Ronnie Milsap/Kris Kristofferson and Rita Coolidge, “Please Don’t Tell Me How the Story Ends

 

“Please Don’t Tell Me How the Story Ends,” by Ronny Milsap. Supposedly a big hit in 1974, except I’ve never even heard of it! There’s also a Willie Nelson version.

The song itself was written by Kris Kristofferson, the great songwriter. I believe he wrote it for Ronnie Milsap. Here’s Kris Kristofferson and Rita Coolidge performing it live. What’s odd about this performance is that they performed this just as their marriage was ending. Look in Rita’s eyes. Hell, look in Kris’ eyes.  They both look sad, but Rita looks sad as Hell. It took her a long time to get over Kris Kristofferson. That’s why she was single for so long after she broke up with him. Wasn’t she beautiful though?

See how Kris is dressed? See how his hair is cut? That’s how we wore our hair and dressed in the 1970’s. Faggy shirts, faggy pants, faggy long hair, the whole faggy nine yards. We even sort of acted like fags. Well, just a little bit. More like Mick Jagger/Iggy Pop pure androgynes if you catch my drift. Women really went for pure androgynes like that bigtime.

The idea back then was dress like a fag, sort of act like a fag (but not too much), play your cards right, add in some good looks and killer game, and you’ll get lots of pussy! So that’s what we did. We dressed like a bunch of faggots, acted a little tiny bit faggy, and, well, some of us…got lots of pussy! And almost none of us were the slightest bit gay either! Because you know, that was a bridge too far back then. As it should be.

I swear men will do anything women demand they do to get laid. If women made us stand on our head for two hours while counting backwards from 100 in order to get laid, a lot of us idiots would probably just do it. The feminists have got it all wrong. The women have us by the balls, not the other way around. They write the rules, we play the game. They can change the rules all the want, and we’ll follow like pathetic puppy dogs. When you’re a pussy addict, the pussy dealers (the women) can play you like a fiddle. And most of us fool men will do anything for a fix, just like any old addict.

C’est la vie!

Game/PUA: Are Asian Men Cucked? Are They Alphas or Betas?

Vicmund the Han:  Hey Rob, are Asian men cucked? Are they Alphas?

Asian men are pigs! Nah, they’re not cucked at all, and in Asia, they have set up a system where they are seen as Alphas by the women.

However, the mass Beta-ization of young Japanese men in the form of the Hikkimoris and their inevitable rejection by Japanese women seems to be grinding a hole in that model.

Here in the West, I am not sure. The older men are complete pigs and act very Alpha. The younger men still act quite Alpha if they remain deep within their traditional cultures. I went to some Asian markets in Mountain View when I was there a few years ago. These markets were filled with young Chinese men and women. The young men were very masculine, almost stoic, and the women followed suit, being very feminine and falling submissively behind their Alpha boyfriends. As the world is meant to be. But these Chinese young people were still very deep in Chinese culture, still speaking the language, possibly being immigrants, etc.

For the rest of Asian men who are more assimilated, they have an Alpha mindset due to their pig cultures, but to their women, they seem Beta physically compared to White and Black men. Many of their women are marrying out either due to seeing their men as Beta in the West or disgust over the pig nature of so many Asian men: “White men treat us better.”

I don’t think they’re cucked at all, though. Hell no. Their cultures are too piggish to get cucked, and that is something I respect about Asian men very much. For White men, cuckdom was sadly a pretty natural fit after decades of Beta-ization by White feminized and feminist culture. Black and Hispanic men will be very late to cuckdom too, if they ever go over at all.

The Asian, Black, and Hispanic men will be some of last men to be felled by feminist societal lumberjacks sawing down the titans of patriarchy to go crashing down into the woods where the former giants lie in pathetic Betatude on the floor of the world to be walked over by any and all who stroll their way.

Repost: Alt Left: Black Males and Testosterone: Evolution and Perspectives

Black Males and Testosterone: Evolution and Perspectives

Repost from the old blog. Interesting stuff.

Development of agriculture in modern Blacks also seems to have led to high testosterone levels. Groups with the highest testosterone in the world today are primitive agriculturalists.

Hunter-gatherers tend to have lower testosterone. This is because in hunter-gatherer society, women need men to survive. So they  grab one pretty quickly and get married.

In primitive agricultural societies, women do not need men, since they can farm on their own. So they can afford to be choosy. These societies have tended to develop in a polygynous way, where a few high-ranking males monopolize most of the females, and the rest of the guys get none. It’s kind of like high school, except it keeps going for your whole life.

Sub-Saharan Blacks are highly polygynous, and this resulted in intense competition for fewer women and selection for very robust male body types. SS Blacks are more robust than Whites on all variables. In Namibia, the polygynous Kavango have much higher testosterone than the much less polygynous !Kung.

Young Black males have higher levels of active testosterone than European and Asian males. Asian levels are intermediate to Blacks and Whites, but Asians have lower levels of a chemical needed to convert testosterone to its active agent, so effectively they have lower levels. Androgen receptor sensitivity is highest in Black men, intermediate in Whites and lowest in Asians.

US Blacks have the highest rate of prostate cancer on Earth, and the levels in African Blacks may be just as high.

Blacks do not retain high testosterone throughout life.

Blacks have much higher testosterone levels than Whites from age 7-24. After 24, the difference starts shrinking, and by the early 30′s, it is gone. In later years, White men have higher testosterone than Black men. This makes it very difficult if not impossible to explain differing behavioral variables, including higher rates of crime and aggression, in Black males over the age of 33 on the basis of elevated testosterone levels.

Higher testosterone levels are linked to violent behavior. High testosterone results in lower IQ in males but better fighting and mating skills. Interestingly, the black male IQ is 83 and black female IQ is 87.

By the same token, Black females earn 99% of what White females earn when they are employed, implying either than White racism is minor in the US against Black females, or whatever racism exists is being effectively countered by diversity goals, affirmative action and whatnot.

Testosterone is an interesting hormone. A little extra testosterone makes a man – good visuospatial skills, etc. Lots of extra testosterone is too much of a good thing – it lowers IQ.

In the UK, young Black females have higher IQ’s than young Black males. However, Black females also have higher testosterone than White females.

Black boys’ exposure to high testosterone begins in the womb. Black mothers’ wombs have higher testosterone, and this feeds to the fetus.

Assuming that higher Black testosterone levels are a causative agent in Black crime, aggression and lowered IQ, experimental interventions could be tried: two pills – first one pill to lower testosterone to Black fetus’s brains by 20%, and possibly another pill to lower Black infant testosterone by 20% – could be beneficial. Such an intervention could possibly raise Black male IQ and decrease Black male crime.

Of course, in our insane PC anti-racist society, such interventions are banned now and forevermore as “racist.”

Repost: Get Small Or Die

Repost from the old site. Discusses why people in very hot climates evolve to be short and dark-skinned. It’s that or die, real simple.

Get Small Or Die

Why are Pygmies (a tiny Negroid people living in Central Africa) so small?

Same reason folks living in tropical rainforests all over the world tend to be small. In that environment, it’s get small or die. Real simple. Understand, pilgrim?

A tropical rainforest is an unusual place. It’s not 115 in the shade like the deserts of the Middle East. It’s more like 80-90 all year round. While it’s not extremely hot, it does have very high humidity – close to 100%. That creates a serious problem with cooling off.

At lesser humidity, you sweat like a pig and the lesser humidity allows the sweat to evaporate. As it evaporates, the sweat cools. That’s how you cool off. A similar cooling by evaporation mechanism is used to cool off your refrigerator.

When the humidity gets near 100%, your sweat stops evaporating. You can sweat all day and nite and it doesn’t do much good. Our body temperature of 98.6 runs the risk of rising, even past the survival point of 107-108.

It’s true that Pygmies sweat a lot, but not enough to save their hides.

As the website explains better than I can:

First, the surface area of a small body is greater in relation to its volume.

It is a mathematical fact: if cube A in Fig. 1.4 is 1 centimeter along each side and cube B is 2 centimeters, then A’s surface area is one-quarter that of B, but its volume is eight times smaller.

Heat is produced in the mass of the body, particularly in the liver and muscles, and is lost through the surface; if the latter is larger relative to body mass because a person is small, heat loss is easier and cooling more efficient. In a warm and humid environment, it is best to be small.

Next, Pygmies extend less effort because they are smaller. If you need to use have lots of energy, it’s better to be smaller, because you need to utilize less energy to keep moving if you are smaller. Marathoners tend to be short. It takes less effort to move a smaller body around than it takes to move a big body around, which is why smaller cars get better mileage than bigger ones.

If you are transporting small loads, a pony is a better way to do it. You need a horse for a large load, just like you need an 18 wheeler for big hauls. The fact that a pony is better for the small stuff is why it was used in the Pony Express. They produce more energy per food unit consumed, the same way a Honda gets more energy miles per unit of food gas than a Hummer does.

Pygmies are excellent at dissipating heat and expertly adapted to living in the jungle where there is low carbohydrate and protein reserve. They’re sort of the human Priuses of the jungle.

No one knows how long Pygmies have been evolving. Some say that tropical rainforests have only been around for 5,000 years or less. I disagree. Some gene studies show that Pygmies and other Africans may have split as far back as 70,000 years before present (YBP).

The main problem here is a lack of fossils in the rainforest. Things decay so fast there that we hardly find the bones of anything there. However, there have been skulls found around Central African Republic and north into the Sahel. Here Negroids (modern Blacks) evolved over the past 6-12,000 years. Prior to that, Africans looked like either Khoisan types or Pygmy types.

Pygmies are very athletic and graceful. A Pygmy can shimmy up a tree 100 feet with striking agility.

Pygmies are not necessarily stupid, though some IQ researchers think that their IQ’s are quite low; there has been only one study, done in 1910. Richard Lynn, a racist but generally a good researcher, feels that the Pygmy IQ may be lower even than the African Black average of 67.

Although Pygmy heads are small, their heads are about as big as ours. Nevertheless, the relationship between head size and IQ is weak. Vietnamese have some of the smallest heads on Earth, and their IQ is 99.5.

Pygmies have the widest noses in the world. A small nose is only useful in cold weather. With a small nose, the air inhaled has time to heat up before it reaches the lungs. Air is already warm in the rainforest, so there is no need to heat it up with a nose filter, so a wider nose is better. The wide noses of other Africans may have a similar evolutionary explanation.

Racist idiots like to dog on people for being short. There are short people everywhere there are tropical forests. Examples are the peoples of southern India, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Central American and Amazonian Indians. But the Pygmies are the smallest of all.

Alt Left: A Look at the IQ’s of Three Famous Black Rappers

Bernarobert Lindsanders:

What do you estimate the IQ of this guy is? His name is Lil Pump, and he makes the most vapid, trashy music there is. Oh, and he’s a Trump supporter.

https://youtu.be/4LfJnj66HVQ

Lil Pump recently took a Mensa test in college and it showed he has an IQ of 142! Jesus Christ! He’s almost as smart as Robert Lindsay. And that’s pretty smart!

He’s goddamned genius! I told ya.

If I were administering the test though, I would have subtracted at least 10 from his score for supporting Trump. I believe that’s standard best practice when administering these tests nowadays.

Bernarobert Lindsanders:

What about this obvious intellectual giant, Daniel Hernandez, aka “6ix9ine”?

https://youtu.be/VDa5iGiPgGs

Actually, 6ix9ine has a very low IQ of 63. He’s been diagnosed with mild mental retardation. I have to doubt that figure though. It seems way off. Mostly it just sees too high, don’t you think?

That proves what I’ve always thought – that most rapper and their fans are pretty near-retarded. I’m not sure if the music actually makes you retarded de novo or if it’s self-selection whereby the dumber you are, the more attracted you to this fucktarded music. It’s a chicken of the egg problem, and I’m not sure what the answer is. But I’m inclined towards the de novo because I swear to God, I could literally feel by IQ drop a point or two after watching these videos.

He’s in prison where he belongs now.

Bernarobert Lindsanders:

Finally, these big-brained queens:

https://youtu.be/hsm4poTWjMs

This ratchet named Cardi B is smarter than you think. She took AP classes in high school. How many Blacks do that? Not too many. She was also on the honor roll.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Inner Landscape of the Psychopath

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 90 IQ Person

I know that your average White person attending a Trump rally had an IQ of 90 though. That’s within the normal range of course, but it’s in the Low Normal rather than the High Normal range. But as I note, even people in the Low Normal range can seriously kick ass in life. Check out James Oglivy, IQ 94.

Portrait of a 90 IQ Person – the Mexican-American or Hispanic American

It’s also right hanging on the bear edge of normal. To give you an idea of what a 90 IQ person acts like, your average Hispanic in the US has a 90 IQ. So picture your average Mexican or Mexican-American in the US, and there you have it. That’s 10 points lower than US Whites, and those 10 points are glaringly obvious when you spend a lot of time around them. I often characterize Hispanics as “not stupid at all, but not that smart either.” They’re not “dumb.” Your average Black is actually dumb or appears that way. Your average Hispanic instead seems “not dumb, but not that smart either.”

People did remark on the average 90 IQ of Trump rally goers. Honestly, that 90 IQ is probably absolutely normal for your average working class White person, so it all adds up. They probably have IQ’s around that level.

Limitations of a 90 IQ

A 90 IQ can limit you in life. You are going to have one Hell of a time getting a university degree at that IQ, and indeed, most people in that range do not have a BA. But quite a few have qualified for shorter 1 or 2 year trade degrees and credentials, which are generally easier than a BA. Just forget about a Masters or a Doctorate. Forget about being a physician or attorney, or anything that requires a doctorate (dentist, pharmacist, veterinarian). But many other fields are wide open to someone like that.

Guess What? Criminals Are Stupid! Duh.

On the other hand, your average White American has an IQ of 100.

Incarcerated Whites have IQ’s 10 points below the average at 90. This is mirrored in other races. The average Black IQ is 87, but the average incarcerated Black has an IQ of 77. That’s pretty damn low.

This just goes to show you that not only are criminals basically stupid, the very idea of being a criminal in the first place (and especially a lousy enough one to get caught) is pretty damn stupid.

Even a lot of serial killers are not very smart.

The Pig Farm Killer in Canada has an IQ of 81. The famous duo of Henry Lucas and Otis Toole, who killed far fewer victims than they claimed (Lucas claimed hundreds of victims) were none too smart. This is apparent in any interview with them.

I doubt if the very prolific Black serials just caught have high IQ’s. Samuel Little comes to mind, along with Coral Watts. I think Watts had a 73 IQ.But he killed ~100 women and got away with it for a very long time.

Sure, there are smart crooks, but it’s exaggerated. White collar fraudsters also tend to be intelligent. In general, smarter criminals tend to get away with their crimes a lot longer, and quite a few had long criminal careers uncaught during which they piled up a lot of victims. Ted Bundy, IQ 135, is a good example. Edmund Kemper, the matricide killer in Santa Cruz, has a 145 IQ. There are videos of him on the Net. You can watch them and see how a 145 IQ  person comes across. He seems pretty damn smart and especially, he’s very fast with a rapid brain.

Jason’s IQ

Jason just reported that his IQ is 92, which was about what I thought. I also think he’s gotten smarter since he’s been here because I think this blog pushes his brain past where he normally pushes it. And he’s definitely been able to boil down and wrap up some of the fairly complex ideas we toss around here. A site like is probably very stimulating for someone at an IQ of this level. A fair amount of it will be over their heads, but they’ll understand enough to get some real meat out of it.

That actually sounds just about right. It’s absolutely in the normal range and nations with IQ’s in that range, like the Balkans, Greece, Turkey, Costa Rica, Chile, Argentina, Georgia, and Armenia normally do fairly well. It’s certainly high enough to sustain modern civilization. So you have a normal IQ, an IQ within the normal human range. And what’s wrong with that. Most people are average. Average in humans means most of them.

What you want to worry about it being below average. Obviously, everyone cannot be above average. In fact, only 25% can be strictly, speaking as the 25th to 75th percentile defines the normal range for most things. Above average is 76th percentile up, and below average is 24 and below. Jason is in the 30th percentile, which is absolutely within the normal human range IQ range of 25th to 75th percentiles. I’d be concerned if he was below average, but as he’s perfectly within the average range, I’m fine with him.

You might be interested to know that Oglivy, the most famous ad-man of all time, had an IQ right in that range, 92-94. So you see, people in Jason’s range can rise to great, even ultimate heights in the world, particularly in the world of business, where they can definitely excel. They can also become fabulously wealthy, as Oglivy was a very rich man. And they can be the ultimate social actors, and Oglivy had social skills to die for. All in all, it’s a perfectly adequate IQ to reach the ultimate heights in life in achievement, wealth, and the social world.

Alt Left: The World the Deep State Creates: Where Reality Is Fiction, Fiction is Reality, and Hundreds of Millions are Dangerously Mentally Ill

There’s Actual Reality, which we don’t see a lot of, but at least when we do, we know it’s real, or we think we do.

And then there’s the Fake Reality created by the Deep State and the West with the connivance of the media where things happened that never occurred, things that happened never did, where things that happened in one way actually happened in another, where the people who did things are not the real people who did them but patsies instead, where there are fake guilty parties for fake events for fake victims killed by fake substances they were never exposed to.

Where there are calls for trial and punishment of people who were framed for things they did not do, where victims are directed to the wrong perpetrators and urged to attack them, where public opinion is stirred and aroused by what boils down to a pile of fakery.

Or a Hollywood movie. Or a book. Or a TV show. The stuff that happens there isn’t real. The Deep State, the media and the West create a fake reality that is like a movie or a book, a fictional reality, and they overlay it on top of actually existing reality, so we think the movie or book or fictional world is the real thing.

What this boils down is that they are making it so we can’t tell the difference between fiction and reality, lies and truth, reality and unreality, existence and nonexistence, guilt and innocence, dreams and waking reality. What you end up with is a human that is a bundle of wild confusion that barely knows its ass from a hole in the ground because they’ve been brainwashed so thoroughly.

This is an easy object to mold for all sorts of other nefarious projects where you can pump new lies into these subject’s heads and get them aroused and agitated about new fictional worlds, while pointing at the real world, saying it’s not real, and saying that everyone who figures out that the real world is real is a mentally ill conspiracy theorist. This has the disturbing effect of labeling anyone who can tell reality from fiction as mentally ill, paranoid, and deranged. The only way to be sane is to say fiction is reality and reality is fiction. In other words, the only way to be “sane” in such a world is to be crazy!

And if you try to “go sane” and get away from the mass psychosis you are thrown into, you get the ultimate gaslighting, reputation and career destruction, ridicule, etc.

This is truly a world turned upside down. It’s Wonderland. A whole lot of stuff out there you think is real isn’t even there at all. And a whole lot of stuff you laugh and say isn’t out there is sitting right in front of your nose.

It’s the creation of mass mental disorder, delusion, and psychosis on the level of hundreds of millions of people at once, all with the same symptoms, and then giving militaries mass weaponry to blow things up and kill lots of people based on what are psychotic delusions. So hundreds of thousands of people die because hundreds of millions of people in the West are delusional and threw bombs at these people when they were in the midst of a full blown psychosis.

The West ends up being, in effect, not just mentally ill but dangerously mentally ill. Or criminally mentally ill. Those are the most disturbed criminals of all. In California they go to Atascadero. Whole societies are dangerously and criminally mentally ill and attack hundreds of thousands of innocent people due to crazy ideas in their heads. Most of the West ends up deserving to be locked away for life in Atascadero with John Hinkley, Arthur Brenner, and the rest of the crazy maniacs.

Alt Left: Paranoia, or How the Deep State Works

Basically, if they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers! Follow?

Say in the Beirut blast, the wrong questions would be endless questions about the nature of the fertilizer that blew up, who left it there, who was negligent, or if you want to go full conspiracy theory, questions about the Hezbollah missile dump, how it got there, how it stayed so long without detection, where Hezbollah has other dumps, who they paid off, on and on.

Then onto analyses of the blasts and whether this is typical of fertilizer or missiles blowing up, endless comparisons of fertilizer blasts and ammo dumps or missile dumps blowing up, not to mention fireworks factory explosions because remember the first blast was a warehouse full of fireworks right next to the fertilizer.

Whether the Lebanese people realize how Hezbollah destroyed Lebanon with their missile dump going off, how this ties in to Lebanese state instability, to questions about needing new governments, to questions about shutting Hezbollah out of new governments due to missile dump negligence. To make matters worse, new questions suing the port authority of the Lebanese government for storing the fireworks, missiles or fertilizers without supervision, how we need to make these people for all the harm they caused, etc.

All of these questions are about things that never even happened! They’re about events in the Alternate Universe that the Western media creates about so much of what goes on in the world.

You are literally asking the wrong questions? You’re not asking any questions about what really happened. Instead you are asking about nonsense that never even happened? If you’re asking endless questions about nonsense, there’s not much need to care about the answers people come up with to their nonsensical questions. The questions are false, so the answers will be false too.

This is how paranoia (the real kind, that everyone needs to have), conspiracy theory (which is almost normative reality at this point), and the Deep State, which gets you asking the fake questions in the first place so they don’t have to worry about the answers work?

Remember that:

If they can keep you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.

One of the basic laws of Paranoia 101.

Repost: A Look at the Cluster B Personality Disorders: Narcissistic, Psychopathic, Borderline and Histrionic Personality Disorders

This is an old post that people are commenting on. I just reread it and it’s so good that I thought it was good for a repost. I’m actually shocked at how good it is. I’m reading it and I’m thinking, “Wait. I wrote this? No way, forget it. I’m not that good.” But maybe so, eh?

Rahul: Have you met someone with multiple Cluster B personality disorders?

Nope. I have never even met one person with a diagnosed Cluster B disorder, much less multiple ones. Each disorder is its own syndrome, and I doubt if many people get diagnosed with multiple Cluster B disorders.

But I have met people who I thought were psychopaths or had psychopathic traits or Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD).

I’ve met people with obvious Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD).

I’ve never met anyone with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), but I have met people who I believe had it, and my friends and relatives knew people who had it.

I’ve never met a Histrionic Personality Disorder (HPD) or anyone who I thought had it.

These are the “Insufferable Asshole/Total Fucking Bitch” Personality Disorders. They can also be called the “Satanic Monster Straight from Hell” Disorders. For the most part, from my vantage as an introvert, most all of these people are anywhere from lousy to out and out horrible people. All the men are assholes. And all the women are psychobitches.

The common denominator in the Cluster B disorders is drama and chaos. All of these disorders generate large amounts of both. Another common trend is profound selfishness or self-centeredness. A lot don’t care much about most other people. And even when they do, they typically don’t treat them very well.

Cluster B types are extremely crafty, and many hazy Borderline women with Borderline traits without the full disorder are able to function quite well in society, albeit their personal lives are typically mired in drama and chaos, the two hallmarks of BPD.

These women are called “High-Conflict Women,” and they are literally everywhere, walking landmines stalking our society in plunging necklines and yoga pants. They’re bait, the flashing lure of the femme fatale darting through the human current, daring you to bite.

A female psychologist runs a website warning men about these psychobitches. The page I saw ran to 500 pages. These women typically hook up with good, decent, nice men. These men are very good people. I suppose you could call them nice guys except that the term has been so abused nowadays. These bitches attach to these men like remoras and literally suck the life out of them like any parasite does.

The therapist states that there is basically no cure for High-Conflict Women, or if they do get cured, you never know when it might happen, so you should not hang around suffering for a day that may never come. Recovery, if at all, may be decades into the future.

Why they attach to these good, kind, decent men is unknown, but they probably think these guys are suckers or doormats for their abuse. Face it, very few hard masculine men are going to cotton to these harridans. These women don’t end up with typical macho men because most of these guys would probably just kill these fucking bitches.

These Cluster B types can be very crafty and are often able to control their behavior very well. They are like the boss who sucks up to her superiors and then turns around and beats up her underlings.

Many Cluster B’s are “controlled” Cluster B’s such as “controlled psychopaths,” etc. The controlled psychopath type spends their life riding on the edge of the law, sometimes barely slipping over. Yet old studies show that most psychopaths never spend a day in a jail or prison. Instead they are what I would call “legal criminals.” They’re slippery as eels and oily as kerosene.

“Legal criminals” as in, say, our President for instance, who is absolutely a case of severe NPD. In fact he has a malign variety of NPD called Malignant Narcissism, the most extreme type of NPD. This is narcissism that has gone so far off the rails that it is moving out of narcissism and heading off towards psychopathy.

One famous clinician from the psychoanalytic days described Malignant Narcissism as “pure evil.” Indeed, a few serial killers have been Malignant Narcissists. I think the best diagnosis for Ted Bundy is not psychopathy but Malignant Narcissism, and I am not alone.

So our great MAGA president has literally the exact same mental disorder as Ted Bundy has. Let that sink in. Donald Trump is Ted Bundy. Granted, Trump is a controlled variety, a “legal criminal,” and Bundy was a severely uncontrolled variety, but they both have the same disorder.

Oh one more thing. It is universally acknowledged among clinicians that if Malignant Narcissists are anything, they are dangerous. Every one of them, no exceptions. So Mr. Trump is a dangerous man, but most Americans can probably figure that out by now.

The two disorders, narcissism and psychopathy, are on a continuum, with one view having psychopathy as an extreme version of narcissism.

Histrionic PD has typically been thought of as “psychopathy in the female.” This is correct as psychopathy in women is not nearly as bad as it is in men, and it typically results in this lousy woman called “the whore.”

Indeed, 45% of all female prostitutes are diagnosed psychopaths, which should not surprise you if you know anything about these women. Most prostitutes are a step away from being out and out thieves, and quite a few of them actually are small time thieves. A thief and a whore, same thing in my book! But the thievery occurs in the context of sex and a lot of alcohol and drug abuse, and charges are rarely filed.

They’re the bitches you go out on a date with, and when it’s over, you are $50 poorer (which you had no intention to spend – she just weaseled it out of you), and you didn’t even get laid. And yes, that sentence is autobiographical.

An argument has been made recently that BPD is simply psychopathy in the female. Traditionally it was thought of as “narcissism in the female.” Men get NPD, women get BPD, but it’s the same disorder just presenting differently between the sexes. As I alluded above, HPD has often been thought of as “psychopathy in the female.” Men get psychopathy, women get HPD,  but once again it’s the same animal varying by gender. This HPD female psychopath is the femme fatale or the basic “whore” personality.

They’re bad human beings, but psychopathy in the male is so much worse because psychopathic men are so much more physically dangerous, whereas women are not particularly violent physically. Psychopathic men cause far more damage to society than psychopathic women do. Women can be verbally and spiritually violent, and they can kill a man’s soul if he doesn’t toughen up enough, but they are typically not physically violent. Women almost seem to have an inborn aversion to physical violence. They nearly recoil at the mention of it.

Whores just lighten your wallet, often unsuspectingly. Male psychopaths, at least the uncontrolled type, are often literally monsters who commit a tremendous amount of aggression; abuse other humans wantonly, callously, and habitually; and feel not one iota of guilt about any of it. A female psychopath might take your money, but a male psychopath might take your life.

Cluster B folks are extremely manipulative, so they are often able to hide their disorder while at work. Narcissists are experts at this, and psychopaths are always hiding their illness by the very nature of the condition. They don’t call it the “mask of sanity” for nothing. Poor functioning BPD’s often cannot work at all. But some very bad ones are able to control the illness the whole time they are at work, yet the minute they get home, the psychobitch comes out to play, and they abuse, manipulate, gaslight, and generally drive insane any other main person in their lives, typically a husband or boyfriend.

I had a female physician client like this. She had an extremely kind face, and she rescued stray animals, especially cats. She was a good doctor and a model of sanity at the hospital, but the minute she got home, the human black widow spider leaped out and sucked her husband into her devious crazy-making nightmare of a web.

That’s why I don’t have a lot of sympathy for these “Asshole/Bitch Disorders.” When I realized that they could control it completely for eight hours at work only to unleash their terror and entropy the moment they walk into the front door to come home, I lost sympathy for them.

I thought, “They can control it. They’re just choosing not to.” And indeed, most Cluster B’s very much enjoy being horrible. They get a kick out of it.

Narcissists love to be assholey jerks. It’s entertainment to them.

Psychopaths of course live to prey on other humans, often abusing them sadistically for sheer kicks.

BPD women can be profoundly mean, and I think they might get off on being superbitches. They also seem to actually enjoy being crazy. I had a BPD client, the most severe case of BPD I have ever seen, who honestly didn’t want to give up her disorder. I finally concluded that she actually enjoyed being nuts. Maybe it’s exciting? My sister knows BPD’s very well, as she has dealt with many of them as part of an outpatient program she goes to. She affirmed to me that BPD women very much enjoy being crazy.

Female Histrionic PD femme fatales and Mata Hari types exploit, manipulate, connive, con, and in one way or another steal from others, particularly their male partners who are driven to Hell and back. I’ve never known one, but I imagine they get a lot of kicks out of this wild, sadistic, exploitative, and at times psychotic condition. They certainly lead “wild lives.” They probably get about as much fun out of being wicked HPD’s as male psychopaths get out of being sociopathic. Apparently a sociopathic lifestyle is quite a kick.

I believe that what women want most in life is “peak emotional experiences.” So I just answered Freud’s baffled question. The emotions can be good, bad, or ugly; up, down, or all around, this way or that way; forwards, backwards, or standsill. It doesn’t particularly matter.

They’re all peak experiences, either good or bad, and this dramatic feral behavior seems to provide women with what they desire most in life.

If you think about it, women are like drug users. What are “peak emotional experiences?” They are “rushes.” So the woman lives for the rush, up or down doesn’t particularly matter, it’s all wildness and living life to the fullest as they see it.

And what happens when we take drugs? “Rushes.” They can be good, bad, or six ways from Sunday, especially when you get into the hallucinogens, but face it, it’s always a rush one way or another when you are high on dope. Without the rush, dope isn’t even dope. It’s nothing, a handful of leaves, sand, or water in your hands. Dope is literally the rush itself.

Rushes don’t have to be good. Even bad rushes can be good if you like it wild. The fear of the bad trip is part of the rush. Live dangerously. Roll your own cigarettes. Drink your scotch straight. Die with your boots on. These are the ways that men live wild lives, but women have their own version, which is more based on wild emotions themselves as described above.

Bottom line is that Cluster B people get along great in our society because they are extroverted and often successful. Many have excellent people skills. They are expert manipulators and they can get a lot done and achieve a lot of things, albeit sometimes via nefarious means. I would say that our culture itself is essentially a Sociopathic or Cluster B Culture. So America is a Cluster B country then.

Despite their success it’s obvious to me that almost all Cluster B’s are either an insufferable assholes, sheer monsters, or psychobitches from Hell at least part the time if not most of the time. They’re not very nice people, to put it mildly.

But our society likes angry, aggressive, Type A extroverted assholes. We are an “asshole society.” Look at our president. Real close. Trump is is us, me and you and him and her. He’s our reflection in the mirror. He’s all around us every day, everywhere we go. Trump is the quintessential American – the good, the bad, and the ugly, the whole nine yards.

You would think that being a total bitch or a huge raging asshole would get you fired from a few jobs here and there, and sometimes Cluster B’s do lose jobs.

Borderlines can be so disturbed that they can’t work at all.

Almost all narcissists can work and they often rise to high levels in society.

Controlled psychopaths can work and often rise to very high levels. They do tend to get fired more than average, but they usually land on their feet and bounce right back like nothing happened.

Histrionics can definitely work, albeit often at shady jobs. Many prostitutes, porn stars, cam girls, strippers, and so on have Histrionic PD. And if you study the life history of a lot of these women, many of them are lousy people.

Never get involved with a whore or a prostitute. It’s one of the worst mistakes you can make as a man. Some strippers are ok, but even those are often moody and nutty. And they tend to be huge prick teasers. A lot of HPD’s have the callous exploitative character of the prostitute.

A lot of female porn stars seem to be horrible human beings. On the other end, I’ve never known a female porn star. But reading around, many act very bad, and they are often arrested and are in and out of jail, especially after they leave the industry. Many have serious drug problems while working and afterwards. Suicides are surprisingly common. I would not get involved with a porn star if I were you.

Many prostitutes, strippers, and porn stars are low level thieves. Callous, hard, cold thieving bitches. All of these prostitute types are exploitative, mercenary women who regard men as walking ATM’s, and, like all “whore” types, are out to drain your wallet and bank account, run up all your credit cards, and then leave you high and dry, spinning in a circle, feeling like a hurricane just hit you, and thinking, “What was that?” This is exactly the experience many victims of male psychopaths also describe.

Alt Left: Four Types of Transgender People

Interesting post from Claudius about transgenderism. I don’t completely agree with it, but it’s more right than wrong.

Transgenderism is mostly a fad because not all gay men who “transition” become hookers. In fact, many are too ugly and masculine for straight men. These I would call “fad trannies.” Not technically insane though the cult itself is suffering from collective insanity, mostly as a form of political and emotional rebellion against conservatives.

So there are four groups:

  • Gay hookers
  • SJW gay fags
  • Autogynephiliacs
  • The vanishingly small number of people truly suffering from gender dysphoria

The latter two groups are truly insane, but only the last one is deserving of our sympathy and collective medical and legal effort, to wit, they should be legally considered the gender they feel like and actually be encouraged to take hormones and chop off their dick. I doubt even 0.1% of the population would meet the criteria for real gender dysphoria.

Autogynephiliacs should not be legally considered their gender of choice under any circumstances. Why? Because they are straight and thus attracted to the opposite gender. These trannies are potential rapists of women, although I don’t think they pose an overall large threat to anybody save themselves. But you’re right about them having many comorbid paraphilias. These are truly sick fuckers. Look at ContraPoints’s YouTube channel..

“She” is a lesbian tranny. Lolz.

Also note that the first group, gay hookers, don’t chop off their dick. Almost all tranny prostitutes here, in Thailand, or wherever keep their dick because men like to play with it and sometimes be fucked by it. The economic incentive is quite strong, casting doubt as to whether these tranny hookers ever even had gender dysphoria in the first place.

From what I’ve read, men with gender dysphoria are appalled by their own penis and truly want to get rid of it. The prospect of keeping it to make a few bucks on the side by forming non-emotional relationships with straight men doesn’t add up.

RL: It seems to be an extreme form of homosexuality, and their brains are actually female-shifted. That is, they don’t have female brains or male brains.”

I didn’t know this. Interesting. It matches up with what I said. They are just super-duper gay. I like these trannies. They seem very nice, albeit a bit gold-diggerish, but whatever. I could be friends with these people.

Psychotic autogynephiliacs like ContraPoints or Caitlyn Jenner who killed someone with “her” SUV while escaping paparazzi, Hell no! BTW it was an accident, the SUV crash, but still.

Some Factors in Bullying: Human Sadism and the Desire to Go along with the Group

A nice comment from commenter Tamerlane, expanding on my posts about bullying.

This reminded me of your posts on bullying and in many of them you justified that it is simply human nature, therefore you will never get rid of it. Yes, that is simply a fact and people need to accept it.

However, you overly emphasized that bullying had to do with either the inability and/or refusal to conform to social norms and behaviors. Which I remember thinking was true, but way too myopic. There were simply more factors. Perhaps those other factors did not share as large a percentage in terms of the causes of bullying as the inability and/or refusal to conform to social norms and behaviors, but nevertheless there were more factors that were too significant to dismiss or overlook.

I think with this post you have identified a second major factor. It is sadism. All humans are sadists, just not equally. Like everything else in nature, there is a bell curve distribution with regards to this trait.

To wrap things up, there is a third and final major factor. It is the behavior of humans in groups, i.e. human sociology. One is inclined to go along with the group lest one also becomes a victim. One is inclined to go along with the group if the pack leader (Alpha/most popular individual) is the instigator, lest one risks incurring his/her wrath due to the refusal to conform and therefore loses status in the group.

One is inclined to go along with the group and perhaps even show more cruelty and sadism than what would be considered average in that specific situation in order to gain more social status in order to move up the social hierarchy of that particular group and gain acceptance, and or more power. One is inclined to go along with the group in order to avoid being identified with the bullied and therefore lose group membership and be kicked out and thus become vulnerable to other groups.

So to put it all together:

1) Bullying is caused by the inability and/or refusal to conform to social norms and behaviors. These norms and behaviors can range anything from ethnicity, height, weight, socioeconomic status, social skills, already-perceived lower social status, etc., etc. In this way a target is selected.

2) Humans have a tendency to lord over perceived inferiors and take pleasure in their pain, i.e. sadism. This is a major motivating factor which makes the bullies act on the perceived differences of the target. Sadism gives one delight; makes you feel “big” and “tall”. It boosts your ego.

3) Humans go along with the group even if they may not individually agree with what is taking place due to group dynamics and uncountable other concepts that one can find in a sociology book. Or to put it more bluntly, most people are cattle and will moo with whatever intonation seems right/true/convenient at the moment.

Masculine and Feminine Characters: An Inquiry into Essential Forms

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

Masculine and Feminine Characters: An Inquiry into Essential Forms

By Robert Lindsay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Characters         Masculine*           Feminine* 


Principles

Activity             Active                 Passive

Consciousness Conscious           Unconscious 

Thinking           Objective            Subjective

Genius              Yes                      No

Productivity      Productive         Nonproductive

Awareness          Conscious Mind    Unconscious Mind

Energy               Generative           Receptive

Mind                  Thinking               Feeling

Emotion             Stoic                    Moody

Tactile                Callous                Sensitive

Humor               Slapstick              Irony

Weather             Calm                   Unsettled

Temperature       Cold                    Warm

Graph                Linear                  Scatterplot

Empathy            Poor                     Rich

Pain                   Inflict                   Receive

Confrontation     Forward                Withdrawal

Reaction            Contemplative       Reactive

Style                 Deliberative           Unthinking
 
Intensity            Concentration        Distraction

Denial style        Projection              Fantasy

Egotism style      Narcissism            Histrionic

Pathology           Sociopath              Borderline

Defense             Anger                    Denial

Ego desire          Expansion              Dissolution

Destructive         Other                    Self 

Annihilation        Totalizing               Self only

Depression         Projection              Introjection

Survival             Self                       Others

Reliance             Self                       Others

Criminality         Dangerous             Petty thief

Psychopathy      Violent menace       Prostitute

Compassion       Indifference            Mercy

Wakefulness      Aware                     Unaware

Alertness           Wide Awake            Sleepwalking

Planning            Methodical              Conspiring

Morality             Strict                      Contingent

Aggression         Direct                     Subterfuge

Violence             External                  Internal

Warfare              Bully                      Victim

Hierarchy            Dominant               Submissive

Force                  Blunt                      Subtle

Texture               Harsh                     Smooth

Resistance           Extreme                 Yielding

Linear                 Straight                  Jagged

Presentation        Forthright               Devious

Surface               Clear                      Opaque

Understand         Simple                    Complicated
 
Logic                  Linear                      Circular

Analysis              Logic                       Intuition

Strategy             Straightforward         Wily 

Movement          Stiff                          Flowing

Grain                 Coarse                      Fine

Essence             Sky                           Earth

Instrument         Blunt                        Subtle

Transport           Highway                    Stream

Route                A to B                       Roundabout

Tour                  Autobahn                  Scenic route

Flight                Soar                          Flutter

Hobby               Monomania                Dilettante

Truths               Multiple                     Singular

Theory              Branching                  Obsessive

Fact                  Durable                     Momentary

Interpretation    Nonpersonal              Personal

Manichean         Grey area                 Black and White

Systematics       Categorizing             Noncategorizing

Science             Empirical                  Intuitive

Philosophy         Tough                      Dream State

Ubermensch      More common           Less common

Body                 Hard                        Soft

Tissue               Sinewy                     Fatty

Signal               Weathervane            Antenna

Telepathy           Poor                        Mindreader

Broadcast          Subwoofer                Subliminal 

Travel                Itinerary                   Lark  

Decision            Plotted                      Whimsy

Confusion          Certainty                   Perplexed

Party                 Kegger                      Cocktail  

Social                Optional                    Mandatory

Sex                   Compulsion                Choice

Intellectual         Paradise                    Boredom

Bird                   Hawk                        Hummingbird 
 
Birdsong            Crow                         Warbler 

Love                  Auxiliary                    Requirement 

Danger              Physical                     Psychological 

Grudge              Discard                      Retain  

Jealousy            Weak                         Strong

Armistice           Reconciliation             Cold Peace

Storm               Thunderstorm             Spring Shower

Bipolar              Mania                         Depressive

Alt Left: Civilized and Less Civilized Cultures: Differences in Impulsiveness, Forward Planning (Thinking Ahead), and Deferment to Higher Orders of Logic

Polar Bear: Of course, letting women dominate men is worse. Men should play the role of loving father to women but be damn sure not to let her hold the reigns.

Men have to dominate. Or at least they have to be seen as dominant. Or at the very least, as masculine. One thing I will never do is seriously insult a man’s masculinity. I won’t call a man gay either. I never do that. I don’t call men faggots, even if they are. If they are, it’s just mean, and I don’t torment homosexuals. If they’re not, no matter how wimpy they are, they might attack me. Any man, if you call him a homosexual or attack his masculinity and say he’s not a man, is liable to hit you, or perhaps worse. It’s a perfectly natural, normal, logical, and sensible reaction.

That it’s illegal doesn’t matter. A lot of perfectly normal and sensible reactions are highly illegal. Quite a few of them might land you in prison for life. That’s why you don’t act normal and sensible all the time. At times we must submit to a higher law or at least a higher level of logic. Of course it’s logical to assault or even kill a man who attacks your masculinity or calls you gay! What could be more reasonable than that? On the other hand, if we do that, then a higher level of logic comes in – the logic of the law and society.

And in this case the logic of the law and society trumps the logic of the primal man of which we are no longer. The higher logic says that if we do that, we will probably get caught and sent to jail or possibly prison, maybe for a long time. So in this case, the higher logic predominates.

Probably the main difference between civilized societies and less civilized or uncivilized societies is that the more civilized societies, men tend to defer to the higher law more often.

In a more primitive society a man simply acts on his whims as the primal man inside of him demands. There are few or no higher orders of society or law to constrain him. This is why you see so much crime, violence, homicide, and general disorder in such places. Too much primal, low-level thinking and not enough civilized, higher-level thinking.

This also has to do with impulsiveness. In less civilized places, people are more impulsive. One of the best things that civilization brings is a decrease in impulsiveness. Instead of just getting an impulse and acting on it, people in more civilized places tend to think it over, at least a bit, before they decide whether to act on it or not.

They think, “Suppose I act on this impulse, what will happen then?” If something bad will happen to them if they act on the impulse that is worse than acting on the impulse, then they often will not act on it. This is called forward thinking, thinking ahead, planning, or thinking for tomorrow.

The less civilized people are, the less they think of tomorrow. They can think maybe 24 hours ahead and that’s it, if they can even think for that long. Increased forward planning and thinking ahead is associated with more civilized peoples. Perhaps the most civilized people on Earth, the Asians, think ahead not just in terms of years or even decades, but in terms of centuries or even millennia! Compare that to an Amazonian jungle tribe, perhaps the least civilized people on Earth, where no one thinks beyond the next 24 hours, if that long.

There Is Nothing Worse for a Man Than to Be Dominated and Humiliated by a Woman

Polar Bear: Certain women probably make the best torturers. I’ve never seen men more tortured, unhappy, and hopeless than when dominated by a mean old soul-sucking succubus.

That’s because they’re being dominated by a woman, and there is nothing more humiliating to a man than being dominated by some weak woman. It’s totally pathetic; the most pathetic thing in the universe.

I know I don’t like women insulting my masculinity. The fact that a lot of people used to think I was gay is no matter. I’ve never been an effeminate man.

And the odd thing is that even a guy like that (like me) has and had a strong sense of masculinity, it’s just that most people are too stupid to see it.

I finally realized late in life that most nerds are quite masculine. They’re certainly not effeminate! They act like men, for Chrissake! What does a nerd act like, a man or a woman? Of course he acts like a man. A nerdy, dorky, foolish, idiotic man, but a man nevertheless.

And even men who are not very masculine have a masculine core. I figured this out because I used to have some friends who were not particularly masculine. They were still men inside, they were very goodlooking and also they had high sex drives, so they tended to do very well with women, at least at times.

I remember I brought one guy over to meet my roommate in college. Actually he stayed a weekend once or twice. He spent most of his time hitting a bong, which he did too often. My roommate was a regular guy, and he was disgusted at my friend. At first he asked if he was gay. I laughed and said no. I don’t associate with gay men anyway, and I’ve never had a close gay friend, so he shouldn’t have bothered asking. If you’re a good friend of mine, you’re straight. Well, at least you’re not gay. And if you’re bisexual, you probably won’t be my friend much longer. That doesn’t work at all and it’s weird as Hell to boot.

He looked disgusted again. Then he said, “He’s a wimp!” with complete and utter disgust. I’d never heard anyone call D that, but I had to admit, yeah, he was pretty wimpy. And that was funny because I’d never thought of it before. Yep, now come to think of it, he actually is a wimp. Ha ha.

Thing was D was a player. I’m not sure why, but he was one hell of a goodlooking man, like so many of my male friends.

Anyway, if a guy is a player, I don’t care if he’s a wimp. The player-ness cancels out the wimpiness. If you’re a wimpy player, I’ll buy you a drink, Goddamn it.

Women Have a Hard Time Believing the Truth about Men Because the Truth Will Break Their Hearts

With a lot of us men, even those of us who may be wimpy, soft, or not particularly masculine, it’s as much of an insult to attack our masculinity as it is any he-man, but people can’t seem to figure that out. That’s probably because our internal sense of ourselves as masculine men is different from the image we are putting out there to the world. I’ll wager that most men have an internal view of themselves as masculine men no matter what they act like on the outside.

Women will never understand this, but none of them ever understand men very well anyway. I will say that after age 40, a lot of women start growing a brain and finally figuring us out. I guess after decades of observation, the trends become clear. I think the problem is that we men are not a pretty picture in a lot of ways.

The truth about us men is cruel, brutal, unpleasant, awful, and very hard to swallow. Further, it smashes a lot of women’s fairy tale dreams about us. They want to love us but they can only love us if we fit this fairy tale dream world version of ourselves they’ve set up. The truth about us would crush their dreams and break their hearts. A lot would probably just go lesbian separatist. I think by age 40, a lot of women have just decided that they’re heterosexual, they love us no matter what, that we do have our good sides, at least collectively, and they just accept reality. Men are men, sad but true.

Why Do Goodlooking Men Tend to Have Goodlooking Male Friends?

Why have so many of my male friends so often very goodlooking men? I don’t get it. When younger, I was said to be very goodlooking myself, and I think there may be a tendency for goodlooking men to befriend each other and seek each other out, not because they are secretly gay like the SJW scum and the gay solipsists would say but because birds of a feather and all that.

Do beautiful women tend to have beautiful friends too?

Plus, a goodlooking friend helps you get women. Not only that but if two goodlooking guys are out together, it’s quite possible that you might meet two pretty girls who just maybe want to go off with both of you! It’s happened to me a few times, though I have to admit it’s pretty weird because there’s a tendency to all end up naked together in the same house, even worse room, and worst of all, bed. Not that that’s bad per se, but like I said, it puts you on the spot, and you better perform or else, dammit. I don’t like being put on the spot performance-wise like that. I’ve never been a group sex type, not even a threesome guy.

Closest I ever got was two couples on a bed at once, but we didn’t swap. We each fucked one hottie and watched the other guy fuck the other hottie. It was in a mansion of some Hollywood hotshot guy we were house-sitting for the weekend.

The “Happy Place” for Women is Femininity and Submissiveness

Women really get off sexually on submission, even to the point of enjoying what boils down to degradation and humiliation during sex. One could argue that calling women degrading names is degrading or humiliating behavior, but women sure seem to get off on that. In my experience, it seems to turn them into raving, wild-eyed, half-psychotic, cum-drunk nymphos.

Not to mention the popularity of a lot of sex acts. Sucking cock, getting fucked in the ass (and maybe even getting fucked period), and the popularity of newer acts like slapping, spanking, hair-pulling and especially facials, spitting and choking seem to be obviously degrading and humiliating if not outright misogynistic sex acts. Nevertheless, women are taking to all this new perverted sex like fish to water or at least a lot of them are anyway.

It’s like they hit their sweet spot. Femininity and submission are the sweet spots for women. Once they settle in and get comfortable, they’ve found their happy place. With men, it’s masculinity and dominance. Men who are not very masculine are usually not very happy. Anyone ever noticed that?

As are bitchy, ball-breaking women who domineer sadistically over their cowering husbands. There seems to be an essential unhappiness about them too. There’s also the tendency of the men to rebel and also the idea that they are solidifying the limitation that only wimps will be interested in them, as any real man would just kill the bitch LOL. Besides, even most women like that have an interior submissiveness that they really get off on if they’ll only let themselves succumb to it. Trust me, I’ve met enough of these bitches to know.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But another factor in this shift is likely social selection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Drive to Annihilation in the Masculine (Homicidal) and Feminine (Suicidal) Characters

The Annihilatory or Destructive Drive at the Core of the Human Character

Both males and females have a drive to destruction as part of their core Characters. This is obviously a downside of any human’s character, but both the Masculine and Feminine  Characters are probably 50% good and 50% bad. Think of the good side as the bright side of the moon you see at night. The bad side of the Character is like the dark side of the moon and hopefully it acts like it. You know full well it’s there even though you never see it.

At other times you see it in spades, and many people, especially as they get older, turn the mirror around and only show the back side of it to people. All you see is the bad aspects of the Character. The good side is probably still there in most of them, and you may even see it peek out some of the time.

Both males and females have a drive to destruction as part of their core Characters. This is obviously a downside of any human’s character, but both the Masculine and Feminine  Characters are probably 50% good and 50% bad.

Think of the good side as the bright side of the moon you see at night. The bad side of the Character/Gender is like the dark side of the moon and hopefully it acts like it. You know full well it’s there even there even though you never see it.

The Annihilatory or Destructive Component in  the Masculine Character

In the male the drive to destruction is projected outwards, which is what males do with most destructive emotions. Sending negative emotions inside of yourself is considered to be pussy, weak, female, acting like a bitch, etc. “Manning up” usually means nothing more than projecting your crap outwards as opposed to inwards.

The Masculine Character has a destructive aspect, and it is dark indeed. It is frankly homicidal and most men are homicidal either consciously or consciously or at least they were as boys, when they projected their murderousness onto non-human creatures and converted it to fistfights with the males they are around.

However, it is very hard for a boy to be truly homicidal and murder another human being, either another boy or a man. Something stops them. This is odd because they spend a lot of time killing non-human things like bugs, and they physically fight each other regularly. Yet the fights seldom end in serious damage and always stop short of homicide.

So in the boy, the homicidal impulse is there most of the time, but it is transformed into playing with army men and toy guns, berry and dirt clod wars with other teams of boys (this mirrors small-scale tribal warfare), physical fighting which causes little damage, and murder of non-human lower-level creatures.

Yet as a boy grows into a man he is supposed to abandon this overt destruction and sadism of boyhood, as retaining is seen as acting like a boy, not a man. Such a young man will be told to “Grow up!” by other men. The sadistic boyhood monster begins being berated in adolescence, and at some point the blows may become physical. In this way, the core destructive sadism of the boy is transformed into the calm and controlled man.

Nevertheless, I don’t think the homicidality ever goes away. I spent most of my young adulthood in a homicidal frame of mind, directed at my enemies of course, always other men. Yet I scarcely harmed a soul and only acted on it once when I tried to kill a man who was trying, frankly, to kill me! And that was not fun. It was the worst experience of my life.

So even younger men who feel homicidal most of the time, which is practically normal, will almost never act on it, and if they ever do, they are quickly transported to the 9th circle of Hell. The homicidality is meant to be fantasy only. It’s supposed to go away in middle age, but I suspect that it just goes into hiding. I know my Killer Maniac is in me, as I feel him regularly. Yet he’s locked in a maximum security prison in my gut, and like Hell he will ever feel the light of day.

At its worst, the other-destructive aspect of the Masculine Character is truly black and horrible and actually manifests as a desire to destroy on a significant basis either objects, animals, or other humans. It’s an “obliterating” tendency. At its core, this black desire seems to be a desire to destroy the entire world and everything in it. Truly awful, but no man will come close to realizing it.

Radical feminists have done a good job of portraying the bad side of men, and the best of them have commented precisely about this homicidal character and in particular about its totalizing obliterative tendency. I’ve seen it described as a desire to obliterate the entire universe. That is when I knew that this particular radfem truly had her finger on the male pulse.

The Annihilatory or Destructive Component in  the Feminine Character

Men project their pain outwards onto others, and women push it inwards into the self. This manifests in all sorts of ways that I assume the reader is more than familiar with.

Freud even suggested that the female, at her core, is essentially a masochist. This may be true that the aspect of her destructive character is masochistic. This follows from the description above describing the male, at his core, is essentially a sadist.

Indeed, many women behave in variations of a masochistic manner in bed, and masochism is deeply tied into female sexuality. It’s usually milder than the truly hardcore masochism seem in female submissives, sex slaves, etc. involved in sick relationships with sadistic male dominants or doms, but the BD/SM dynamic is simply the basic male/female human dynamic taken to its logical extreme. Most folks are not BD/SM’ers, but a mild form of it is virtually normal in the sexuality of both genders.

This destructive nature in the female is pushed inwards, hence women are rarely homicidal, and they are terrible killers anyway due to their physical weakness. Further, women seem to have an almost genetic aversion to engaging in physical violence, probably evolved for good reasons.

A woman can and will kill you psychologically, spiritually, and verbally and the results are often severe. But she will probably not kill you.

Whereas another man can murder you at just about any time and place. Most men understand this, hence their cautious, excessively friendly, and solicitous attitude towards other men. The message behind this groveling is usually something like, “Please don’t punch me in the face! Place don’t murder me, sir!” Any man who has not developed a healthy terror of other men will surely die young and will often meet a violent end.

The landscape of love is littered with the broken souls of men who have been frankly destroyed by females in this manner in the course of a relationship. One of the most important things to learn as a man is to toughen up enough so much that it is difficult if not impossible for a woman to commit soul-murder against you, since if you have any success with women at all, some will attempt this.

The more women you get involved with, the more attempts at soul murder are launched against you, hence Chads and Alphas are often quite cynical about women, having seen the bad side of the female in spades (in addition to ample heaps of the good side too). The player simply thinks that the punishments are the price you pay for the considerable rewards. Most players have had quite a few women launch elaborate, often long-term and severe attempts at soul murder against them.

If they can’t tough it out and take it, these men simply stop the playboy game, marry up, and go more or less monogamous. Those still in the game have been targeted many times and have plenty of war stories to tell.

The destructive aspect of the female character then is self-destructive. We see this in elevated rates of depression, eating disorders, self-harm including cutting, and the high rate of suicide attempts. Females attempt suicide five times more than men, but are usually unsuccessful and most attempts are theatrical and not intended to succeed. It’s more of a cry for attention to her pain from others.

But I am convinced that the drive to suicidality is at the core of the Feminine Character. I’ve seen far too many women, even those very close to me, become suicidal at some point in their lives. My own mother was for a while.

At one time very recently, every woman I had dated recently, which added up to four or five, were all either actively suicidal or had recently attempted (usually theatrical) suicide. The attempters were older women age ~50, and the fantasists were younger ones, 18 and 19 year old teenage girls and a 27 year old woman.

I assume the suicidality acquires a more serious and lethal character as the woman ages. Notably, all three of the older women had never had children. Having living children is one thing that keeps many or most women from ending their lives. They are literally staying alive for their children. If a female has no children, she literally has no reason to be on this Earth, such is the intensity of the maternal instinct.

Furthermore, in the women above, I noticed that there seemed to be an actual love of suicidality as if they were in a love affair with this feeling. Hence I came to see it as an “essential drive” in women’s lives. Most women never suicide but the drive is probably there off and on throughout life.

Lesser forms of this include the extreme forms of self-sacrifice women engage in for others which is related to this remora-like attachment they form with others. The extreme attachment may not be for a husband or boyfriend alone but may instead be of the  mother in the case of a teenage girl or for her children in the case of an mother.

The female of many mammal will literally sacrifice her life to save others, most particularly her children. You see this same suicidal destructiveness to defend the offspring from threats in many lower mammals. It is especially prominent and can even be lethal in bears.

It’s even present in lower life forms such as birds. A section of trail in the Sierra Nevada had to be closed because the trail went by a Cooper’s Hawk’s nest, and the female kept dive-bombing hikers and aiming the talons at their heads.

Once I was fishing on the Eel River in California near Dos Rios where they Middle Fork enters the stream. If you ever want to o to a truly beautiful part of the US, go there. Across from me on the other side of the river was a large bird that looked like an eagle. It was extremely agitated the whole time I was there, flying haphazardly in small circles and squawking incessantly. I later figured out that this was a nesting female Osprey. Apparently I was too close to her nest, and this was making her agitated.

The self-destructive nature of the Feminine Character can be tied into the intense attachment they form for others. There are many cases on record in warfare of women avenging the deaths of their men in suicidal charges. A notable one occurred among Taiwanese aborigines when 100 women of a tribe suicidally attacked a Japanese contingent that had killed their men. As they charged, they yelled, “You have killed all of our men, now you will have to kill all of us!” All of the women died, but there may have been some Japanese casualties.

As we see above the female will give her life for others, especially her children or even her husband. Most human mothers will sacrifice themselves for their children or at least they say they will. And they have no fear of the death that will result.

I recently dated an 18 year old girl who had formed a severe attachment to her mother, whom she worshiped with reverence. One time she told me of this elaborate, bizarre fantasy of hers, which involved killing herself, except that the suicide would be done somehow to protect her mother. She seemed to be a state of rapture when she described this plan to me. She was in love with this plan. This desire to kill herself to protect her mother seemed to be one of the most important and beloved themes in her life.

A Core Aspect of the Female Character: Solipsism and Strong Attachment to a Loved Other

Joe Bob: So if females are basically solipsistic, does this mean their natural tendency is to objectify men or see them as mere objects and not as subjects too?

The solipsism at the core of the Female Character is simply the  human drive for self-love or self-centeredness that we all have. Solipsism is the female form of this variable and narcissism is the male form. I think I’d rather deal with a solipsistic female than a narcissitic male though.

In response to the question though, hmm, I’m not sure. They do love us though, I’ll give them that much. They attach to us like remoras and they call this love. This is the most important thing in a woman’s life and in the Female Character. Men can take love or leave it, but for the woman, love is nearly as important as air or water. A woman without love can survive but she is a shell of herself.

The solipsism of the female just means she is all wrapped up in herself. It’s associated with vanity in the sense of staring in front of the mirror for long periods of time, but on the other hand, they also often hate themselves. Look at all the selfies women take and put up on Facebook. Look at how many of them are vainglorious sorts of poses almost like a model or an actress. Women often make faces in these selfies too – sometimes funny faces, but they often display a variety of different emotions in these faces, so these are “emotional portraits” in a way.

This same vanity and vaingloriousness is seen in women’s utter obsession with appearances, particularly their own. They spend huge amounts of time making themselves up, doing their hair in this way or that, adorning themselves with jewelry and wearing all manner of outfits. This sort of obsession with personal appearance is absolutely an aspect of the Female Character.

Females decorate themselves elaborately in every society that has ever been studied. In a way, they are “painting themselves” – they serve as walking painted pictures or portraits and the often see themselves as actual paintings on a wall except that they are moving around and conscious.

They compare themselves obsessively to other women and take what seems to men a near-psychotic obsession for the personal appearance of other women, of which they are more often critical than complimentary – “That hair looks awful!…Why is she wearing that dress?!…Boy she really botched that plastic surgery job, didn’t she?…She’s really let herself fall to pieces – look at how fat she is!”

The obsession comparison with other, combined with commenting on their features in an often harshly critical way, seems to be a way of competing with female rivals. The rivals are for men’s attention because no other sort of rivalry exists in women.

Women compete over men and little else and their competition over men can be absolutely vicious. They specialize and often delight in stealing men away from other men, and frequently do not trust other women around their men because they understand that all women are man-thieves.

Hence if they think they have a prize man (Chad) a woman will become fiercely jealous and protective of him to the point where she doesn’t even want to hear about past women in his life as even some woman from 20 years ago is still somehow fighting her and trying to steal her man away from her. A lot of fighting between women and hatred of women for other women derives directly from this competition for men.

When was the last time you saw a woman point to a picture of a woman and point out how beautiful and perfect she looked? When a woman sees a beautiful woman in a photo, she often gets angry and sees her as a competitor who might better her.

How many times have you had a (young) woman show you a beautiful woman’s photograph and then ask you who is more beautiful, the woman in the picture or the one talking to you?

Don’t fall for it! She will always only be satisfied with being a 10 on a 1-10 scale as anything less than a 10 feels may as well be a 1 to her. There is no possibility of any other woman on Earth being more beautiful than she is and pointing this out is a supreme insult! How dare you say she looks better than I do! Tears or rage may result. There’s no such thing as “Well, you’re both beautiful but she’s a bit moreso is all.” Nope. It’s either win the gold or nothing.

Solipsism is not narcissism. The solipsist cares about other people and the narcissist does not. It’s just that the solipsist simply does not have the time and energy to think (or care much) about others because they are too busy doing the equivalent of staring in the mirror. It’s not that they don’t care about others. It’s more that they have no time or energy to think about it!

A lot of women’s focus is absolutely other-oriented and women often live their lives through others to the point of almost taking on their personalities. A teenage girl may strongly identify with her such that you wonder where the girl ends and the mother begins. And you better not talk shit about her Mom! She will never forgive you.

More traditional women attach themselves to the men they fall in love (in a near-remoralike manner as discussed above). They’re not parasitical as in a remora and their not sucking energy out of the man, although he may feel that she is due to the strength of her attachment. I’ve called girlfriends “Klingons” and “remoras” before.

This hurts their feelings a lot, but if you have a woman like this, you’re in love. She has literally attached herself to you. You’re Chad or you’re Alpha or you’re her dream man in any case and you are experiencing something that many men may never experience.

This often results in “stand by your man” behavior, which is absolutely a core characteristic of the female character, not a patriarchal perversion as feminists insist. Call yourself lucky if you have a stand by your man woman. Rest assured that she adores you. Cherish that moment. It may not come again for some time, as in years.

This also results in “living her life through you” or being “the woman behind the man,” as the traditional woman wishes to be.

A traditional woman will get you up in the morning, fix you up in front of the mirror, direct you to the closet to pick out your clothes for you and maybe even try them on you. She will gladly fix your breakfast and it’s for you, not her.

When you come home, she will sit, fascinated, as you tell her about your day at work. If you talk to her about your work at all, she stops all other functions and listens raptly as if her life depended on it. She will even research your work interests even if she has no understanding of them. That doesn’t matter at all. It will just leave her in awe. Not only does she have Chad, but Chad’s a goddamned genius to boot.

There Is a Strong Link Between Narcissism and Male Homosexuality

Polar Bear: I suspect some are just obsessed with themselves.

The link between male homosexuality and narcissism is as old as Time itself and has been remarked on endlessly. Perhaps many things have basic Characters or Principles, not just the main races or the (only) two genders but also, say, Gay Men and Lesbians. Anyway, there is classic Gay Male Personality that is stable over time. Go back and read the old psychoanalytic literature about Male Homosexuality. They thought it was a mental disorder at the time, in part because it actually does look like one. Instead of a disorder, I think it is a “syndrome.”

A syndrome with some predictable characteristics and a classic personality structure. But those old articles are amazing because they could have been written yesterday. I remember I talked to my paternal grandmother a few times about men. She was born in the 1890’s and died in  the 1990’s. How much does someone who grew up during World War 1 know about gay men. But the things she said about them would have been noted by a sociologist studying West Hollywood in 1984. There’s a basic Gay Male Personality, and it’s relatively timeless like so many things about us two-legged monkeys.

No one quite knows why gay men are so narcissistic. Hypothesis: Gay men have cocks and a male body. Gay men are turned on by cock and male bodies. So gay men are in love with themselves and in a sense, when they fuck, they are literally fucking themselves also?

Curiously, there’s no link between lesbianism and narcissism, possibly because females are just not that narcissistic. The correlate of narcissism in the Female Character is “solipsism.” Until you figure out that females are solipsistic at their core, raw, primal nature, you will always have an incomplete picture of them.

Alt Left: Female Rule, November 2020 Edition

Polar Bear: I’ve tried talking to the tranny I knew as a man. He always used to laugh at my jokes, but now that he’s in a woman’s body, she’ll he seems distracted. A part of him seems not with it or even there.

Female hormones? A lot of women act like that. I call the mindset of the pure, primal Female Character as “dream state.” Not that that’s a bad thing, but you know, someone’s got to take out the trash.

There are societies on Earth that are Matriarchies. I can think of one in Africa of all places.

It’s almost a Utopia. There’s little crime, aggression, or violence. I don’t know if the women doling out sex to calm the guys down or what, but the men are pretty neutered, in a good sense. Everyone’s happy, kicks back all day, endless party and good times, except…not a whole lot gets done. But no one cares about that either because, you know, they’re too busy having fun. Party people would rather play than work. Also, oddly, education is very much de-emphasized and not a lot of learning or progress occurs. But no one cares about that either because, you know, in Utopias, people tend to be irresponsible.

I guess this is what Female Rule looks like in its raw, natural, benevolent form. You can see that it kinda doesn’t work though, even when its pleasant.

I figure Female Rule was tried at various times in the past. Men don’t want to do all the work. I figure a few times they just gave it up and said, “Fine! You ladies don’t like it? You do it!” Hence they had Female Rule. It’s particularly chaotic and dysfunctional in its negative form, and the men start getting pissed off because they’re not allowed to be guys anymore, so it’s really Nature Herself getting angry, not the men themselves.

But it doesn’t even work in its benevolent form. Instead of chaos, it just causes stasis. Men’s brains aren’t likely to cotton to either one.

Hypothesis: Female Rule may well have been tried numerous times in the past. Present day experiments indicate that it clearly doesn’t work, even when it’s kindhearted. Every time in the past, the men probably said, “All right ladies, party’s over! Sometimes you need a man to step in! Now you all hurry along now. We’re taking over. You women got a problem?”

The women all said, “Hell no,” because otherwise the men would have killed them.

And the group went back to Male Rule, whether in its negative or benevolent patriarchal form, because even though Patriarchy doesn’t work that great, it works better than all the alternatives, as they say about democracy. The group developed a tradition that women were great at a lot of things, but running things wasn’t one of them. Hey, women can’t do everything. So Patriarchy, pleasant or not, was instituted and came to be unquestioned.

Here we are the damned 21st Century, probably repeating the same retard experiments of our more primitive past, and we’re doomed to experience the exact same failures of History. Some people never learn.

There are only a certain number of ways to run a human society, and most of the functional ones have already been tried. Yet every new generation thinks it invents the wheel all over again. History is a process. It tends to proceed down paths already trod by our ancestors. Maybe it was done first in Babylonia 3,000 BC,  maybe in 1500’s Venice, or maybe in 1835 New England, but if it’s a form of Politics, no doubt it’s been done before. Forms of Politics tend to proceed in the same way every time every time they play and to the same conclusions as before. Hence their predictive nature.

The Joycean “cyclic view of history” springs from this endless, clockwork-like repetition. Historical processes are as formulative as the seasons and tend to proceed in a familiar and similar cycling form.

There’s nothing (more correctly: not much) new under the sun. Your forefathers were a lot smarter than you think they were. And we’re a lot dumber than we think we are.

Alt Left: More on Trannies, November 2020 Edition

Claudius: They (trannies) are gay hookers fighting for their libertarian right to transition so they can get straight male sugar daddies and clients. It’s a booming business. Just look at Thai ladyboys making a living off sex tourists.

That’s only 11% and it does look like some biological disorder. It seems to be an extreme form of homosexuality, and their brains are actually female-shifted. That is, they don’t have female brains or male brains.

Their male brains are shifted halfway towards the female brain structure, so in the areas where male and female brains differ, these men have brains halfway between male and female brains.

It’s absolutely a biological syndrome and I would give them the right to transition. There’s something clearly off with their brains. Also this type of tranny is very nice and even a lot of the TERF radical feminists don’t like them too much. They’re appalled by the belligerent and menacing behavior of the autogynophile kooks. Also, they love the word tranny. They call each other trannies all the time. They think it’s a funny word. It’s the autogynophile snowflakes that have decided that tranny is some evil bigoted slur that means you’re a Nazi.

But no one is born in the wrong body. No man is born with a female brain and stuck in the wrong male body and no woman is born with a male brain and stuck in the wrong female body. That’s just part of the crazy lying tranny propaganda, but a large percentage of the population actually believes this bullshit.

Claudius: The only crazy trannies are the straight males who are turned on by cross-dressing, the so called autogynephiliacs.

Yeah, but that’s 89% of them. Those are the nuttiest of all of them. They have more mental disorders than any other group we see clinically. They have very high levels of other paraphilias, and they commit sex crimes at a high rate. Many are on area sex offender lists. A fair number of them are actually dangerous.

They are also extremely loud, belligerent, and vindictive and even aggressive and menacing. They have taken over whole corporations. For instance, the Twitter moderation team has been infiltrated by this type of tranny and this person(s) uses their power to ban people from Twitter. We even know their names. This is the guy that got me banned from Twitter for life for telling the truth about trannies:

RL: There’s no such thing as transgender people. They’re all just mentally ill.

That’s what I said. For that crime, I now have a lifetime ban from Twitter thanks to some crazy autogynophile tranny piece of shit.

Do You Grow on People, Turn Sour on People, or Neither or Both?

I’m living with a bunch of Blacks and Hispanics now and they’re not too nice. Most of them act like they hate me. Some won’t even greet me when I say hello. Others definitely don’t even want me trying to talk to them. But none of them know me at all. They’re just going off first impression crap, which in my case is a bad idea.

The illegal alien upstairs comes over sometimes. We give him some food and he gives us some. His neighbor the Hispanic bitch hates me. She actually called the cops on me one time and tried to get me arrested. The Black lady next door is pleasant enough but she never lets me in.

Terrible First Impression, But You (Very) Slowly Grow on People

The people who lived upstairs before the bitch were really cool. He showed up at the door once with a bong.  Everyone came in and smoked pot with me. He acted like I was the nicest, greatest, kindest, most lovable guy on Earth. God knows maybe I am. I’m shy enough, that’s for sure. So many people hate me but I don’t think they know me. I used to have this young Hispanic guy, a gang associate, come over. He and I smoked pot all the time.

And older Black woman used to come over too. She was a mixed bag. One time they were both over here smoking pot and the Black lady said, “We’re the only two people in this whole damned complex who understand Bob.” She was probably right. I probably am misunderstood. People who hate me usually don’t even know me well. A lot of people don’t like me too much at first, but after they see me regularly for a while, they start to really like me. Maybe I make a shitty first impression and you want to hate me, but after you get to know me for a while, you realize that’s all bullshit and I’m the nicest guy you’ll ever meet.

Great First Impression Sours: Everyone Loves You at First, but after a While, Some Start to Hate You More and More

I also deal with the opposite, especially at work, where I’m the greatest guy on Earth the  first day of work and everyone loves me, but after a while, more and more people seem to start to slowly hate me, at least a bit. I have no idea why that is either. I am kind of an ass, but it isn’t actually a real thing. It’s fake assholery, if that even makes sense. I don’t even feel good about it. I feel terrible about it and fight it all the time.

I figure I can last a year or two  at any job before the boss hates me so much I get canned. It’s always me and the boss. I don’t do bosses. They all remind me of my father who I hated as a teenager and I’m in arrested development, in a permanent state of adolescent rebellion with a severe authority figure problem. Oh well. I wouldn’t have it any other way!

It’s always been love or hate me since I was a teenager though. I seem to elicit strong feelings in either people. No one’s neutral about me! Especially men.

Anyway, Misunderstood is my middle name. Always been that way. C’est la vie!

Do Very Handsome or “Pretty Boy” Men Elicit Odd Feelings From Straight Men?

I used to say men either acted like they wanted to beat me up or fuck me, or sometimes both at the same time.

I was said to be very handsome when young. Actually even young women say I still am (a 23 year old lesbian, of all things, was gushing wildly about my looks the other day), but lot of good it does me at this age.

So maybe this is what goodlooking men get from other men. John F. Kennedy, one Hell of a looker himself, complained that very handsome men are often thought to be homosexuals. And this was in 1960! I guess I’m not the first one who figured this out. None of us are, with anything. Think about it next time you feel like a Goddamned genius.

Perhaps they’re attracted to us a bit on some level and they either project that away: “I’m not gay. You’re gay. I’m not attracted to you. You’re attracted to me, fag! I’m going to kick your ass, faggot!” or they just feel it, “Damn, I’m not even 1% gay, but you sure are sexy! You’re as pretty as woman!” I can’t tell you how many straight men have hit on me. It’s so weird.

It’s like I bring the fag out of men. I still trying to figure out why that is. I don’t mind that much though. When I was young, all the women and girls wanted to fuck me. Unfortunately, all the gay men wanted to fuck me too (even more than the women did), and even some of the straight men wanted to fuck me! I could develop a complex about it, or I could just say, “Dammit, I’m so fucking  hot, everyone wants to fuck me. Women want to fuck me. Everyone wants to fuck me. The whole world wants to fuck me!”

Of course now I’m 63 and no one wants to fuck me. Unless I pay them first, that is, which is really insulting! A young gay man recently informed me that “hot older men like me,” as he put it, are a hot commodity in the gay community. He suggested that if women turned a cold shoulder, I could get a lot of affection from hot young gays looking for a Daddy. I was slightly tempted, but I think I’ll pass. Maybe next lifetime I’ll come back as a fag, and I can make their wishes come true.

I think pretty boy men who look like women and are often as pretty or beautiful as women maybe do elicit a lot of weird feelings from straight men.

After all, straight men aren’t exactly “Chicks turn me on and guys don’t.” They’re more like “things that look and act like women (feminine objects, if you will) turn me on, and things that look and act like men (masculine objects, let’s call ’em) don’t.” Pretty boys, trannys of all sorts, and even gay men join women in the former, and bull dykes join men in the latter.

No man is turned on by a bull dyke, but I’m shocked at how many straight men will have sex with a tranny of some sort. For a long time I thought it was weird, but now I get it. Guys don’t care about cocks. They don’t like cock, but they don’t hate it either. Hell, they even have a cock themselves, and I doubt if many guys hate their own dick!

A tranny is just a woman with a dick! But guys don’t care about dick, so they just pretend it’s not there. Fucking a tranny is about like fucking a woman! Just pretend that cock’s not there, ok? Maybe it’s really the biggest clit you’ve ever seen? Sure, why not. If you have to believe that do it, it makes sense.

Basic Personality Structures of the Three Great Major Races – Blacks, Whites, and Asians

Alpha Unit: Hi, Robert. That was an interesting detour about personality types. How would you describe the Basic White Personality?

I’m not sure. The White man is awful inhibited and repressed, I’ll give you that much. I suppose the pure White personality is seen more commonly in children.

White children are less cruel, sadistic, and antisocial than Black kids but much moreso than Asians.

Whites are less extroverted than Blacks but not as introverted as Asians.

Whites don’t have as high of a sex drive as Blacks, but they have a higher sex drive than Asians.

There’s less lying, cheating, and thieving among (most) Whites (with some glaring exceptions) than among Blacks but more than with Asians.

Blacks have higher psychopathy scores than Whites, but Whites have higher scores than Asians.

White cities are much less chaotic and disordered as Black cities but more disorderly than Asians cities.

Whites don’t commit nearly as much crime as Blacks. Blacks commit 6X the crime as Whites, but Whites commit 5X more crime than Asians, and that applies to violent crime too. It’s more than appropriate for Asians to see us Whites as “a bunch of niggers” because in some ways, that’s exactly what we are to them.

Whites are much more inhibited and polite than Blacks but much less so than Asians, as Whites find extreme Asian politeness to be ridiculous and over the top.

Whites are much more studious than Blacks but less studious than Asians.

Whites are more serious than Blacks but not as serious as Asians.

Whites plan for the future much more than Blacks but not nearly as much as Asians, who literally see the past and future in terms of decades and even millennia. See the recent quotes on this site by Deng Xiaoping and Chau en Lai for examples.

Whites are poorer athletes than Blacks but much better athletes than Asians.

Among males, Whites have less testosterone than Blacks but more than Asians.

Blacks are freer and like to live in a society with loose laws and rules, which Whites find appalling. Yet Whites are outraged by the extremes to which Asian desire for a rules and laws based – and nearly totalitarian – culture goes.

Whites are poorer musicians than Blacks but better musicians than Asians.

Whites have much more capacity for organized violence as Blacks, but possibly Asians may be even more genocidal and mass-murdering than Whites.The capacity for disorganized violence (street crime)  seems to rise as IQ falls, but the capacity for organized violence (mass slaughters and massacres in wartime) almost seems to rise with IQ. Does that seem odd?

Blacks and Asians are both cruel to animals, Blacks due to higher sadism and psychopathy and Asians by a ruthless utilitarianism that sees anything that moves as something to eat. Whites are very softhearted and love and treat animals as human surrogates far more than any other race.

For God’s sake, Whites will shut down development to literally protect a weed, a fly, a frog, a rat,  a minnow, or a shrimp so small you can barely see it. Whites truly see the “glory and beauty of all God’s creation.”

Of course, they were not always this way, and Whites were horribly cruel, savage and even genocidal towards many animal species forever, with the massacres being prevented for millennia only by the lack of good killing tools, although there were some notable and sad examples on many islands. Who can forget the tragic Dodo bird? White men literally stalked and slaughtered these creatures for pure kicks all over the sad island of Mauritius. Having involved on an island with no predators that necessitated flying away from, the poor bird was flightless. And this was in the 1700’s!

Remember how buffaloes were literally shot out of trains for sheer kicks? Remember the White men clubbing those poor baby seals to death. Those were White guys, not gleefully mean Blacks or cruelly efficient and callous Asians.

Of course White boys are generally murderous towards lower life forms as all boys are, with most of their killing impulses directed at insects, then fish, next amphibians and reptiles, then birds, and finally mammals. As we ascend up the scale, the psychopathy level necessary in the boy in order to kill the animal correspondingly increases.

It’s no secret that the man who started a senseless (((war))) that killed 1.4 million Iraqis also used to stick firecrackers into the mouths of frogs and set them off. That’s lamentable and disturbing behavior, but most boys grow out of it and feel bad about it later on as adults. Apparently W. never did as best I can tell, and I wonder if he’s ever felt bad about much of anything.

Mr. Bush definitely had high psychopathy levels, and he was as viciously cynical and devious as any politician. And having read an interview with him after his disastrous terms were over in Rolling Stone, I also realize that he was very smart in a wicked and purely politicized and mercenary way.

His whole worldview was literally boiled down to the most vicious and amoral politicization. Everything was political, probably even the cereal he ate for breakfast. All of life was a form of Politics, as Rove put it so well. There was scarcely a thing in his world that was not politicized and dogmatized. And he had mastered the art of clever lying that any politician does.

Whites are less religious than the wildly religious Blacks but much more so that the brutally atheistic Asians. The life view of Asians is so clinical and near-scientific that it’s almost brutally sad. It’s hard to live a hopeless life no matter how devoted to empiricism you are.

Whites are calmer than Blacks but are appalled by the frozen silence of the Asians. Black 8th graders are a horrorshow. White 8th graders are annoying or possibly worse. Asian 8th graders are merely squirrely and silly.

Blacks are way more fun to be around than boring Whites, but Whites think Asians are dullsville. On the other hand, Whites can be a Goddamned blast once they cut loose. It’s just that Whites think there is a specific time and place to cut loose at which they gleefully untie their moorings. Blacks think the time and place to cut loose is everywhere, all the time.

Sure, it’s never-ending good time, and everyone except prudes, prigs, and humorless SJW’s loves a party, but Blacks also get sick and hurt a lot, die young, and not much gets done in their locales, with a tragic sense of ongoing indifferent decay, possibly due to lack of upkeep because they are too busy living in the moment to repair things when they fall apart.

Whites are not as humorous as Blacks, but they’re funnier than Asians. But all humans love a good joke, and as a White male, of course I’ve gotten the giggles and the uncontrollable laughs, plus I have this Black attitude that everything in life is basically a joke. A sad joke, a mean joke, a pathetic joke? Sure, a lot of the time. But it’s still a Goddamned joke to me. I find it hard to take this world seriously, especially in its Clown World manifestation in the Current Year. I was shocked when I found out of loose Asians got at parties. They drink and laugh it up bigtime. I had actually thought they were incapable of this.

Whites are much better at math and science than Blacks but dramatically less proficient than Asians.

Whites are much more conformist than freedom-loving and wildly creative (and correspondingly chaotic) Blacks, but they find the extreme conformism of Asians to be appalling and anti-human.

Whites are far less lazy and parasitical than Blacks but dramatically more irresponsible and work-shy than Asians.

White men support their children much more than Black men, but there are still quite a few White men who run out on their kids. This sort of thing is almost unseen among Asians.

Blacks love parties far more than Whites do, but Whites party a lot more than staid Asians.

Whites are far quieter and less noisy than animated Blacks, but they find the dead silence and stoicism of Asians to be downright creepy. Of course all three races can get pretty noisy and riled up, and White riots are pretty common – Hell, I’ve even been in a few police riots myself! Ever been in an agitated crowd? Scary, isn’t it? You can easily get crushed. That’s how evil a crowd of Whites can get.

Black toddlers are quite active at an early age. Asian babies and toddlers are calm, cool, and collected as a Zen priest. Whites are somewhere in between. As an aside, Amerindian babies are so silent and unmoving that many people wonder if they are dead. The stoical Indian warrior, silent in the forest as he waits for the deer to come into range.

Blacks are extremely self-centered and even selfish, Whites less so, but still self-centered and even selfish Whites are everywhere you look, probably even in your own mirror. Yet White society still looks down on raw selfishness as disgusting and animalistic and I suspect a lot of Whites have to fight off their self-centered tendencies. Yet Whites find the selflessness and collectivism of Asians to be totalitarian and creepy.

Blacks aren’t particularly competitive. They are too busy having a good time to mess with that, plus they have short attention spans.  Face it – brutal competition is a drag, and it’s going to cut way into the  warmth and gregariousness of hyper-social Blacks. Also, their chaotic tendencies get in the way of nose-to-the-grindstone competitiveness.

I don’t think the chaotic nature of Blacks is necessarily terrible or even bad. I think maybe Blacks just like things, loud, stirred up, adventurous, and maybe a bit dangerous sort of like life is this endless out of control party. We Whites think it’s horrifying and fear for our safety amidst such scenes, but maybe Blacks actually like to live this way. It’s a pretty wild way to live – lots of thrills, chills, and spills – I’ll give them that.

Black behavior is simply too disorderly and disorganized (I don’t mean that in a bad way – more of an “I don’t give a damn, live for the day” sense) to be competitive because competition requires patience, deep attention spans, and very hard, often boring work. Asians are so competitive that to Whites they almost seem anti-human, vicious, brutal, and cruel.

As you can see, the personalities of the three great major races differ quite a bit. Along the lines of Masculine and Feminine Principles, are there White and Asian Principles in the same way that there seems to be a Black Principle described in the early post? It almost seems racist to posit something like that, but maybe it makes sense after all.

Alt Left: Childhood Never Ends: Why Large Groups of Adults Continue To Engage in Childish Games of Sadistic Dominance of Hated Inferiors

Alpha Unit: OK, Jim Crow laws were proposed as a solution to a problem: White Southerners were being ordered to treat newly freed slaves (and free Black people) as equals, when it was clear that newly freed Black people were in no position to live as their equals.

Their solution? Forget all this “equality” stuff; it’s costing us too much. Let’s bring back the old, tried-and-true way we used to do things: Blacks subordinate to Whites and kept in their place. We’ll make sure it’s “legal.”

Occam’s razor. Look for the simplest explanation. This makes the most sense to me. The whole idea that Claudius is putting forward that White folks are just too nice to do this sort of thing, well, nope. Humans have a need to dominate others. The strong dominate the weak and the weak dominate the weaker. See countless works of literature, drama, and cinema, or, Hell, just read Nietzsche if he makes sense to you.

Also there are different types of sadism.

The First Type of Sadism – the Raw Animal Lust for Cruelty and Love of Humiliating Others Seen Most Prominently in Boys

I’m thinking this type is genetic or biological. This is a pure sadism that can be seen in boys, non-human mammals, and in  adults, most especially in Black adults, especially African Blacks (US Blacks have had a lot of it enculturated out of them, but you still see it a lot).

Sure, all the other races display this raw sadism too, especially in times of war, but you see it most prominently in Blacks to the point where some feel it is an essential aspect of the Black Character, Personality, or perhaps, I would argue, Black Principle (if Black is a Principle like Masculine and Feminine are Principles).

This is extremely prominent in Black children, especially boys, and they are much more sadistic than White boys (Yes, I know all boys are sadists). It gets slowly enculturated out of Black boys as they grow up as with most of us males, but you still see it a lot in the ghetto types in young adult men and even women sometimes, where the basic Black Personality is at its rawest and least enculturated.

This is a raw delight in torture, torment, inflicting pain, violence, and even death on a suffering and tormented Other. It includes the love of observing a victim’s suffering.

Of course, you also see this same sadism in young White men (college boys in particular can be terribly cruel), but it’s just not as prominent as in Blacks.

Also, White culture profoundly dislikes displays of childish sadism in White adults. As an man, you’re supposed to have grown out that boyhood crap or had it beaten out of you if you were particularly diabolical.

In some ways, this sadism can be fun. I recall a Black man I knew named Michael. He hung out with this other Black artist, William, who was very introverted and odd. He couldn’t get laid with God’s help. His name was Charles and he had a university degree in art.

The cool guy’s name was Michael and he was a White-acting Black artist with a university degree in art. I was over at a mutual friend’s house and our friend commented that William had a date.

William was a very shy guy with low-self esteem and a hurt and somewhat confused expression on his face. I believe also had a strange high-pitched voice. He was extremely weird but completely harmless, and once you figured out how harmless he was, you mostly just wanted to laugh at him because he was such a nerd that he was a laughingstock, a comical figure.

He also couldn’t get laid with God’s help, even though he was quite straight. I’d never known him to have a girlfriend or even a date. At age 29, he was not only undoubtedly a virgin, but he’d probably never even been kissed.

I was absolutely dumbfounded.

“What?!” I nearly shouted across the room. “No way does William have a date! No way! That’s not even possible! Tell me you’re joking!”

This was a pretty mean thing for me to say, but I can be a dick. The Black guy, Micheal, roared with laughter so hard he nearly rolled on the floor for ten minutes. As you can see, he was laughing his ass off at the cruelty of my comment.

So Blacks can be a lot of fun if you want to get down with some mean, no-holds-barred humor. A lot of humor is cruel – face it – but Whites’ distaste for sadism limits their potential for humor a lot. We see this especially in the dour, party-pooper, no-fun SJW crowd, where every other joke is an evil bigoted crime that someone needs to get fired over.

In many ways, Idi Amin was the ultimate primal Black man. He displayed most of the raw material of the Black personality to an exaggerated degree. Not all of it is bad. He was wildly extroverted, always smiling and happy, had a nearly inborn sense of humor to the point of being a natural humorist, loved to party and have fun, and had a tremendous love of promiscuous sex. Idi Amin was a good time! As long as you were on his good side, that is.

And then there was his bad side, also in spades.

Whites and most other races probably used to be like this too, but centuries of civilization may have bred it out of us culturally and genetically. We can surely see a lot of examples of horrific sadism in Whites and Asians only centuries ago. One argument is that for a thousand years of civilization, most White criminals were quickly killed, often by public hanging. The idea is that this bred a lot of the criminal genes out of us.

Blacks from Africa, never having good through this process of weeding out criminal genes by execution, didn’t experience such a cleansing. On the other hand, perhaps White and Asian cultures have also accelerated so much in civilizational terms that this behavior is enculturated out of us.

That this love of sadism and cruelty appears so normally and freely in boys of all races suggests that it’s still part of the raw human personality. Although the dramatic morally superiority of US Blacks as opposed to African Blacks suggests that 300 years of exposure to White Christian civilization has had a calming, civilizing, and perhaps eugenically intelligence-increasing effect on US Blacks, which argues for the effects a more advanced civilizing culture can have on a population of a less civilized race.

The Second Type of Sadism – The Dominant Lording It Over Their Brutalized Inferior Victims

I’ve thought about this a lot, and there is another sort of sadism, that of the dominant inflicting their sadistic lordly violence against those they see as inferior.

Look at the delighted faces of those German policemen tormenting Jews in the street. You can say it’s revenge, but isn’t it more than that?

Look very closely at the faces of those Whites at those lynchings – boys, girls, men, women. There’s that same look as you saw in those Nazis above: the wicked gleeful look of the dominant bully inflicting torture and/or death at a contemptuously hated inferior. This poor Black sod’s hanging from a tree with his neck broken in a sickening way, and these Whites who look like your nice White relatives at Thanksgiving are having the Goddamned party of their lives.

What was all that habit of calling Black men boys and Black women girls about?

Why were Black children forced to apologize to White children they bumped into by addressing the White children as Mr. or Mrs. as if the White kids were adults and the Black child was still a child?

Why were the schoolbooks given to Black schools the refuse of the White schools – ripped, torn up, wrecked, and coming with a sticker on them saying that they were too destroyed to be of use to White kids, so they were only worthwhile for Black kids?

What was up with the torching of the Black business district in Tulsa?

Why were Black men lynched and murdered for the crime of standing up to White men and fighting back against them, even if the Whites were trying to kill them? In this case, the message was that of the bully: We will attack you in any way we choose, and if you dare to fight back and hurt one of us, you will die.

Why did White children torment their Black “friends” by forcing them, like slaves, to carry the White kids’ books to and from school for them?

Why did White boys manipulate and laugh behind the backs at their Black male friends and encourage them to commit crimes, so if anyone was caught, the Black would take the blame?

Why were Blacks waited on last in stores, and, even after waiting an hour, passed over again if a White person walked in?

Why did Whites whose land had been sold to Blacks long ago return to their land 50 years later and demand that Blacks hand over the sold land to its original owners, or else?

Why did even White women tell Black men who talked back to them, “I could have you hung from a tree just like that.”? See Of Mice and Men – and this was California in the 30s!

This is all nothing but raw, naked cruelty, and furthermore, there’s a brutal logic behind it: the societal enforcement of White dominance and superiority over Black submission and inferiority. That’s all it is. No need to conjure up fancy theories. Back to Occam’s again.

They did all of this abject and unnecessary cruel stuff because otherwise Blacks would commit a lot of crime? Get out. If anything, such treatments are designed to push people to their limits. Look at how Gypsies are (deservedly) treated in Europe? Does it stop them from committing crimes?

No, all of these punishments were done to enforce the sort of gleeful domination you see on the faces of the schoolyard bullies in 8th grade as they torment their designated victims.

And no, adults are not too mature to regress to childish games of sadistic dominance. I’ve seen so many cases of adults the world over delighting in the sadistic dominance of a hated inferior Other to believe otherwise.

They’re not doing it to stop crime. They’re doing it to get off. To get a rush. To get that glorious sadistic delight in tormenting an innocent victim you remember from boyhood. Remember how fun that was? Remember how tall it made you feel?

Well, those adults are doing the exact same shit for the exact same reasons.

Malignant Narcissism Redux: The “Personality of the Dictator” and How to Be a God among Men

Ted Bundy was a malignant narcissist. Donald Trump literally has the same psychiatric diagnosis as Ted Bundy. Sit back and let that sink in a moment.

I noted that the malignant narcissist is “the personality of the dictator,” as I call it. Is Mr. Trump not an incipient dictator, cut loose at the last moment by his long-suffering subjects? Most malignant narcissists are not dictators, of course. There aren’t enough job openings for that position to go around. But are they nevertheless, shall we say, dictators among men? Perhaps.

In the World of Women, Ted Bundy stood tall. He strode like a king. One could even say that he reigned supreme. If God is the dictator of the cosmos, Ted was an earthly counterpart. Ted held the power of life and death over countless women. That’s what God does. He holds the power of life and death over humans.

Was that why he did it? Who knows? After decades of studying psychopaths, I’m about ready to throw in the towel. It’s one of those crazy things where after studying  something for many years, it seems like you know less than when you began. When you started out, your mind was full of certainties. Now that you have plumbed to the depth of the subject, they’ve all dissolved into unanswerable questions that only beget more and more questions in a maze with no beginning, no end, and no escape.

I think the only way to understand someone like that is to be one, and even if you were one, you might not be able to explain why you act that way. For while these people are not crazy at all and are in fact some of the sanest people on Earth, at the same time, they are profoundly sick, and in some ways, while being formally sane, I now believe that these are some of the most disturbed people around. Disturbed? Yes. Sick? Yes. Bad, evil? Yes. Crazy? ‘Fraid not. Sane? Sadly yes, and this is precisely why they are so dangerous. If they were nuts, we could more easily spot and protect ourselves form them.

Most people can’t wrap their minds around that conundrum at all. How can you be sick, disturbed, bad, and evil and yet completely sane and not the slightest bit nuts? Think about it. See if you can get it. I only figured it out in the last 10 years or so. I’ll give you a gold star if you can see it.

Ever felt like killing someone? Of course, being human and especially male, I’ve had these feelings.

Once I discussed them with a therapist. I told him about how sometimes I couldn’t get rid of them, so I would just sit there and be with them and try to get as comfortable as I could, knowing I wouldn’t do it.

“I am going to kill you,” I would think.

“And how does that feel?” he asked.

“Wow!” I said. “It’s the most powerful feeling you can possibly imagine! You sit there looking at someone and thinking, ‘I am going to kill you right now’ (though you know you won’t do it), and you get calm and relaxed with it, and you are literally one hundred feet tall! You feel like God! Like God himself!”

“That’s right,” he said. “Only God can give and take a life. When you assign yourself that power, you are as big as God. That’s one reason people do that, kill people. To feel as big as God. It’s the ultimate power rush.”

I don’t recommend feeling that way but it’s not a bad way to feel if you really, really hate someone.