has a monetary interest or his job depends on how he answers the question. Capitalists have an interesting epistemology. How do we know if something is true or not? If it’s good the capitalist and it makes him money or more money, then it’s a fact. If it makes the capitalist look bad and makes him lose money, it’s not true, a falsehood.
So this is how capitalists do “science.” That’s why every time you get capitalists involved in science or anything that demands that we learn the facts and know what’s true or not true, the capitalists blow up the whole system and wreck everything, leaving only confusion, disaster, tatters and especially chaos.
The latter, chaos, is especially loved by capitalists because they use destruction as a building block to build stuff by destroying perfectly good stuff and rebuilding a bunch of stuff that didn’t need to be rebuilt. Even capitalist economics works on the principle of chaos, disorder, and entropy, and the economic system itself is constantly being blown up by its own internal contradictions or actually its “logic”. These explosions are beloved by capitalsts as this anarchy is part of some glorious “science of chaos” called the Business Cycle.
I am convinced that if aliens landed and we described capitalist economics to them, they would find it so insane and irrational that they would either fall down laughing, shake their heads and conclude that we were all insane, or simply shrug their shoulders, decide there was no intelligent life here, and pack it up and head back home.
Try describing capitalist economics sometime to a kid who’s just old enough to understand it. I bet even most 10 year olds would tell you that it’s irrational and most would say it’s completely insane and doesn’t even make sense.
And in a hyper-capitalist society like ours, that’s why living here is living in what I call Lie World, where one is barraged by out and out falsehoods and lies all day long. It’s literally worse here than it was in a lot of Communist countries. All day long people are yelling at you, insisting that a bunch of things that are obviously true are flat out lies, and a bunch of ridiculously false ideas are straight up true. So there ends up being two realities:
An Actual Reality, where true things are true, and false things are false, where things that happened happened the way they did, and the things that didn’t happen never occurred, or the World of Science, Truth, Honesty, Professionalism, Skepticism, Sane, Non-Partisanship, Pragmatism, Logic, or Atheism.
An Other, False, or Fictional Reality, where true things are false, and false things are true, where things that happened either didn’t happen the way they did or didn’t happen at all, and where the things that never happened actually did, or the World of Pseudo-Science, Falsehood, Lies, Charlatanhood, Magic, Mental Disorder, Politics, Ideology, Emotion, or Religion.
Bottom line is in a capitalist society, just about every single person is not even living in reality at all! They’re living in some fictional reality, like something out a story, a book, or a movie, or an alternate reality, like something out of the Matrix. They’re literally not even living in the real world and all. Instead they are living in a world or Pure Delusion where almost nothing is true or real, and in a sense, just about everyone you meet is flat-out psychotic in a sense.
I never considered myself much of a philosopher. But I am now in my 60’s and I sort of find that as all roads used to lead to Rome, all roads seem to lead to philosophy! For a while I was studying famous scholars across all of the humanities. And I began to notice something. As one moved deeper and deeper upwards into the various disciplines, two things happened:
1.Everything started turning into mathematics. I suppose math is really at the root of just about everything if you think about it. We can even reduce many day to day questions or even philosophical bits of wisdom down to binary statements of even equations. Wittgenstein seemed to be getting at this. People have remarked that mathematics is “the ultimate language.”
2. Everything started turning into philosophy. After writing and doing research in their specialty for a long time, scholars all across the humanities started turning late in their careers to philosophy and how their branch of humanities could be explained philosophically. Obviously this is true of literature. Look at literary criticism nowadays. Especially with critical theory, so much of lit crit deals with actual philosophy. Philosophy in a way seems to be the peak one reaches whenever one starts climbing of the stairs of any humanities branch. They all meet in philosophy at the top. If mathematics is the ultimate language, perhaps philosophy is the ultimate mode of thinking. Philosophy after all is the “science of thought” or the “study of human knowledge.” That’s a pretty impressive endeavor right there, just to even attempt to explain such deep things.
At my age, we are said to peak in wisdom. I suppose that’s true. Younger friends have been telling me that lately and some colleagues even call me sensei. Some don’t like it. A 20 year old Asian hottie recently dumped me cruelly:
What’s wrong with you. You’re so different from when I met you. You sound like some philosopher! Come back when you want to act like a man!
I’m not trying to do this.
But in the last few years, I am finding that my writing is tending more and more towards philosophical questions not because I intend to but instead because I seem to be reaching the limits of a lot of the subjects I write about, and when you reach for the sky of most any humanities subject, as I noted, everything starts turning into philosophy. Philosophy is where you end up when you start traveling down any humanities road. Philosophy is where it all starts coming together in some sort of “ultimate explanation.”
To tell the truth, I always thought philosophy was unreadable and stupid. But it’s nothing more than wisdom, and we all want to be wise. And it gives great explanatory power to the world for those of us who are always looking to put together the “big picture” of most anything around us. That’s precisely what philosophy is always trying to do: look for the “big picture” behind anything.
I was once, long ago in another world, a pussy-whipped idiot. I put up with the occasional abuse to keep the Pussy River flowing. I figured as soon as I started fighting back, she’d just leave (and some do just that), and then…no more pussy. The river runs dry and now you’re in the desert without a canteen. Good luck with that. Even for a Chad like me, pussy, like money, never grew on trees. It’s actually a lot harder to get than most people think. I mean a good-loooking, sane, halfway intelligent woman.
The line that Chad can get laid any time he wants has never been my experience. Yeah, we do all right, but that’s only because your AFC’s typical single life is nightmare in the desert.
It’s a relative thing, like most everything anyway. Success and failure are not pure concepts any more than any value judgement is. They’re both just continua and based on relative judgement, and hence tend to resist any good definition.What’s success? The opposite of failure. What’s failure? The opposite of success. And so the tautological circle chases its tail.
Funny thing is when I stopped being pussy-whipped and started ripping the Hell out of girlfriends who bitched me out and were totally out of line about it, a funny thing happened. They didn’t leave. They actually stuck around. Some shut up right away, became very feminine, and even started whimpering like whipped dogs and apologizing. Not a few became suddenly very horny.
And I had the wildest, most passionate love affairs of my entire life. With women who called me “mean,” “a mean, cruel, asshole,” “psycho, scary, dangerous,” etc.
I don’t agree with the “just treat em like shit” philosophy of how to deal with women. Maybe it works, but it never did for me, plus I don’t have it in me to be that evil. I’d have to plug back into my “evil little boy self” again, and he’s safely locked up in maximum security in my gut where he belongs and only let out on extremely rare occasions where he’s absolutely needed.
I’ve thought about this a lot. It’s not that women like assholes or bad or evil men. Sure, maybe 1/3 do, as a former girlfriend said. But the rest don’t. But I think deep down inside, most women want a man who is pretty damned mean and scary now and then, or on occasion, or who shows he can at least be that way and he has it in him.
He can be nice most of the rest of the time, a stereotypical nice guy. But she has to know that he can get real scary real quick, and more importantly, that he’s willing to put some fences around her and not let her get away with murder.
I hate to quote Schopenhauer, but of course women are like children. In a sense.
Ever notice that a kid is always trying to see what he can get away with and he will delightfully get away with murder if you are stupid enough to let him? Well, of course. But ever also notice that at the same time, the kid who screams when you build a “do not cross” fence around him with severe penalties for breaches secretly seems to appreciate the fact that you put some limits on him.
I am convinced that women are the same. She actually wants you to put some limits on her. She expects it. And if you don’t, she may well just run wild for the same reason a child does. And when you throw her in a corral and threaten her if she breaches it, she might throw a fit, just like a child once again. But then again, like the child, she secretly appreciates and respects the fact that you were man enough to put some limits on her wayward ass.
Not only that, but putting limits on them turns them on. Much more than that, I think it triggers the love impulse – the wild, passionate, Hollywood movie, fireworks infatuation, “crazy love” initial phase of passionate love. Which then probably cements into a nice form of mature love 1-2 years later.
Women want to fall madly in love with caveman who may well be nice most of the time but are also willing to put some limits on them and even scare the Hell out of them or terrorize them if they push the limits. And this makes her horny because being ravished by a brute is the core nature of female sexuality.
Women came from cavewomen and 60% of cavemen never bred. The Alpha psychopaths terrorized those men like the Alpha elephant seal terrorizes any men who encroach on his harem. These psychopaths formed harems with the women. So most women come from a collective unconscious and genetic background of being part of a dangerous, scary psychopathic man’s harem – basically a serial killer’s harem. The residue of that, the weight of 40,000 years, echoes with us down through the canyons of time and resounds with us to this day.
Treat em like shit? All the time? I doubt it. It’s never worked for me but supposedly it works for others. As I don’t have it in me to be that evil, I can’t comment on that.
But treat em like shit? Some of the time, every now and then, once in a blue moon, show that you have the extreme capability to do so? At age 62, very late in the game, too late to matter, I conclude that this is indeed true.
Once again, YMMV. I’m not a guru you know. You do you. I’ll do me. I’m not here to tell you what to do. I’m here to throw out ideas and see if they resonate with you. Maybe they will. Maybe they won’t.
But mostly just want you to at least think about what I’m saying and decide what you might think of it. I’m here to give you new stuff to think about. Adopt it, reject it, neither, or anything ion between? It’s all up to you. As a free human with agency, the world is your oyster. Go forth and bake as nice a pearl as you can out of it.
Jason: If it were your “true love”, surely it would be for life – with, of course, maybe some emotional affairs from time to time – because we’re only human!
I disagree that true love is for life. Love obviously has no scientific definition. Love is whatever you believe or experience it to be, pretty much. It has no essential scientific or biological reality, and hence all definitions of it are inherently subjective, unscientific, and non-falsifiable. So it’s very hard to prove that love is this or that or especially that true love is this, that, or whatever.
The concept of love is like religion. It is whatever you think and say it is, within some sensible boundaries. But there no provable truths about love.
It’s a perfect postmodern subject because it not only is undefinable, but everyone’s truth about love is something close to equally valid – within some sensible limits of course – and there’s no arguing about it because we can’t prove any actual truths one way or other about its nature.
Love is whatever you think it is. “You don’t what love is, but you know it when you see or feel it.” Love is a Gestalt intuition – its definition is greater than the sum of its parts, and we define it based more or feelings or gut logic or even psi power instead of logic, reason, and rationality.
Looking at it, I believe he is definitely Southern Chinese fore the most part. His father is Hainanese and has a rather distinctive genotype that looks something like his son’s. His mother is a certain type of Malay that dates back to the 1400’s and is significantly mixed with European blood, mostly British and Dutch, as Europeans have a presence in the area dating back centuries. I believe that they are called Pernakans. He also has some female relatives that look very Malay. I do not know who the older man to the right is, but he looks quite Malay to me.
I think my friend ended up looking more Chinese than Malay. The Hainanese are definitely a Chinese type people. Whether they also have a Vietic type SE Asian component is not known as I do not know the history of Hainan.
Although my friend definitely has a strong Southern Chinese look, he also has another component that makes him look, well, different. I’m not going to attempt to describe this element, but it does make him look somewhat “odd,” “interesting,” or “unusual, ” from a Southern Chinese POV. A typical Southern Chinese would say that he looks like a Southern Chinese, but he’s not like us. A Southern Chinese has more of a Modern Mongoloid look. My friend is mostly modern Mongoloid, with some elements of transitional Mongoloid or archaic Mongoloid – this is what the Malays are after all – added in.
The evolution from Negritos to moderns occurred much later in Malaysia, much taking place in only the last 5,000 years. The Senoi are an example of an archaic group that is definitely Australoid yet nevertheless more progressive than the Negritos. These are the “dream people” of psychological and anthropological literature, though modern research has shown that they do not incorporate dreams as much into their waking lives as we previously thought and that the extent to which they do this was much exaggerated.
There are also Negritos (or original Asians) in Malaysia. In fact, there is a group in Malaysia that genes that date back to 72,000 YBP. This is actually before the main Out of Africa event, yet is has now been shown that other small groups went out of Africa before then.
Most of these groups were devastated by the vast Toba volcanic explosion in India 72,000 YBP that exterminated almost all humans in South and Southeast Asia. It is thought that only 1,500 of this group survived the explosion. This means that humans went through a severe genetic bottleneck no doubt accompanied by massive selection pressure and huge genetic effects. Whether this explosion’s effects extended to Central Asia (probably), the Middle East (maybe), or East Africa (unknown) is not known. At any rate, this original group departed from East Africa near Somalia and Djibouti.
The main OOA group left out of here too. No one quite knows what these people looked like but they have appeared somewhat Khoisan. The Khoisan are the most ancient group in Africa with genes dating back 52,000 YBP. Further, their click language to me seems like a good candidate for the original human language. It does seem to be quite primitive. Before that, we clearly used sign language. Neandertals could not speak due to their hyoid bones. The great apes also have this problem. So when Neantertals vocalized, they may have sounded like great apes.
The Sasquatch, which I believe is an archaic hominid related to Heidebergensis which somehow survived, has a very odd speech pattern (it speaks on the inhale, bizarrely enough – try it sometime) and a friend of mine who shot and killed two of them told me that the juveniles were using extensive sign language. They ran half the time on all four and half the time on two legs, which is very odd. Sasquatches can run up to 30 mph on all fours. That must be quite frightening to watch but it can be seen in the Port Edward Island Sasquatch footage. Anyway, enough about Bigfoot for today!
It’s not known how far modern human language dates back. Sergei Starostin feels it cannot date back more than 50,000 because so many cognates remain that we can actually construct a bit of Proto-World. One Proto-World term is “tik” meaning one, to point, index finger, etc. From this comes our word to teach. Imagine a teacher pointing at a blackboard with his index finger. I worked on an Indian language a while back and they had a very archaic word found only in the earliest vocabularies – tik, meaning “the point of a spearhead. I cannot prove it but I believe deep down inside that this is from the same root. I
It’s more of a gut feeling or intuitive thing, and intuitions are often wrong because they overgeneralize, throw out logic altogether, and rely exclusively on notoriously unreliable and subjective (the very word subjective implies emotional response) feelings, especially deep or gut feelings that can be described as “Gestalt.” I’m a birdwatcher and we use something called Gestalt to identify fleeing glimpses of a bird.
All we can see is what philosophers like Heidegger might call “the essence” or essential nature of the bird rather than it’s surface characteristics which are too fleeting to identify. Heidegger discusses surface versus essence interpretations of objects a lot. It seems hard to figure out but it’s easier than you think.
Logic relies on surface or appearance, including the human definition we have given to the object.
Intuition on the other hand pretty much throws out the surface stuff and looks for the “essence of the thing” or the “deep meaning” or “true meaning” of the object. We are getting into Plato here with the concept of “pure objects” that actually do not exist in reality.
An example of Platonic pure objects would be what I call the Masculine and Feminine spirit (see the brilliant and wrongly derided Otto Weininger’s “Sex and Character” for more. And Weininger comes from Nietzsche in my opinion and leads to Heidigger, also in my opinion. He seems to be a sort of a bridge between the two. Note that all were Germans, Weininger an Austrian, but oh well.
The Masculine Spirit and the Feminine Spirit is one way of dividing the universe or world in a binary manner. Not that there are not other binary methods of chopping the world into opposite halves, but this is just one of them.
I would argue that the world is half Masculine principle and half Feminine principle and that neither is better than the other and the marriage of the two opposites creates a whole that is bigger than the sum of its parts, hence the human pair bond where each pair of the male-female couple fills in the missing blanks or parts of the other one, each creating a whole person in the other where only a “half person” had existed before.
We are also getting into Taoism here, but the ancient Chinese were awful damn smart, so you ignore them at your peril in my opinion. Furthermore, the Taoist maxim of how to live your life – “moderation in all things” is an excellent aphorism, not that many of us ever do it. It’s clearly the route to a long lifespan.
To do the opposite is to burn candles at both ends, life fast, die young, and leave a pretty corpse, which sounds very romantic and appealing when young (it did to me) but which sounds increasing idiotic and even suicidal for no good reason with each advancing year past 30. I now find it laughable, pathetic, and openly suicidal and delight in mocking the concept. But I survived another 30 years past the expire date on that concept, so perhaps my new attitude is simply the inevitable product of living out that maxim twice and hence nullifying it.
There are a number of Southern Chinese groups with more of an indigenous look, sometimes prognathous. These date back to the original indigenous elements in Southern China and SE Asia, who all date back to the Negritos. The Montagnards of Vietnam are definitely one of these indigenous types. The indigenous went from
Indigenous (Negrito) -> Proto SE Asian (with Melanesian component) -> modern SE Asian (Modern Mongoloid with archaic components. This effect is quite pronounced in the Vietnamese, who were completely overrun by a Chinese invasion 2,300 years ago after which there was much interbreeding and a huge infusion of Cantonese words, which now make up 70% of Vietnamese vocabulary.
However, the core vocabulary of of Vietnamese remains Austroasiatic (a language family nevertheless with Southern Chinese roots derived from the archaic Mongoloid peoples of the region 5-7,000 YBP, who later moved into SE Asia. This core vocabulary is shared by the Munda branch of Astroasiatic, completely isolated India, particularly Eastern (Mongoloid) India. The fact that Vietic shares a common core vocabulary with the geographically separated Munda proves the existence of Austrasiatic.
In fact, it is the final convincing argument. Anyone who says that Austroasiatic does not exist is a fool.
Further, the evidence for Austroasiatic, a proven family, is no greater than the existence for Altaic, and in fact Altaic may be better proven. The “numerals” argument against Altaic is belied by the 13,000 year old Afroasiatic language, the numerals of which are a complete disaster.
Numerals are more often innovated and replaced than people think. Often the old cognates survive in archaic words or words used for related concepts, but it’s not unusual at all for the main term to be an out and out innovation. Most Altaic numerals are innovated, but there are a few cognates. Further most of the numerals have cognates in related or archaic words.
This is the most archaic layer of Austroasiatic. Some of these peoples are archaic Mongoloids with a strong Australoid component. A branch of these Australoids called Carpenterians went from India to Australia 11,000 YBP and become part of the Aborigines. Another group of archaic Australoids were called Murrayans. They came from Thailand 17,000 YBP and went to Australia. It is not known what Australians looked like before that but no doubt they were quite primitive. It’s long been thought that they have more Erectus component than the rest of us, but I’m not sure that is proven. Certainly their appearance resembles that.
The Murrayans are the core element of the Ainu, who went to the Philippines 16,000 YBP in an unusual, Caucasian appearing type, and then moved to the Southern Japanese islands north into Japan 13,000 YBP, quite possibly replacing an ancient Negrito type already there. This Negrito type definitely existed in Southern China and may well have existed in Korea. Some Australoids or especially Australoid-Mongoloid mixes can have a superficial “Caucasian” appearance, but that’s just parallel development, coincidence or more probably the fact that the possible human phenotypes is only a small subset of the possible ones.
It is this coincidentally “Caucasoid” appearance that led many observers to believe that the Ainu were somehow ancient Caucasians (Norwegians, joked one anthropologist was) that got stranded from the rest of Europoid flock way over on the other side of Asia. In fact, the Ainu are Australoid by skull and Mongoloid by genes. Their language, like the Japanese language, has an ancient Austronesian layer that has led many to falsely conclude that the Altaic Japanese language is actually an Austronesian one. The argument is even better with Ainu, the deeper group of which has not been shown to my satisfaction.
I do not believe that most human behavior has, how to put it, “functional” (?) effects. Functional would mean if X happens to you, then Y is always the traumatic result of X.
It simply doesn’t add up.
What’s abuse in one society is normal in another society. If your society tells you having X behavior happen to you is nothing, few if any get harmed.
If your society tells you that having X behavior happen to you fucks you up for life, you need decades of therapy, and you’re never right again, guess what happens? Lots of people get fucked up for a long time, some for life, many go into therapy forever, and many have lasting damage into adulthood and claim they will never be the same after what happened. For the same Goddamned behavior that caused zero harm in the other society.
If you keep telling a kid he’s a thief even though he’s never stolen a thing, he might just start stealing. In an important sense, sadly, we are what other people have told us we are. We all want to think we are masters of our own ships, but as long as we reside in this socially embedded world, it’s probably not true. We may well be doomed to be affected by other people’s treatment of us.
We live in society with other humans in a culture. Most human behavior is culturally embedded.
I hate to sound like an SJW, but most human behavior and reactions to it, traumatic or otherwise, are “socially constructed.”
In a way, the person either chooses to not be effected by it (in a society that says it’s harmless) or chooses to be traumatized by it (in a society that says it’s very harmful). Hell, our own personalities are socially constructed.
Not only that but new research says that your personality in part depends on the humans you are around, and in that sense your personality can change throughout your life. I keep telling my clients, “There is no real you. There’s no such thing. Quit trying to find the real you. It’s bullshit.” I tell them, “You create the real you every morning when you get up.” Indeed. Who am I? I am whoever the Hell I created myself to be on this particular day. Tomorrow may be different. Perhaps I may construct myself differently tomorrow.
I’m pretty dubious on the biology of psychological stuff. Sure, some psyche stuff is biological, but a lot is just not. The vast majority of it seems to be socially constructed or created and embedded deeply in the culture and social milieu that the person lives in.
My most recent revelation is that most everything about our psyches, personalities and identities is “made up,” and in that sense, not even real. I mean most of our psyche, personality, identity itself is not biologically based and therefore some real thing that can be identified. Instead all of things things are created or made up if you will. Now sexual orientation, gender identity and some of these things seem to have a biological element.
The hardcore parts of personality – introversion, extroversion, etc. seem to be pretty hardwired in. I’ll simply never be an extreme extrovert as hard as I try. I assume most of the rest of me is more or less made up. I’m heterosexual. I guess that got wired in. I’m relatively masculine or about as masculine as most straight men are.
I have a normal gender identity as a man. Even when I had a strong feminine component, I always felt I was pure man. Yes, I’m intellectual, and the IQ was pretty much wired in. Most of the rest is probably just created by me or frankly “made up.” Yep, I’m making it all up and so are you, him, and everybody else.
Sometimes I think that my dick, my supersonic brain, my aching back and the goddamned hemorrhoid in my ass are the only real and true biological aspects of myself. Hell, maybe my kidneys are created. I’ve never seen them. How do I even know they are there? Says who?
I’ll have more about this in a later post because this is a cool concept I am on here, I think.
It seems like 99% of the population, including my own siblings and mother, don’t have the slightest understanding of me at all, and in fact, their views of what I am are frankly libelous. Almost everyone thinks I am a much worse person than I actually am. Just about every nasty thing you hear about me is probably a straight up lie.
First of all, idiots assume that if you are passionate about or arguing for a certain position, you obviously have a personal interest in it. Wrong! You learn that in Idiocy 101! Come on! Actually many of the things that I am most passionate and outraged about have no effect on me whatsoever. I have no skin in the game. I’m not the one who’s going to get in trouble. People don’t understand that people like me have “radical empathy.” I will passionately advocate for a position that has nothing to do with myself at all. I’m not going to get in trouble. Further, I often advocate for things that I don’t even have any interest in.
I believe in radical justice. If someone is being harmed by some soycietal idiocy, I feel compassion for this person. I don’t like to see innocent people get beat up by shitheads, especially dangerous shitheads, in other words, the majority. I care about innocent people. I don’t have to have skin in a game to feel passionate about it. Why can’t I feel deeply injured when any innocent person is set upon by the latest deranged mob of dangerous retards (the majority)?
But no, this is what everyone believes:
If you talk about something, that means you do it.
If you write about something, that means you do it.
If you argue for something, that means you do it.
If you argue against the prohibition of something, that means you do it.
I admit that 3 and 4 have somewhat of a greater basis in fact, but still, there are many people like me who will argue in favor of things that have nothing whatsoever to do with our lives. We will argue against the prohibition of things that we have nothing to do with. In particular, we will argue for purely philosophical opinions that have nothing to do with our lives. People just can’t figure this out because they’re too fucking retarded. Too fucking dangerously retarded, excuse me.
If you see me arguing for something weird, think of it this way: in a lot of ways, I am a rather extreme civil libertarian. That’s the position that I am arguing for – a civil libertarian position. It often has nothing whatsoever to do with my life at all. It’s often something I have no interest in. If the Alt Left is anything, it’s civil libertarian. In some ways, we are radical civil libertarians. That’s usually why we are coming from some position or other – not because we have any personal stake or even interest in it but instead because we are fighting for abstract positions of justice.
Next time you stop and think, “Wow! Why is Lindsay arguing for something so weird/sick/evil/whatever, consider first of all that I am probably just arguing for it from the principles of purely abstract civil libertarianism.
Here is an overview of the issues that civil libertarians care about.
A previous post about a nonfunctional stage of the female body which nevertheless seems to be peak beauty in one sense. This got me thinking. Perhaps the world is not supposed to be beautiful. Suppose most beautiful things are either accidents or with the females in the previous post, nonfunctional.
Which also got me thinking. Maybe pure, natural, functional beauty loses some of its awesomeness because of the necessity of developing utility.
Usually when an object of any kind starts to acquire utility, utility goes to the front of the line and beauty and appearance go to the back. Perhaps a bit of beauty is always sacrificed when making anything functional, useful, or utilitarian.Probably things in this world are not supposed to be shockingly beautiful.
Sure, there are beautiful things in the world, but not that much of nature is pure beauty. The parts of nature that are pure beauty are rightly set aside as natural wonders in national parks and whatnot.
The world has to figure out how to function.Rocks, water, trees, grass, lichen, clouds, insects, birds, reptiles, and mammals are primarily concerned with functionality.
Yes, even clouds, rocks and water have to figure out how to work and do what they need to do.
Living things are mostly just concerned with survival, and what in the Hell does beauty have to do with survival? Nothing.
A plant’s objective is to live long enough to scatter its seed and create offspring.
An animal’s objective is to survive, not get killed by predators, find and acquire food, mate, rest, hide, raise offspring, etc. That’s the evolutionary trajectory. Where does beauty fit in?At the end of the line.
Although sometimes we get natural beauty like male peacocks who have evolved beauty in order to compete with other male peacocks to attract mates where the most beautiful male wins. But this is one of the more unusual cases in our world where beauty actually serves some sort of a utilitarian and even evolutionary purpose.
Mostly beauty just happens by some coincidence of nature and natural beauty just sits there undergoing its natural processes, not trying to either get pretty or lose its looks. Instead it just sits there waiting for you to marvel at or take a picture of it. But it’s accidental. Nature didn’t evolve that waterfall to be so gorgeous that tourists would take pictures of it all day. Nature evolved the waterfall by accident when a stream or river ran right off a damned cliff. Redwoods are accidental. Wildflowers are beautiful accidents. And on and on.
As usual, the bond between culture and economics that we were so desperate to break here with the Alt Left remains confirmed.
Once you develop rightwing cultural views, soon you develop rightwing economic views. I have seen so many formerly liberals talk about how they went conservative. It usually starts with understandable disgust with the Cultural Left Freakshow. So they move right on culture. You would think they would stop there, but of course being sheep, they don’t.
They buy the whole rightwing package, economics especially but then usually everything else. It’s so tiresome. You spent all that time on the Left working for progressive, pro-worker economics and then just because you got disgusted with Destin is Amazing the 11 year old drag queen, you went full Ayn Rand. Way to go. You’re really using your brain. You shithead.
The problem here is that people think there are two ideologies, and you are either with one or the other:
And that’s it.
Disgusted with transsexual bathhouses for all ages, the latest outrage in the Cultural Left Freakshow, so you head on over to the Right to see what they have for sale.
If you align with them, they hand you a list of 500 positions and order you to check all of them or they throw you over to the Left. You check only 499 out of 500, and they call you a Communist and throw you over to the Left. Confused, you head over the Left.
“What are you doing here?” the liberals ask
You say: “Well. I thought I was a conservative, but the conservatives said I’m a Communist, so maybe I am. In any case, here I am, good sirs, and how may I be of service to you?”
“Well, let’s see if you fit the qualifications,” the libs say. “We have some pretty strict qualifications, you know. We cancel people all the time for forgetting to cross one liberal t or dot one liberal i. Then their lives are ruined forever LOL.”
The liberals laugh sadistically but self-righteously, seeing themselves pure as Jesus in an all-White robe.
You hand them the list. “They said I’m conservative on 499 things but liberal on one thing, so that makes me a Communist,” you say, confused.
The liberals look at the list and start screaming that you need to be canceled for being a Nazi. They call all their liberal goon private investigators around and order them to the dox you. You can’t run away fast enough.
You’re halfway through life right now, and it’s never been worse.
Politically, you were lost. Stumbling along a road in a darkened wood, you were tired that night and had lost your way, politically and geographically. In the morning, up ahead, where the valley sloped into another hill of life to climb, rays of the sun’s hope appeared. Perhaps there was a way free of this politics of confusion and folly after all. Your fear seemed to settle a bit.
You looked back at the pass of politics and all the people foolishly stranded there who would never make it through the pass to the least bit of enlightenment. They were as lost as you were, but yours was temporary, and theirs was for life.
Then one of the vicious creatures of our partisan politics appeared, frightening you. A wolf? A puma? It moved towards you, demanding that you take a side, any side. Terror filled your futile heart and you were driven back into the silent sun to the east, returning to the depths of politics of confusion from which you came.
What lies ahead?
Is it infernal Hades? Is it Paradise? A Seer to vigilantly show you the way to a politics of reason and logic?
Ahead, two roads of American politics diverged in the yellow forest. One went to the Right and one went the Left. You peered down each one, wanting to take the one less trodden by some superstitious impulse. But the roads were blocked, the well-worn one and the little-used one both. Up ahead you saw people partying down each road, Right and Left, singing, dancing, fucking like no tomorrow, secure in their political homes. You stood there, abandoned, with not a friend in the world, lonely, homeless again, until…until forever. This was your destiny.
Such is the plight of the politically homeless. This is the fate of the Alt Left. Everywhere I go, I never see one Alt Left person. Everyone is either Left or Right. If they’re Left, they’re all the way to the Left, every punctuation mark perfectly placed. If they’re on the Right, they bought the whole package, checked every box on the form.
Every time I try to talk to them, I tell them about my politics, and the response is always, “Ok, so you’re a Martian” or “Sorry, you do not compute.” That’s when it’s not a blast from the liberals: “You are not on the Left! You are a moderate conservative!” or “Guess what? We don’t want you on the Left. Go over there to the Nazis where you belong!” Then they ban me from whatever leftwing sub, bulletin board, or website I was destined to get banned from that day. I get banned from around one leftwing site a day. And I’m a Leftist! What the Hell.
What’s odd is the conservatives always take me in. They’re quite pleasant people, despite their awful politics and on Culture, sadly, nowadays they are more right than wrong. Many conservatives are also very smart. I’m not sure why that is but I like it. They are shockingly open-minded. And they’re tolerant! They listen to my story and accept me. “Well, you are sort of one of us, so have a seat. Can I get you a drink of anything?” They say, “You know, we could make alliance with a Leftie like you. In fact, we should.”
This is so horrible. All my life we on the Left have been the nice and kind ones, the educated and erudite, the open-minded and open to new ideas, and of course the tolerant. We were proud of these things because conservatives were the opposite: Hostile, mean, stupid and ignorant, closed-minded and subject to prejudicial thinking, closed to anything but their own narrow, backwards ideology, and of course utterly intolerant, their worst tendency of all.
Good God can you see what has happened. We liberals have turned into the conservatives of old, the ones we hated so much. We now embody many of the psychological attributes we hated about them, that made them such monsters that we considered the essence of conservatism. And those backwards hillbilly redneck conservatives with a blade of grass between their teeth have in turn embraced all of the psychological attributes that we prided ourselves and that we thought of as the essence of liberalism.
We turned into our worst enemies. And our enemies turned into our glorious beknighted selves of yesteryear, stealing our pride and putting its crown on their head. I don’t think anything makes me more angry than that we turned into the hated conservatives of old and they turned into the beloved liberals of old. It makes me sad, angry, frustrated, hopeless, and mostly just utterly baffled. It’s horrible. We turned into the monsters that we hated so much. Congratulations my fellow libs.
The best things in life are mixtures. You hardly see a recipe with a single ingredient. Too much of a single ingredient ruins the stew.
Pure lines tend to die out. Hybrid vigor, mixing a bit of the opposite in, increases health and vigor.
The sages all say that variety is the spice of life. It’s even coded into Nature, where opposites attract to balance each other out as Nature demands. Imbalance wrecks ecosystems, but only for awhile, until Nature balances the scale once again.
The way of the Dao says only, “Moderation in all things.” In your views, your tea, your work, your play, your everything, and your nothing. Excess kills. Judiciousness keeps us on two legs.
Some day, perhaps, the cancer of American ultra-partisan politics, one of the most insipid trends in recent US history, will slither away, having done its damage. It will leave us with the wreckage of the destruction and idiocy that it brought. But I am not optimistic. Partisan thinking after all is just more Black and Whiting, and Black and Whiting is just what folks do.
People complain about black and white thinking a lot. It’s listed as a pathology. It’s a symptom of Borderline Personality Disorder. It’s a primitive defense, the defense of a small child, not even five yet. Sure, some people like BPD’s do it way too much, dividing the world into pure villains and pure heroes, each switching roles with the other in perfect chaos.
But really we all black and white. This is what I finally figured out. It’s a problem because black and white thinking is crap. It’s lousy thinking. Furthermore, it’s simply wrong. When you black and white, it’s worse than pulling a lever in Vegas. At least in Vegas you stand a chance. When you black and white, every answer you get is wrong. That’s a hell of a way to run a life, a culture, or a society. And yet we somehow muddle through anyway, as the British say.
I’m discouraged because I’m one of those grey area assholes everyone loves to despise, which is probably why I get banned from most every forum or website I comment on. Gradations are evil. Shades are criminal. Grey means dangerous. Relativism means you need to call a cop. There’s danger and incomprehension there, and all you can do is lash out and try to destroy every grey area you see. After all, grey areas are evil.
Incidentally this is how I want you commenters to think. My original idea for this site was try to stir you all up, to make all of you challenge every belief you have. I want to throw your beliefs at you, show you how they are lies, and see how you respond. This site is supposed to make you uncomfortable. I’m not writing it to make you happy. I’m writing it to piss you off. A lot of the stuff you believe is crap, no matter where your head is at. I’m as guilty as anyone. I think it’s stupid to walk around believing a bunch of lies, so I want to point out your false beliefs and throw them in your face and see what you do.
The original subtitle of this site was, “If I’m Not Making You Mad, I’m Not Doing My Job.” It didn’t mean I am a provocateur, though obviously that’s one of my hats. It means I’m trying to provoke you. I’m trying to make you look at every damned thing you believe and wonder whether it’s true or not. And ultimately, I want to challenge your views so brutally that you even change your mind now and then. If you do, you’re better than most.
That’s why I write about disturbing things on here. Disturbing things are part of life. They go on being part of life while we put our hands over our eyes and ears. That doesn’t make the upsetting things go away. It just blinds you to them. They carry on existing in the real world. Disturbing and upsetting things are part of our world. There’s no harm in examining the world we live in. Looking in the dark where we fear to look is how we confront our fears.
We think we can run from our fears, but we can’t. You run and run and run for miles and you stop, exhausted, panting. You look behind you. There comes your fear with a huge grin on its face, saying, “I’m baaaack.” Sure you can run from your fears, for a bit. But every time you stop and turn around, there it is again. It’s a temporary fix, like dope. And like dope, it ultimately doesn’t work and never fixes the problem. All you do is escape and escape until escaping itself becomes your main problem and runs you into the ground. The opiate epidemic. And so many other things.
There’s little to nothing in the world not worthy of examination. One could make a case that the most disturbing and upsetting things are the things we should be focused on more than any others because they tend to have profound effects. The awful things continue because everyone plugs their ears and closes their eyes to the evils while Satan carries on and the bodies pile up. We didn’t fix anything. All we did is allow the atrocity exhibition to stay open another day. Congratulations on the perpetuation of evil.
Black and whiting is how they we it. It’s how we think. In what? In everything. Probably because it’s easier and brains are lazy and don’t like to work too much, always preferring the fastest route, preferring the neural freeways over the sodden and bumpy back roads.
It’s sad, really, because if you gain any wisdom at all in life, you figure out that most everything in the universe is continual. That is, it is part of a continuum. So the universe or the world could be seen as an endless series of continua of this, that, and whatever, nothing much pure and hard, everything a gradation, a shade, or a point of view. The world ultimately is more subjective than objective.If it were objective, most everything would not be an undefinable grey area, and everything is, ultimately.
So instead of the world existing as a series of solid facts like science insists, instead it exists more as an endless variety of points of view, of nuances, of measured judgements. We are getting into postmodern fuzziness here with its contempt for science, but those princes of vagueness and incoherence were onto something, that there is no truth.
Not that each of our truths is equally valid, although that makes sense at the individual level. Sure, every truth each individual has is true for them, as the deconstructionists say. But that’s a trivial notion.
A better way to work with postmodernism is to say there are a serious of “truths” or explanations for every set of facts, a variety of persons each having their own truths of course. But the way out of this tangled wood is that some of those facts make a lot more sense than the others, some of which are pure lies and psychological defenses, castles of sand smashed by the first tide of evidence. They’re not even truths. They’re just fortresses for the ego, which are always trivial, pointless, laughable, and worthless for the rest of us.That’s the problem with SJWism. SJWism says let’s listen to people’s defenses and the lies they made up to not face the hard truths about themselves, and let’s call these lies facts so we don’t hurt people’s feelings and egos. If it hurts an ego of a protected class, it’s not only a lie but it’s evil. Truth and falsehood are based on feelings. If it makes those good people feel bad, it’s false and you need to be destroyed for pointing out hate facts.
We look at the various “truth statements” given to explain any set up facts, often not even clearly described themselves (see the Rashomon effect) and, using the scientific method, weak and unsatisfying, yet all we have, we test each one out, hopefully in the clear light of emotionless logic and see how well it explains the facts.
Some truths work a lot better than others. Often not one truth is the best answer but instead several of the truths combine to give us the best answer. We stumble towards the best way out of the woods of uncertainty, and in many cases, the truth must be decided by each of us because there’s no consensus on the truth. As issues get more tangled up in logic-destroying emotion, consensus is increasingly unclear or openly false as truth is subject to the manipulations of politics, mores, and social organization.
I think the notion that everything is a grey area leaves people cold. More than that, it’s just confusing, and the mind likes shortcuts and despises long Sunday drives. Your mind is like a New York sidewalk at rush hour.
If everything is a grey area, things are not solid anymore. Truths vanish. Good and evil fade from harsh colors to murky shades that are hard to make out.
This is confusing. And mostly, it causes anxiety because we don’t know the answer. We want to know what is right and wrong, up and down, this way or that. Saying everything is vague means we can’t be sure of anything. Of course that’s the case in life, but no one wants to believe it. Instead we need comfortable illusions and pretty lies or the fear sets in and fear starts to tremble.
Fear of what? Fear of not knowing the answer, having no way forward, no signposts or maps to guide the way, everything mysterious and uncertain and therefore scary. We want to be sure in life. Nothing is sure in life, but we can’t believe that or the fear sets in. The fear of uncertainty, of not knowing what is ahead, of being unable to predict the future or even make much sense out of the world leaves us with a terror that is ultimately what Sartre was getting it with his “existential angst.”
You end up stuck in a world where everything is a mystery, and that’s a scary place to be. You never know what’s lurking around that next corner. Ultimately, we don’t really want reality. We prefer our illusions and lies just to get us through the day.Nobody wants to “face reality” and probably hardly anybody does, which is why it’s dumb advice. We only need to choose the lies that work better than the others. Otherwise we might never get up out of bed.
When I was young, I my bosses were all men in my parent’s generation. They hated nearly from the moment they met me and they fired me endlessly.
They were workaholics and their attitude was that I was lazy. I’m not lazy. I work, dammit! I work a lot, too. There were times when I was working two or maybe even three different jobs. I’ve worked 50, 60, and even 70 hour weeks. It wasn’t fun but I did it.
I’m not lazy but I’m not a hyperactive monkey.Ive never met the proverbial lazy worker. I’ve met some workers who didn’t seem to work very much but I’ve never met a worker who worked hard all the time but seemed to be working too slowly. The very idea seems odd to me. I’m not wired to see hyperactivity as a normal state anywhere.
I was never at public service jobs where “hustling” was mandatory. Anyway that was a typical complaint: “You don’t hustle!” I just have a slower pace of life. There’s Type A and there’s Type B. And then there’s me. Type Z. I simply have a very relaxed style of living.
Even when I am working, even working hard, I feel relaxed and casual. People even said, “Even when you’re working hard you don’t look like you are working!” It’s been acknowledged that I work just as hard as anyone else. I worked for a legal coding company once and they told me that out of 80 people, there was only one person, a woman, who was coding faster and more accurately than I was. It’s always been this way. So I’m not Mr. So-Mo. I just look like I am, ha ha!
I do all my work. I guess I could work at breakneck speed, but that’s rarely a good idea, and I don’t take jobs like that anyway. Most work, believe it or not, does not have to be done at breakneck speed.
What’s the hurry? In the future you are going to die. That’s about all that’s going to happen. That’s what you have to look forward to. So hurry up and die? How bout, like me, take your sweet time, stop and smell the flowers for a bit, and then die? How bout that?
I come in on time or even early, I don’t take excessive breaks or lunches, I often stay late, I’m responsible, I do all my work, and I don’t think I’m lazy. Lazy means you don’t work. Lazy doesn’t mean “more relaxed work style that’s not cooking a heart attack or a stroke.” Anyway if you think I’m lazy because I prefer to cherish life rather than have a heart attack at 50, be my guest. You’re certainly in the American mainstream.
This is the down side of Protestant masochistic work ethic. Life is supposed to suck, almost all the time. Then you cut loose on the weekend or for a couple of weeks a year and let it all rip loose. That’s a Hell of a lousy way to live your life, that’s all I’ve got to say.
You only go around once. You want to spent almost all of your waking life in working misery and drudgery, with no time off? You get to the end of your life and soon you will be dead. You look back on your life and all you see is misery, drudgery, pain, endless work, no fun ever, and masochistic overwork, no fun ever until you die except for those brief periods when you cut loose.Your life has been an endless drag with a few rare periods where you ripped loose and let it all hang out. A life worth living? Why?
Why this masochism must be a White value is beyond me. Really? Masochism is a White value? Since when?
Why did so many bad things happen to me? Well a lot of good things were always happening to me too, so I don’t think it was anything I was doing. I’ve thought myself to Timbuktu and back trying to figure out what the Hell I did to cause all of this and I’ve never been able to figure out. I think I provoke strong emotions in people somehow, like or dislike, love or hate. People are passionate about me. They’re not indifferent.
I used to say that all men wanted acted like they either wanted to beat me up or fuck me and sometimes both at once! I’m not quite sure why that is either. Though I’m not effeminate, I’m not the most masculine guy on Earth and I’ve always been said to be very good looking. Perhaps this is a normal way men react to a goodlooking man who has a feminine side.
When I say how men react to a goodlooking man, I don’t mean homosexually. After all, 38% of all men show some reaction to naked males in the lab, so a bit of homosexual attraction in men is virtually normal. Perhaps men also see a very goodlooking man as a threat of competition, especially for women. John F. Kennedy, a very handsome man, said that people always think very handsome men are gay. I guess it had been said about him. We do tend to associate very goodlooking men with homosexuals, especially if they are goodlooking in that pretty boy way, which I was.
A lot of people liked me, but I kept running into people who hated me, especially people my father’s age. Other people were just mostly jealous, like my younger brother. Others, like my father, who the Hell knows? I defied him like a motherfucker, got right up in his face and gave him the finger, just like that. We actually had physical fistfights. It boiled down to a difference of opinion about a variety of things, mostly moral issues around my hippie lifestyle, which he found profoundly immoral.
Also I was the apple of his eye. He adored me more than any of his other children. Then his favorite son, the one he nearly staked his life on, was in his face, flipping him off, screaming, “Fuck you!” at him.
I think it was a blow that he never quite recovered from until the last two years of his life when we spent a lot of time together and we eventually made peace. I think he knew that in some way he was headed out soon, though there wasn’t much medical evidence of that. I think he wanted to smoke a peace pipe with me in the last couple years of his life.
It was ultimately sad but on the other hand it was the right thing to do. I’m getting choked up as I write this, and I think of myself as a rock. Apparently this rock has a few leaks in it.
It’s ok to get choked up though. Life is sad. This is the nature of life. It’s also beautiful and wonderful but just as much, it’s sad. This is the way life is, and you ought to just accept it and be ok with it as the Buddhists do.
It seems like I’ve been fired more than just about anyone on Earth, though that can’t possibly be true. I’m getting a lot better at it. They used to fire me right away, often after a few days. Then it was a few weeks. Then it was a couple of months. Then it was several months. I’ve now gotten it to the point where I last about 1-2 years before they start wanting to fire me. I consider this an achievement and I am very proud of myself.
I’m a perfectly good worker, even an exemplary one, so that’s not why I get fired a lot. I think people just don’t like me. Of course not everyone but there’s always at least one on the workplace and often a few more who really hate me. Also I grow on a lot of people but I don’t grow on others. Some people I get a long with for a year or two before they turn on me and start really hating my guts. I’ve never been able to figure out why this is and you can’t exactly ask people.
No one is ever going to tell you why they hate you. Hell, they won’t even admit that they hate you in the first place!
If a lot, the majority, near everyone, or everyone hates you, you have an issue, and pretty soon, a lot of people will give you the same criticism over and over. This is an excellent clue to why lots of people hate you.
But with sporadic individual cases, you’re never going to find out. If it’s more than one person (and it will be) you can try to connect to the dots to see if there is any common factor as far as why these different people hate you, but don’t be surprised if you never figure it out. At some point, it’s a case of “don’t even try to figure it out.” Just recognize that they hate you, acknowledge that you will never know why, blot them out of your life, and move on.
Back in the day when I was a teenager, I was always getting fired especially by men my father’s age. Back then the Generation Gap was a horrible thing. I’m a Boomer. We were at virtual all out war with our parents, the World War 2 Generation (I won’t call them the Greatest Generation because they sure as Hell weren’t.). I don’t any generational parents-kids wars since ours have been nearly as bad as ours were, but I could be wrong. Generation X and their Boomer parents? Millennials and their Boomer and Generation X parents? Generation Z and their Millennial, Gen X, and even Boomer Parents?
If someone comes to me and says they had sex with a teenage girl, if I dx them with DSM-5 Pedophilia, I am committing malpractice.
That’s how anti-scientific this conflation of normal male sexuality with child molesting and pedophilia is.
I also said, not only is it not disordered behavior, it’s not even abnormal! This is true and you will find little argument about this among clinicians.
The argument against adult-teen sex is a moral and legal one, not a psychological one.
Adult-teen sex boils down to a moral matter. Perhaps it is immoral. Perhaps it is not. Society has decided it is immoral. That is their right. As for whether it is or not, clinicians leave that up to the moral philosophers, sociologists, and society as a whole.
We don’t get involved in things that are only right or wrong or even crazy or nuts because society says they are. In fact, in many cases, presented with what looks like psychosis, if it is normal within their culture to present this way during stress, we say they’re not psychotic. In fact, they are normal. Perhaps an Adjustment Disorder. If someone from our culture displayed the same symptoms, we would absolutely dx some form of DSM-5 Psychosis.
This is where, in a small sense, the anti-psychiatry people are right that the whole thing is a crock. It’s not a crock, but it is definitely true that what is normal and what is abnormal is in many cases constructed by society.
In fact there are complete psychological syndromes unknown in the rest of the world that have long histories, and even special names in certain countries or regions. There is a particular type of psychosis peculiar to Norway and the Scandinavian countries. It’s not seen outside of there. It has its own name, history, studies, on and on. This is simply one of the “appropriate Norwegian ways to go crazy.” Yes, even when people go nuts they don’t to do so in societally constructed ways!
Furthermore, clinicians don’t get involved in crime or moral questions of right and wrong. As I said, we leave that stuff up to the moral philosophers. You guys do it. We’re out. Stealing, rape, mugging, burglary, wife-beating, Hell, even murder or serial murder is not diagnosable under the current system. Most of these people are not the slightest bit nuts anyway. They’re completely sane. They’re just bad people. It’s a question of right and wrong, good and bad, not sane or crazy.
We might not even say that those crimes are abnormal behavior. I can think of circumstances where it would be just fine to commit any of those crimes. We probably wouldn’t say whether it’s normal or abnormal. Obviously it’s not adaptive and any society that allows that to go on willy-nilly is not a healthy one. But it might persist anyway. Last time I checked, Nigeria is still on the map. Instead we would just say that these are moral and legal matters, not psychological ones, and clinicians don’t deal with that sort of thing; instead, they deal with crazy and sane.
Furthermore, these matters, like teen-adult sex are legal matters. Society has decided that they hate it and that they wish to punish men who commit what they see as an immoral act. As far as whether these things should be illegal or not, clinicians throw that over to the lawyers, legislators, politicians, legal theorists and Hell, even public intellectuals because these are the people who, with input from the public, decide what is a crime and what is not. Whether something should be illegal or not is not a psychological question, nor should it be.
We’re all coping all the time. We cope our way through life, lying like fools the whole time, and not caring a whit. Success in life is based on deception, mostly to oneself but also to others.
I like the attitude of the Japanese towards this. If you tell a Japanese men, preferably one over 40, that you never lie, he will laugh right in your face, call you an idiot, and walk away. To the Japanese, nothing is dumber than pathological honestly.
I think America, or Gentile America anyway (not so sure about (((America)))) seems to have a huge honestly fetish. I tell this vignette to Americans all the time, and all I get is cope. I also tell Americans that you have to lie sometimes in life. After that, I get a load more of cope. Usually of the “I cannot tell a lie” bullshit, which is obviously itself a lie. To lie is human. To be pathologically honest, I think one might have to be an actual computer. Sure a computer could be programmed to never lie. The thing’s as dumb as a rock. It only knows whatever we told it. It can’t know anything else.
Of course we could discuss Kant’s Categorical Imperative, but that’s more of a thought exercise than an actual possibility in life.
I think America’s pathological honestly fetish, which probably isn’t even as real as it claims to be because most if not all who claim to be pathologically honest are lying right there, must be down to our Christian heritage. Not Judeo-Christian heritage.
Let me tell you something. Most people don’t believe in fair argumentation. It’s just too male, and humans are too insecure to engage in pure male thinking. Nietzsche was onto this. In fact his strong man was not a fascist but someone strong enough use cold hard logic and live with the results without dissolving in emotional insecurity like a little bitch. In other words, an ubermensch.
So most people argue in a very dirty way. Everyone I argue with takes the black and white position. My guys/my side 100% good, 0% evil. They won’t admit to one bad thing about their side. The other side 100% evil, 0% good. You can say anything good about the other side. If you say 99 bad things about them and one good thing, you have gone over to the enemy.
Sometimes I will praise Trump. Of course I hate him as much as any Trump hater, but now and then, he does the right thing, especially on foreign policy, where he is actually halfway different from the usual bloodthirsty imperialist maniac US president. But whenever I point out that I support some one thing Trump did, my idiot Democrat friends smile and say, “You going to vote for him?” Other times they will positively scream at me, “Don’t praise him! Don’t say anything good about him!”
Well, I hate Trump 98%. A few times he’s right. Because I think he’s right 2% of the time, that means I’m going to vote for him! Because if you don’t oppose someone 100% (99% is never good enough) that means you support them!
I like to read literary criticism sometimes because it’s some of the hardest stuff out there to understand, at least for me. Forget philosophy. Don’t even go there. Lit Crit is different. With Lit Crit it’s hard as hell to understand and it’s incredibly smart and dense, but you can pretty much understand most if not all of it, so it’s worth it. I call it giving my brain a workout, and to me it’s similar to going to the gym for your body.
I recently read a couple of Hemingway’s best short stories. Then I found and read two Lit Crit articles about them. Lit Crit is very useful this way. If you haven’t already read the work, I’m not quite sure how useful it is or how much you would get out it. But if you’ve read it, Crit is often great for explicating the work and explaining deeper meanings, themes, etc. hidden in the text.
One was in a journal called Journal of College Literature from 1980. It was remarkably down to earth for a Lit Crit journal, especially the issues around published around that time. So I started going through a few decades worth of the journal.
I noticed that the Lit Crit from ~40 years ago was much different and frankly much superior to the gobbledygook out nowadays. It then focused on individual books and was fairly straightforward, simply looking for explications of the events, characters, plots, and themes in the book.
As I moved forward a couple of decades, everything changed. Now it was all postmodernism. Lit Crit about individual works were less common. The crit became ridiculously politicized with SJW and PC Leftist slants towards everything. Now I am a Leftist myself (albeit a weird one) but for the life of me, I do not understand why we need to litter our Lit Crit with Leftist political theory.
In addition to Marxism, there was also inordinate focus on women (feminism, mostly a joke field called Women’s Studies), gays and lesbians (from the lens of a ridiculous and bizarre field called Queer Studies), Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and other non-Whites (same thing- focus on non-fields like Black and Hispanic Studies), on and on.
Pretty much all they wrote about were these “oppressed minorities.” Cringey Queer Studies essays searched for and discovering non-existing homosexuality in perfectly straight stories (Did you know Moby Dick is a gay novel?) and secret homosexuality in completely straight authors (Did you know Shakespeare was gay?). It’s weird and stupid.
There was also a strange attempt to find some silly “woman angle” in novels where women were not particularly important to the story.
There was also a focus on older books written by women and minorities which are apparently good books merely because they were written by a minority or woman and not for any other reason.
Why Lit Crit has to be all about oppressed minorities is beyond me. Fine, some minorities are oppressed. We need a politics to address that. But why trash up Lit Crit with leftwing obsessions with minority groups? Last time I checked, straights, Whites, and men also existed. Can we maybe keep the politics out of our Crit and just talk about the books without turning everything into a political rally?
Another worse problem went along with this. The essays became dominated by postmodernism and were much harder to understand. There were references to philosophy scattered all through everything (particularly unintelligible Continentals like Sartre, Derrida, Lacan, Cixous, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Foucalt, Frankfurt School, DeLueze and Guattari).
That’s all fine and dandy but why can’t we keep unintelligible philosophers out of our Lit Crit? What do incomprehensible Frenchmen spouting nonsense have to do with the novels we read?
It is true that the essays became much more demanding, but there was also a lot of silly talk about things like the Body (?), the Male Gaze (!?), the Text, the Author, the Reader (Barthes), on and on with weird, silly postmodern concepts.
In addition, somehow they became strangely repetitive in that they obsessed over the same postmodernist tropes and views in essay after essay. After a while, it seemed like I was reading the same essay again and again and learning little about the actual books being discussed.
Finally, it became quite boring as a result of this repetition.
tl/dr: Lit Crit has completely deteriorated over the past 40 years. It’s now a swamp of barely comprehensible postmodernism and obsessions with women, gays and minorities. Leftist politics and incoherent Continental philosophers litter every essay, turning it from a brain workout into muddy slow trod up a mountain in the rain without boots or a poncho.
Well worth it! And I am currently working on the following. As you can see, I am not that far into most of them. The ones where I don’t list how many pages I’ve read means I’ve barely touched, them, just a few pages in at most. This is how I read. If you count books like that, I am reading 170 books right now but most of them are just a few pages in.
Charlotte Bronte, Jane Eyre, Novel.
Emily Bronte, Wuthering Heights, Novel.
Conrad, Heart of Darkness (reread), Novella.
Conrad, Lord Jim, Novel, (35 pages).
Dickens, Great Expectations (reread), Novel.
Dickens, Hard Times, Novel.
Dickens, Oliver Twist, Novel.
Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment, Novel.
Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, Novel, (15 pages).
H. A. Grueber, Myths of Greece and Rome, Nonfiction, Mythology.
Thomas MacAulay, Lays of Ancient Rome, Narrative Poem Collection***
Melville, Billy Budd, Novella.
Milton, Paradise Lost, Epic Poem (type of Narrative Poem), (156 pages into Book One).***
Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols Non-fiction, Philosophy**
Sun Tzu, The Art of War, Nonfiction, Military.
Walter Scott, Lady of the Lake, Narrative Poem, (47 pages).*
Tolstoy, War and Peace, Novel, (15 pages).
Wells, War of the Worlds, Novel.
Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray, Novel.
* Difficult, archaic language.
** Hard to understand, conceptually/narratively difficult
***Both difficult, archaic language and hard to understand, conceptually/narratively difficult.
None of the rest are particularly hard to read in my opinion. You have to go slow with Conrad though because he’s so dense. You can read him fast, sure, but then you will be missing a lot of it. It’s like Moby Dick in that respect. I also found the Brontes quite dense for some reason. I had to read them slowly, but I’m not sure why. They’re not dense in the same way Conrad is; instead they are different.
Dickens, Dostoevsky, Melville, Tolstoy, Wells,
Wilde, and even Sun Tzu are not particularly hard to read, though Melville and Sun Tzu are both pretty dense.
The SJW’s are obnoxious and even wicked because they are too good. That’s the bitter truth. You can be so good that you are basically evil! Think of stern Puritans in New England, Dante staring down at every citizen as a sinner in 15th Century Florence, and even fundamentalist Muslims, the main problem of whom once again is that they are too good for the most part. Shariah Law expects you to be too good. That’s why it’s downright evil!
If some stern religious policeman is beating me up for looking at a woman or a radical feminist is firing me from my job for doing the same thing, in both cases I am being persecuted for acting like a human being and not being enough of a goody good choirboy. I’ma call the guy who is beating me up and the bitch who got me fired evil scum, sorry. Sanctimonious people who expect everyone to be saints are actually so good that they’re bad!
A lot of nations and peoples commit genocide. Genocide is almost normal human behavior. But good people and nations feel bad after they Holocaust a group. Sometimes it takes them a bit of civilizing to get there, but get there they do.
These psychological types act the worst of all but feel no guilt. As an example, psychopaths are wildly aggressive and show absolutely zero guilt. Obsessionals on the other hand, are the least aggressive people on Earth and are overwhelmed with guilt. This seems bizarre until I learned this in my counseling practice.
The best people feel the worst. The worst people feel the best. Why the Hell do good people feel bad? Because it is their extreme guilt itself which keeps them acting good! Why to bad people feel great? Because it is precisely their lack of guilt which makes them act so bad!
It seems totally confounding until you sit down and think about it.
This is also why I think clinicians attacking their clients’ guilt and self-help types urging us to get rid of our guilt are worse than charlatans. Not only will their tactics achieve their goals – the theory is that ridding someone of guilt will make them a better person – but actually backfires and makes people worse, so it’s iatrogenic. They claim to make better people by dissolving people’s sense of guilt but instead they are making people worse.
One of the first things I do with my clients, who typically come to me overwhelmed with guilt, is to congratulate them for their extreme sense of guilt and conscience. I also tell them that their guilt is what is creating their illness, so too much guilt is not necessarily a good things. But I tell them that the very reason that are ill in the first place is because they are good people. In fact, they are actually too good!
Yes, it is indeed pathological to be too good. Former Jew Catholic convert and virtual saint Simone Weil starved herself to death during World War 2. The world was a very evil place then, and Weil was simply too good for this world, so she checked out.
And like Weil, I tell my clients that their problem is that they are good people in a bad world, and worse that they are simply too good for their own good. There’s no reaso to be a saint and being too good can actually lead to social pathology because we simply did not evolve to be saints. In fact, in the past, primitive people who were too good probably were the first to get killed.
Why should we care what happens to our enemies? I care what happens to my friends. My enemies can drop dead tomorrow. Someone dislikes me, why should I care if they live, die, or what happens to them? I mean give me a reason.
Geniuses, in addition to being brilliant, are often either weird (Einstein) or nuts (Sam Peckinpah, Hemingway, Phil Spector).
Because in order to take the creative process to its ultimate heights, you really have to leave this earthly world and ascend up beyond that to the world of Gods, as the Greeks used to say.
And when you truly leave the Earth, you enter the world of the sky, Gods and spiritual beings good and bad, madness, strangeness, and otherworldly-ness. In a sense, you sort of have to go nuts to produce truly great art. If you’re not nuts enough, you’re just to normie to ascend like that.
Sanity, in addition to all the great things it is, is, after all, also mediocrity, the quotidian world or work, home, strict social rules, and complete suppression of dreams, feelings, and really anything wild. The 9-5 world of rush hour and cubicles doesn’t tolerate wildness very well. One reason I usually get fired after a year or so, I suppose.
Check out Otto Weininger on genius and Nietzsche on the ubermensch.
Traditionally from the Greeks on it was thought that only men could access this sort of perfect Platonic concept of genius because men were of the sky, beyond the earth to the airy world of pure ideas which most women, even those with genius IQ’s hate like the plague.
The world of the woman is the world of people, babies, children, friends, lovers, husbands, sons, daughters, and parents. In order words, the world of the earth.
The Greeks said that women were “of the earth” and that men were “of the sky” or at least could try to be. Which one is closer to God? Get it?
This is often thought to be a misogynistic attitude, but I think it’s just true. Of course there are many brilliant women, including geniuses, but have you ever noticed how many of the female pure geniuses in the above sense (the airy world of pure ideas) are rather mannish, masculine, or even full-blown lesbians? Start with genius Laurie Anderson, and she’s not even a dyke. Female philosophers? Try Anita Rondell. Lesbian.
Weininger actually said that women were simply incapable of genius. He thought that if there ever to were to be a female genius, she would probably be a lesbian. Bang on.
Now I am not saying that being of the sky is better than being of the Earth or any of that. Women surely don’t feel that way. They think the world of the sky is the world of men. They also think it is unsufferably boring and find it incomprehensible how and why men would even endeavor to live in such a world. I’ve had brilliant women ask me this?
Why would you even do something like that?
About my crazy herculean projects like cataloguing all of the German and Chinese dialects or languages? To her it was incomprehensible. Why would anyone waste their time doing such a stupid and boring thing. Makes no sense.
This is why most women, even those with IQ’s over 140, are not pure intellectuals in the male sense of the world meaning the airy world of ideas and pure concepts torn loose from all of their Earthly moorings.
But who cares about geniuses anyway? What’s a genius?
There are plenty of brilliant women out there, and the female genius tends to a performer of pure emotion. I listed Marianne Faithful as a teenager and then in her 40’s as an example of “the female genius.” So it’s not that female geniuses do not exist, but it’s more that they take a different form of “pure emotional (feelings)” genius rather than “pure intellectual (thought) genius.”
I also think that Black people have a certain type of genius that I call “the Black genius.” It’s also quite different from the “White male genius.” It’s not inferior, it’s just different, and there are few if any male geniuses who seem to think and behave like the Black male genius.
A shocking number of brilliant Blacks, usually men, embody this rather strange type of genius. Few if any Black women do so this is really the Black male genius.” But to search for the “Black female genius,” perhaps once again we have to look into the world of pure emotion, like Ronnie Spector above, Billie Holiday, Tina Turner, or Pam Grier, the actress.
I’m not here to bitch, but at my age, life sort of blows in so many ways. Every day it’s another indignity. And next year will be worse. The year after that, even worse than that. All you can do is make the best out of a bad situation.
Sure if you have friends of loved ones, it can be real nice. Most of the people you meet day to day, whether they know you or not, are sort of shits. All women of most ages are pretty damn cold. That’s if they don’t openly hate me. A lot of young men in their 20’s are awful damn cold or shitty. Older men, 35+, are usually pretty damn nice. I meet males that age I have never talked to much in my life before…and…guess what? They’re my best friends!
Some women my age are pretty nice, but a lot of them look like shit. Anyone who mostly speaks Spanish is probably pretty cool.
Kids? Just forget it. I wave to them and smile and they don’t even wave back.
I dropped someone off at the homeless shelter the other and drove by the junior high. It was dark. I didn’t want to talk to girls, so I saw three boys. I asked them what the crowd was for, if there had been a game. They told me yes, there had been a basketball game. But one kid acted like there was something terribly wrong with talking to them.
Obviously I was a homosexual child molester who was going to molest their pubescent asses. Don’t mind that I’m not even gay and I don’t fuck guys. It’s still true anyway.
Young women. Ha ha. I’m not even allowed to look at them, much less talk to them. If I smile or wave to them, I get a cold stare of hate back. If I say hi or hello, they act like they’re going to call the police. They’re not all like this, but a lot of them are. Like way too many.
Most of the conversations I try to have with women under age 50 fall flat on their face in some way or another, even if it’s not obvious. Subtly, yeah, it’s true.
I just don’t want to believe you. You talking to someone, right? You want to think this person likes you or this person hates you? I’m anti-paranoid, so interpret most stuff as this person likes me. Which means I overlook a lot of stuff that a paranoid might pick up on. Except it’s dead on true.
Life doesn’t really get older, guys. Have fun when you are young and other humans are still willing to talk to, make friends with you, and date you. Someday if you are lucky you will be my age. Congrats but steel yourself.
I’m not here to bitch but if you’re life is shitty, go ahead and bitch away. If you’re life’s not that shitty, maybe tone it down.
This is it. This is life, boys. And every year from now on, it will just get worse and worse. As they say on the incel boards (and those guys are damned right about a million things), the Age Pill is the hardest pill of all to swallow.
I try to eke some happiness out of life so I don’t say fuck it all and buy it.
See that mixed drink over there next to my computer. That glass is your friend, Bob.
Fuck the world anyway. It’s been my motto my whole adulthood anyway, happy and sad, sunny or the darkest night. Fuck the world. Take that attitude, put it in your head and walk around with it for a day.
Don’t let it get you down. If you think about the implications of it, just laugh. Laugh every time something shitty happens to you. Laugh even harder when something good happens to you. But quit caring. That’s the secret, right there, at your damned fingerprints. All you have to do is take that idea and put it right snug in your head. Don’t worry, it’s a nice fit.
Anyway if you want to try this mind-wear on for a day or so, let me know how it goes. If you’ve already been wearing this mind garment for a long time, congratulations.
Try to have some fun. Do fun things. Do fun things that you like. Don’t do, as in procrastinate, shitty things that are no fun. You do fun things all day and the rest of your life doesn’t mean shit.
Party amidst the ruins.
The Titanic is going down real slow, and you’re on board with everyone else. You have a drink in one hand and a joint in the other. There’s a gorgeous woman on top of your hard cock, bouncing up and down and moaning. You’ll be dead in five minutes, but it doesn’t matter because you’ll die happy.
Which, in case you wish to know, is another prime goal in life. You can’t usually die an interesting death. That’s the ulitmate goal, the home run. But if you can’t, at least die with a smile. That’s right. One of the goals in life is to die with a smile. And your middle finger in the air, flipping off God for this last indignity.
A lot of people want to know this. The fact is that I am absolutely fascinated by racial issues! And I’m also a race realist for better or for worse. At the very least I would like to point out that at the moment there are some serious behavioral differences among races, ethnic groups, and religious people. I’m not saying what caused it. I’m just saying it’s there.
But you can’t say that nowadays because everyone’s a dindu. Everyone except for straight White men that is. We’re pure evil.
I am absolutely fascinated by Jews! In a way, I am obsessed with them but not in the way that Judeophiles and anti-Semites are. I’m not in either category.
And keep in mind that I was going to convert to Judaism recently! Obviously I’m a huge antisemite if I was going to convert! I had a Jewish girlfriend and I told her I wanted to convert and she was going to help me. I have no idea why I wanted to convert. Probably just to be perverse. Or to stick it to all the idiots screaming antisemite at me.
My Mom was flustered:
Mom: Why do you want to convert to Judaism? Nobody wants to convert to Judaism. If you go to a rabbi and tell him you want to convert, he will look at you like you are nuts and ask, “Why on Earth do you want to be a Jew?” It’s like no sane person would actually want to be a Jew.
Me: I don’t know, Mom. I just want to be a Jew. Xxxxx is Jewish and I want to convert for her. She’s going to help me convert.
Mom: Well, another thing. You’re going to get a lot of prejudice. A lot of people are going to hate you. There will be discrimination. You want to be discriminated against? Why?
Me: I don’t care about discrimination, Mom. A lot people act like they hate me anyway. So not much will change.
(Shakes her head like I’m out of my mind.)
I am also absolutely fascinated by antisemitism. I had no negative feelings towards Jews at all until I was 44, and I started to find out what they were really like. But I had been around them most of my life. Now that I look back, they were pretty typically Jewish, but for some reason that never bothered me at the time.
I was always mystified. “Why on Earth to people hate the Jews?” I simply couldn’t figure it out. We were brought up in this silly Judeophilic family. Both of my parents had grown up with Jews and had many Jewish friends. Every time the subject of Jews came up, my parents acted like they were the greatest thing since Kleenex. They got these huge smiles on their faces, and it was like the Jews were some sort of super-race. Which of course is exactly what Jews think.
I still find antisemitism absolutely fascinating. I still wonder why on Earth people hate Jews. Why did they hate them in the past? Why did they hate them in Europe during World War 2? What did Jews act like back then?
Why were they hated and persecuted in Europe in the Middle Ages, Renaissance and Early Middle Ages? Why on Earth did they get thrown out of 109 countries? How did Jews behave back then? What could they possibly have done to get tossed out of nation after nation? I’m baffled.
The antisemites will say it’s because Jews are pure evil. Well, I’m not buying that, sorry.
Everyone else will say that Jews were dindus who dindu nuffin, and everyone just picked on them for no reason at all and scapegoated them when bad times hit. For some reason this doesn’t resonate much with me, though this is the only view you are allowed to have, as it’s the only (((approved view))).
If you meet a guy who tells you he’s been to 109 bars in your city, and he gets thrown out of every bar for absolutely no reason at all, what do you think? Is he really getting thrown out for no reason at all? Yeah right.
If you meet a guy who tells you he’s lived in 109 cities and towns all over the world, and everywhere he goes, everyone hates him, and they get together and try to throw him out of town for absolutely no reason at all, what do you think? Yeah right. I’m sure you got thrown out for no reason, dude!
I also find Blacks fascinating. Unfortunately, I am also absolutely fascinated by anti-Black racism. Why do people hate Blacks? What’s the reason? Its’ fascinating! Why, why, why, why? Racists will say it’s because Blacks are pure evil, but I’m not buying it.
Blacks and antiracists will say it’s because people hate them because they’re different and how they look. I’m not buying that either. Forget it. No one is innocent. Remember when Ronald Biggs said that? He was right.
They will say, like the Jews, that racism against Blacks is so unfathomable that it is basically a mental illness. You’d have to be crazy to hate Black people. The unspoken assumption here is that Black people are dindus who dindu nuffin because if they did do bad things, racism against them wouldn’t be completely insane. See?
Well, that definitely lets Black people off the hook, but I’m not buying it. I’ve been observing racism and racists for much of my life, and I assure you they’re not nuts. Racism is not a mental disorder in any of the DSM’s, though there were efforts by antiracist clinicians to get it into DSM-5. The American Psychiatric Association found this so ridiculous that I don’t believe they even bothered to discuss it.
And they talked about some pretty weird stuff like Hebephilia, a preference for pubescent-aged minors. The APA agreed that Hebephilia was absolutely not a mental disorder. Not only that but they said it wasn’t even abnormal. It was perfectly normal to get aroused by minors of that age. Now if they won’t list Hebephilia for Chrissake, how the Hell are they going to list racism? They’re not, because racists aren’t nuts.
Sure, some crazy people are racists, but it’s not the racism that’s making them nuts. More like the other way around.
Now you might think I am letting racists off the hook, right? Nope, not at all. To me, racism is not a mental illness. It’s not a question of sane vs. crazy. Neither is psychopathy. I don’t buy that psychopaths are nuts either. Forget it.
Instead racism and psychopathy are questions of good versus evil.
Psychopaths aren’t nuts, they’re just bad, or evil if you will. And racists aren’t nuts either. I see racism as a moral question. I believe that true, pure, hardcore racism is bad. It’s like a sin. Racists are acting bad. It’s like a form of evil. It’s not nuts to hate a whole race of humans, but to me it does seem wrong. As in morally wrong.
If you do that, you’re bad. You’re a bad person, at least in a sense. Now a lot of us are bad people to one degree or another. I’m not here to moralfag on people. But it’s better to be more good than bad. And if you are racist, you are being bad in that sense. If you want to be good instead, quit hating whole races.
Now I have no idea why, but Black people will not accept that racism is a form of evil or bad behavior. Nope, it has to be a form of insanity. This is possibly because if you say racism is bad or evil, it implies that the racist has some valid reason to feel this way, but it’s more that he needs to control himself and act good instead of bad.
The race question in the US, like the Jewish Question, is completely insane. You’re either a hardcore racist where you hate Blacks and think they are evil, in which case you are a White Supremacist, White Nationalist, or just a racist. That seems like a crazy position, and I don’t like to go to boards like that. I don’t like to see all that hate against Blacks. It’s upsetting.
Ok, so overt extreme racism bothers you. Good for you. That means you have to take the other default position, which is that Blacks are dindus, everybody’s always picking on them, and all of the many problems of the Black community are 100% due to White racism and not even 1% the fault of Blacks. Wouldn’t it be nice if it were true? But it’s not. It’s just not.
Well, those are your two positions.
Pick your poison. I’d like to choose a position halfway in between, sort of the Bill Cosby/Pat Moynihan position. Cosby argues that Black culture is the part of almost all Black problems. Those Blacks who are creating these problems are simply part of a bad culture. This culture causes them to act bad and do bad things.
I’ll go along with that. But if I do, I get tossed out of the second group (antis) and into the first group, the White Supremacists. Who I frankly despise.
So that’s what I am trying to do here. Work out a position on Jews, Blacks, and everyone and everything else that is opposed to the extremism of both the Left and the Right. Call it the Realism position.