You write that the Promise Keepers declined after their ’90s heyday because the appeal of their soft patriarchy was fading. What filled the void were outfits like Mars Hill Church, founded in 1996 in Seattle by Mark Driscoll. It was tattooed, cursing, beer-drinking, hypermasculine, and really quite misogynistic.
Driscoll called on women in the congregation to give their husbands oral sex, warned against men being “pussified,” described women as being created by God to be “homes for men’s penises.” By 2019, Mars Hill had more than seven hundred churches all over the world.
Mars Hill was part of something called the New Calvinist movement. What was the New Calvinist movement, and how did it affect the evangelical movement?
I have a MAGA fundamentalist Christian girlfriend these days. She’s practically an MRA. When there’s any conflict between men and women, she sides with the men and blames the women LOL. She also thinks #metoo is bullshit and nothing but complete faggotry. She cheers on men who hit on women or buy whores.
He’s just trying to get his dick wet!…Good for him! He’s just trying to get laid!
She’s also very much into traditional masculinity. When she gets uppity with me, I set her in her place, and she agrees with me:
Just shove your cock down my throat and make me shut up!
I realize this shit is totally reactionary and backwards and against all of my cool liberal leftwing progressive values, but Goddamn is this a breath of fresh air!
I see why this sort of thing appeals to men. It’s basically paradise for men.
A Lot of Women Literally Want to Be the “Consensual Slaves of Men”
Not sure what it is for women, but if it’s slavery, a lot of them want to be “slaves.” Come to think of it, “consensual slavery” seems to be an integral part of the Feminine Character.
I realize there are a lot of women who hate this idea, but you’d be shocked at how many women actually love to live like this. They literally want the man to be above them. I’m not sure if it is a superiority-inferiority thing or a master-slave thing. It’s more like we are all in some sort of a Gender Army and the men are higher ranking officers than the women and they wish to be lower ranking officers and take (reasonable) orders from us. They like to be ordered around. They enjoy being at our beck and call. They see us as as the rock to hold onto in the roiling seas to keep from drowning.
I don’t’ believe women are inferior, and it’s not a scientific question with a real answer anyway. The answer to that question is whatever you think it is – it’s a matter of opinion and not of science. This is in spite of the fact that so many male autists think they can assemble scientific truth of women’s inferiority.
On the other hand, the man has to dominate the woman, if only just a little bit. If you don’t dominate her, she will rip those pants right off of you and put them on herself.
Total Equality Is Not Possible between Men and Women
Equality does not seem possible between men and women. I think the best relationships would be a sort of a kind and benevolent slight domination of the man by the woman.
I believed in equality for many years because that is what my politics taught me was right, but I finally realized that this goes against human nature or Natural Law. And if you spend your life acting as if total equality is possible in male-female relationships, you will be chasing a white whale with nothing but doom and the plunging depths of deathly despair at the end of your battles.
Doing the right thing makes no sense if all you do is tilt at windmills.
The Very Idea of Taboo Subjects Outside of People’s Personal Matters Is Pretty Much Bullshit
I really don’t believe in taboo subjects. “Whoa! We don’t talk about that!?” Well, why the Hell not for God’s sake? Maybe someone’s personal life is rather taboo. I’m not particularly interested in people’s sex lives, for instance. Of course I can gossip with the rest but in general, people’s sex lives are a rather personal matter, especially if revealing things about it would be embarrassing to the person. People have a right to privacy in a sense. I’ve always outed everyone I’ve ever known who was gay or bi though if I knew about it. Not out of malice but simply because I felt that that was an interesting fact about them.
There are some things that have happened in our family that are so shameful and embarrassing that no one talks about them. I in particular don’t want to hear about them considering I was the victim.
If you are doling out people’s personal lives in order to insult or humiliate them, I don’t see the point.
I had a cousin who was gay. He died recently. Of course I asked about his love life. My family completely flipped out and kept saying over and over, “It doesn’t matter! It doesn’t matter!” It didn’t seem very woke to me. It seemed more like they were ashamed of it. Finally my Mom told me that he’d had a long series of relationships with older men. Actually his homosexuality was a huge taboo in my stupid family, and it was not to be discussed. His own father simply refused to believe that he was gay and kept saying he would find a nice girl one day. I don’t understand what’s so cool and woke about an attitude like that. It sounds like his father was ashamed of him.
The basic stupid attitude is that if you never talk about something, it’s hopefully going to go away. This is magical thinking, but humans excel at this. People literally believe that if we just never talk about this thing, it will either vanish or more properly, it will cease to exist.
All of this nonsense seems to be all wrapped up in shame, and shame is bullshit if you ask me. What’s there to be ashamed of? Nothing!
Further most subjects are taboo because the standard view of them is completely insane. Dope was taboo forever because the whole society was insane about dope. Sex was taboo in my family while growing up because my family was nuts about sex. The sex lives of sexually mature minors is now taboo because society is stark raving batshit insane about this subject.
A lot of taboos were just shitty. My friend CL had a mother who was a horrendous bitch. She was also very cruel and demeaning to him and in particular, humiliated him in an emasculating way. His father was just some cold asshole who cheated on the bitch mother. His sister was a mental case who fucked anything that moved and took every drug known to exist. She eventually died of AIDS. She hung out with an extremely gay punker crowd.
The fact that my friend’s Mom was an unholy bitch was taboo. He defended that evil cunt to the hilt. And look how she treated him!
The fact that his father was cold bastard who cheated on his Mom was taboo. His father was a wonderful man.
Anything involving the lunatic sister was taboo. She was the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Every now and then, once every few years, my friend would go on an absolutely batshit insane bender of wild drinking for weeks on end which typically ended in some sort of a catastrophe. Of course discussion of this was taboo even though it was probably one of the most important themes of his life.
He could not express anger at all and he was freaked out and appalled if you ever displayed anger around him. Anger was taboo.
The guy across the street was a closeted faggot. Not a gay man, a faggot. And a real bad one too. He’d been in prison for a couple of years. Somehow I got tangled up in a very bad friendship with him that ended when one day I walked over to his house with a baseball and bat and smashed his front door down!
I had hired him to work on my car but halfway through I found someone to do it for less so he got mad. He went to my car in the middle of the night, switched every switch that could have been switched and then turned it on. Killed the engine. So he got his front door smashed down by me. This is what happens if you piss me off or fuck me over. I will go over to your damned house with a baseball bat and smash your front door down!
Anyway, he had been stealing people’s car stereos in the neighborhood for a long time. His father was a weird man with an evil look in his eye. Rumor was he was in on the son’s thievery and was selling the stolen goods. The guy’s mother was hideously ugly, grossly fat, and a deranged alcoholic. Periodically she would wake the neighborhood at ungodly hours screaming unintelligibly like a banshee or a howler monkey. This nonsense might go on for an hour or two. I once tried to bring it up with this guy. Taboo subject! His Mom was the greatest person on Earth.
I’m not sure if I ever brought up the fact that he used to be a thief and did prison time for burglary or the fact that his Dad looked like he had made a pact with the Devil, but I’m sure that would have been taboo too. After I smashed his door down I spread the rumor that he was a faggot closet case, which he was. This was also taboo and he threatened to beat me up for this insult.
Closets Are for Clothes
As an aside, the most utterly deranged, disturbed, creepy, tormented, and even dangerous homosexual men I have ever met were closet cases in their late 20’s and early 30’s with fake girlfriends. A few years back, I had a terrible interaction with a closet case, who was also profoundly disturbed and angry, at a local Starbucks. Closet case gay men are unbelievably fucked up. If you are biologically gay, please come out of the closet. We don’t like homosexuality but we will support you because we know you can’t help it. If anyone wants to chime in about why closet cases are so sick and fucked up, be my guest. I guess living a lie and hiding from yourself your whole life isn’t real great for mental health.
Taboo Subjects are Crap, Continued
Anyway, as you can see, most of the taboo subjects I’ve dealt with in my life were about fucked up people who no one would admit were fucked up, about unpleasant emotions that people tried to deny that they had, about people who lived lies, had shameful secrets, lived wicked and idiotic lives, and in general, subjects about which society didn’t know its ass from a Goddamned hole in the ground.
I’ve always told all of you guys that I’ll never lie you to about anything important in terms of current affairs, history, or politics, or much of anything, really. I might mystify my own life a bit, but so what? So shoot me.
As I noted at that start, I’m sitting here trying to think of a subject that is justifiably taboo,l and I just can’t think of one! Can any of my readers come up with some subject anywhere on God’s green Earth that is justifiably taboo? The whole idea of taboo subjects is stupid and lame. I’m against it.
My motto on this site is I’m going take every one of the taboo subjects whose secrecy you most cherish and shove them right up your asses. I’m going to force you to confront your bullshit, lies, and games. I’m going to make you question every single damn thing you believe and then some. I’m here to piss you off. If I’m not pissing you off, I’m not doing my job. If any of my commenters wish to follow suit and become professional trolls or provocateurs, be my guest. You will right in spirit with the site.
Anonymous: It would be interesting to talk about autistic people, and how high rates of transgender feelings might be due to gender dysphoria due to identity crises in teenage years.
Among ROGD girls, Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, which now accounts for almost all FTM transsexuals and is almost certainly a social contagion mental disorder along the lines of anorexia nervosa, rates of autism and Asperger’s Syndrome are very high, as in 25%. Autism is behind a huge amount of this new transsexualism.
I saw a post the other day by a transman who has completely destroyed their health by transitioning from male to female. His health is shot and he almost died numerous times.
A teenage daughter of a friend of his insists that she is trans. Reason? She’s growing breasts and she hates that. She hates her breasts. Actually this feeling is very common among young teenage girls. Most grow out of it. Hatred of their genitalia is also very common among women.
I was involved with a woman for a while who went through a period in early adulthood where she taped her vagina shut with tape and walked around like that all day. I asked her why she did it and she said, “I don’t know.” She worked as a therapist if you can believe that.
I saw a post on Reddit by a woman who said she hated her genitals for a good ten years since age 13. She couldn’t even bear to look at them.
Anyway, hating your body and hating your growing breasts does not mean you are trans, for God’s sake! Jesus, man.
As you know, I was banned from Twitter a while back for saying,
There’s no such thing as transgender people. They’re all just mentally ill.
I don’t quite believe that this is true because I think there are ~6% of them who have an actual biological disorder, and in those cases, I am ok with transition for them. However, the other 94% really have nothing wrong with them other than that they are crazy, often via a sort of social contagion similar to anorexia nervosa. This is the case with almost all FtM transsexuals.
89% of the men simply have a sexual kink, fetish, or paraphilia called autogynephilia where they get aroused by wearing women’s clothes and thinking of themselves as women. The disorder starts out early in life via arousal by wearing girl’s and women’s clothes. It becomes a paraphilia known as transvestism. Transvestism in many cases becomes chronic and worsens with age such that later in life just dressing up doesn’t cut it anymore and they need to see themselves as actual women.
It is curable and some people have simply cured themselves. Others have thought their way out of it. Whatever is wrong with them, none of them are men in women’s bodies or vice versa. The closest to that are the “homosexual MtF transsexuals or pure transsexuals who have brains that are “female-shifted” but not female. That is, their brains are halfway between a male brain and a female brain. So their brains are feminized relative to the average male, but they do not have female brain structures.
Anyway, I got banned.
Somehow I sneaked back on and set up another profile. It was rather successful for some odd reason until I got linked up with Robert Stark who was getting into it with TERF (trans-exclusive radical feminists).
I have no idea how it came up, but I ended up posting how I was still dating 18 and 19 year old girls around age 60. It’s very hard to date them and I’ve only been with a few because almost all of them want to charge me, that is, they want me to be their sugar daddy. That costs about $400/month so that is too much for me.
But now and again when the stars align or I succeed in violating the laws of physics, I find one who will date me, not for free, but in a normal dating relationship. Anytime you have an age gap that extreme, you’re always paying for everything since she usually doesn’t have a nickel. She’s often living at her parents’ house, hasn’t even learned to drive a car yet, has very limited work history, and some are still in high school!
Yes, I have dated high schools at age 60! But they were over 18. And sexually they have no idea what they are doing. Quite a few are virgins or practically so. One 18 year old girl not only had never had sex, but she had never even been kissed. I was her first.
As with the underage jailbaits (formerly accessible as a teenage boy and from 18-21), they have no idea what they are doing in bed, but they are very curious and enthusiastic and have a child-like eagerness to learn. Everything’s new to them and they’re having fun. They also often on a mission to achieve their sexual self-actualization in the face of parents or society that are preventing them from having sex.
They are out to create a sexual life for themselves as a way of being an adult and being independent, so there is often a rebellious attitude to it. One 19 year old girl was living at home and her father was enforcing permanent virginity til marriage on her. That wasn’t working out but he was still angry and slut-shaming. At 5 PM on the afternoon of the first date, she shocked me by asking me if she could move in. Of course I said yes.
If you take these young ladies in, you become her (substitute) father – let’s face it – in many cases that is what is behind all of this – a poor relationship with her father. Absent father, father left her, never knew her father, hostile father, hates her father, on and on. She veers towards older men as father figures to give her the love that Daddy never gave her. So you, the older man, are basically Daddy.
You are also her lover of course and in most cases you are her sex therapist too, since as I noted, they have no idea what they are doing in bed.
You are also her therapist, since they are typically pretty screwed up in the head. In fact, most of the ones I have dated were suicidal, either slightly or overtly. However, suicidality is almost the natural state of Womankind, and though they talk a good game, they don’t walk the walk. They make 4-5 more attempts than men, but men commit suicide twice as often. Suicidal attempts in women, which I have witnessed in a couple of girlfriends already, are typically designed to fail and are often cries for help or attention. They often use pills, which don’t work very well.
Men on the other hand – we don’t mess around. If we are going to try to commit suicide, we will finish the job, goddamn it, as cries for help and attention and considered sissified and feminine in men, so we don’t like to do that. On that note, gay teenage boys have an attempted suicide rate that is very high, as high as women’s, but once again, the completed rate is low. So these gay boys are engaging in a feminine style of suicidality, not surprising considering that much male homosexual behavior is feminine.
Anyway, most of these girls know very little about life, so you end up doling out wisdom to her all the time, and she is learning about life every single day. You show her better ways of dealing with things and how to be more mentally healthy as opposed to the opposite – what used to be called mental hygiene.
You also end up teaching her the 300,000+ rules about social speech and behavior. Actually there are a lot more than that, but I can only remember 300,000 of them at the moment. I apologize. I know, I’m a social retard. There are actually 3 million rules, and any competent social actor knows them all by heart. Forget one rule and you’re a social failure. But of course.
Young people don’t know much about this weird and often crazy rules, and they end up mystified and angry a good part of the time. So you’re always teaching her the rules of the world, which, at the tender age of 64, I am still learning. I’m not sure if that is normal, but perhaps it is. Learning is a lifelong process. Anyone who thinks they know it all is a fool best avoided.
I have a genius IQ which is otherwise useless, but it’s good teaching young folks. And I’ve spent my whole life filling up my brain. I easily am smarter and know more than 99% of the people you will ever meet. Not that that makes me special, but perhaps you might wish to stop and talk sometime? I like to think I’m a pretty interesting person because I’m so smart, and I know so many things.
Anyway, all of this comes in handy with a young woman, especially an intelligent one who knows a thing or two herself and is the “eager for knowledge” type. In vocabulary alone, I end up teaching them easily 10-20 new words every single day. And I know so much about so many things that these women can learn a Hell of a lot from me. I’m a walking encyclopedia, or maybe a walking university course. They recognize that and seem to enjoy learning all of these new things.
One told me six months after we had separated, “Ever since I met you, everyone I meet seems like an idiot.” It had been nine months since we had met. Another one was always telling me how wise I was. Most of us get to middle age and hopefully we have accumulated some wisdom along the way. That’s the general idea, you know. Hence a middle aged person will usually be wiser than someone in their 20’s, though some young people are already remarkably wise for whatever reason.
You might end up teaching her to drive.
If she moves in with you, it will be the first time she’s ever been on her own.
You are her mentor in so many ways. I’m a former teacher and it’s such a great joy to see someone learn, and there are few places you can watch this growth process unfold so quickly as when you are mentoring one of these young women.
So anyway, I laid all of this out in some posts, Robert reposted them gleefully, and the next thing I knew I was in a thunderstorm of radical feminists, lesbians, man-haters, social conservatives (they are allies – I call them femiservatives), and various forms of cucks, fags, and girlymen (male feminists).
The abuse was nonstop. I was called these things many times – pedophile (the girls were adults), predator, groomer, creep, rapist, dangerous to women, on and on. After they decided I was a professor at some Fresno State University, they said I was “grooming” my female students, which isn’t possible because you can only groom children. I was also “preying” on my female students. About 20 of them emailed the university demanding that they fire me. Unfortunately for them, I’m not a professor at that university. I’m only an alumnus.
Then they decided that I was a therapist, said that any male therapist who acts like I was had no business being in that profession, and ~20 more of them bombarded the State Board of Counseling Licensing to try to get my license pulled. Fortunately, I’m a peer counselor and we don’t have to be licensed, degreed, credentialed, or anything. We are limited in what we can call ourselves and say that we do, but there’s no license to pull, and no one has any jurisdiction over us. So that didn’t work either.
Then they started bombarding Twitter with complaints. When this wasn’t working, they posted, “Why is this pedophile still posting? Why haven’t we shut him down yet?” I think Twitter has a policy that once someone starts getting mass-reported, they are considered a nuisance customer and terminated for generating too many complaints. A perfect way to justify mass fake reporting of people you don’t like.
I mostly know the rules, but they caught me on a couple of things. Using the word “whore.” That’s a ban on that cucked website. A few other things.
Twitter dinged me three times and gave me a 7-day ban. That made me so mad that I reported a bunch of my enemies who had turned me in, something I never do because I hate this whole cucked process of banning free speech based on woke BS and hurt feelings. It’s completely gay. I don’t see why any man goes along with this pussy nonsense. It’s tattling and tattling is pussy and weak. Women tattle. Women call the cops every time the wind changes direction.
Men aren’t supposed to be calling the cops all the time, tattling on everyone, and trying to get everyone in trouble. That’s what sissies do. It’s like a little boy running to his Mommy every time he gets into it with other boys. It’s totally weak and wussy behavior.
After a couple of days, for no reason, Twitter changed it into a permanent ban. So the soyboys at Twitterpermanently banned me for saying I dated 18 and 19 year old girls around age 60. How pussy and gay is that? Well folks, this is our soyciety in the Current Year, I am afraid. We live in a Matriarchy. The women are in charge and run the show. The “men” in power are all soyboys and cucks who are working for the Matriarchy. Real men have nowhere to go and are increasingly threatened. I don’t see this getting better anytime soon. In fact, it seems to be getting worse.
So there ya go. My latest ban. But have no fear. Is it possible I may sneak back on again? Who knows! Stay tuned to this channel to find out!
From an anonymous commenter: Many law enforcement officers have strong Antisocial Personality Disorder (sociopathic) tendencies. It makes parts of their job easier. It is also why there is domestic violence in up to 40% of police households, depending on definition and which study you read. In any event, it appears to be above the base rate for the population.
It is often excused as job stress and either kept in the home or behind the “blue wall.” Unlike the hardcore sociopath, the vast majority do have a conscience and sometimes that gets to be too much or they realize they are going to get caught in some nefarious deed, and they kill themselves. There has been an unusually strong stigma for LEO’s to seek mental health help when they get depressed or PTSD symptoms worsen. That is changing slowly.
I believe that sociopaths are created and have a small conscience. Psychopaths on the other hand do not.
Most psychopaths never spend a single day in an institution. Our former president is a good example. Controlled psychopaths are a dime a dozen. LE, the military, business, law, and even medicine (particularly surgery) are full of psychopaths. One study found 10% of corporate CEO’s were psychopaths. I’m not sure how many there are in the population.
I have seen figures like 1% for women and 4% for men, but perhaps it is higher. That gives us 2.5%.
Female psychopaths are a lot different and are mostly dangerous to your wallet. They are just stereotypical “thieving whores.” The various sex industries are full of these women. 45% of female prostitutes are psychopaths, and “whore” and “thief” are almost synonyms. I had a date (if you want to call it that) with a woman a while back, and I am 100% convinced she was a female psychopath.
Not very smart at all but in some ways, she had a genius IQ in manipulation, scamming, and lying. She was not a prostitute at the time but had been one in the past. Even former prostitutes are usually bad news. As my Mom says, “You can take the girl out of the whorehouse, but you can’t take the whorehouse out of the girl.”
Whores see men as walking ATM’s. Of course most date men and have boyfriends, but they also drain your bank account and I would advise all men to not date or get into relationships with prostitutes, having had the misfortune of dating a few whores in my life. The porn industry, stripping, etc. is full of women like this. The porn industry is also full of male psychopaths, who are much worse.
On the other hand, male psychopaths are out and out dangerous to your life and limb because they often engage in physical violence.
On most negative variables, the male variety tends to be more virulent and is often a menace, while the female variety is more moderate and is mostly dangerous to your ego, spirit, and sanity. Women just aren’t as “florid and extreme” as men. Men are like the desert, blazing hot in day, and freezing cold at night. Women are the Mediterranean, more moderate all year long with few extremes in weather.
For instance, there are more male geniuses, but there are also more male retarded.
Women attempt suicide 5X more than men, but men are 3X more likely to complete it. With women it is often the stereotypical cry for help. But men don’t mess around. Also women use pills, which are notoriously unreliable for suicide. Men don’t fool around like that. They use a gun and get it over with.
The male versions of mental disorders such as Bipolar Disorder tend to be more virulent, aggressive, violent, psychotic, and wild as they specialize in wild manias. Whereas the women of course tend to be depressed with fewer and more attenuated manic episodes.
Sociopaths are created by society and are hotheaded and not usually very successful. They tend to act on impulse. They do sometimes feel a certain amount of remorse for their acts because they do have a conscience, albeit a weak one.
Psychopaths on the other hand appear to be biologically created perhaps with an additive factor of abuse and head injuries in childhood determining whether one becomes a controlled versus uncontrolled psychopath. Psychopaths are cool-headed, cold and calculating. In contrast to the sociopath, they have no conscience at all. Psychopaths are probably more dangerous but I’m not quite sure. It seems like you might be able to work with sociopaths, although it would be very hard. They give off this “salvageable” vibe to me. I doubt if you could do much work with psychopaths at all.
Having been arrested and thrown in jail twice and having spent a whole six hours in jail, I am quite familiar with psychopathy in LE officers, though they don’t all have it. For every crazy asshole violent sadistic cop, there’s one who’s a lot nicer and more toned down.
One thing I noticed was some prominent sadism in the police who arrested me. They really got off on throwing me into walls, etc. And they loved calling me a faggot. Really got off on that and wouldn’t shut up about it, although I’m not gay. After those experiences, I’m not much of a fan of cops, though I take them as individuals and some are really cool. A lot of others are huge assholes. I think police are best avoided in your life because any time you have police anywhere near your life, there’s probably something bad going on. The further they are from my life, the better.
I don’t care anything about cops or ex cops like detectives, especially if they just work homicide or robbery. I’m probably not real keen on narcs or narcotics officers. I’ve talked to a few of them and they were all self-righteous, sanctimonious dicks. They weren’t very nice either. To them, drugs were evil and they were doing God’s work.
Most detectives probably don’t give two shits about most crimes other than their specialty, especially the chickenshit stuff I got arrested on. Why should I hate a cop who just tries to catch murderers?
I did an interview for a possible attempted homicide with three homicide detectives, two from New Jersey and one from my city.
They were really nice to me but they weren’t going to let me fuck around. Also they didn’t care about other crimes. They asked me if I had committed other crimes. “Like stealing stuff.”
What can you say to that? Of course I’ve stolen a thing or two in my life, but I don’t make a habit of it. I said that and one smiled and said, “Oh, you stole things out of cars, for instance?” like this was the most innocent thing on Earth. If I said yes they were not going to hold it against me. I found that absolutely amazing. I asked about drugs and they said, “We don’t care about your drug history. We’re not interested in hearing about it.”
To tell the truth, they were very nice, warmhearted and congenial guys! I would not want to be in their custody though. I’m think they could turn on the bad cop pretty quick.
Jews Out-compete Gentiles, Probably Due to Superior Genetics
I do think that Jews outcompete non-Jews, mostly due to intelligence, and this contributes to antisemitism. And they do tend to hire and promote their own, while exempting themselves from anti-discrimination statutes. I think the Jews are simply superior intellectually, and this allows them to out-compete non-Jews, get more and better jobs, gain wealth, control and monopolize industries, etc.
I will say that Jews act a lot better nowadays. I’ve read how US Jews behaved 100 years ago, and US Gentiles had no choice but to counter Jewish ethnic warfare with anti-Semitism. This is unfortunate and sad. But Jews don’t seem to be doing this so much anymore these days. Control over newspaper media and Hollywood was in fact a Jewish conspiracy, but it was not done to be evil or control the world. Instead it was simply done out of paranoia, the ever-present Jewish mindset.
Jews Took Over the Media and Hollywood Out of Paranoia, Not Evil and a Desire for Money and Power
In the late 1800’s, many US papers were openly racist and White Supremacist. They didn’t say much about Jews, but Jews don’t like it when White Gentiles get racist because that tends to circle back on the Jews at some point. So some very wealthy Jews got together and bought up some big papers to take them out of the hands of the racists. The Ochs and Sulzerberger takeover of TheTimes worked this way.
Jewish ownership of the media used to be a lot worse. Now it’s just conglomerates and billionaires buying up papers. Yet the media still engages in the same behavior that anti-Semites condemned when the “Jewish media” did it. This suggests that the problem is not a Jewish media but more of a general attitude that US media have in common regardless of ethnicity.
Same thing in movies. In the early days of the movies, Birth of the Nation and other movies came out that glorified White Supremacism, in the case of BOTN, the KKK. The Jews were alarmed and figured it would circle back on them some day. Four Jews who came from an area within a 100 mile radius in Galicia got together and pretty much bought up Hollywood, once again to keep it out of the hands of the racists.
It stayed this way for a long time. This is changing now, though some aspects are still quite Jewish, such as TV. However, the movies are diverse. In particular, some Italian directors have now set up huge studios, and they don’t typically hire vast numbers of Jews for their movies. A stroll through the credits will show you that.
Sure, there are still plenty of Jews in Hollywood at all levels, but they don’t exactly run the place anymore. Once again, the movie people engage in behavior via their movies that is exactly the same as the messages antisemites accused “Jewish Hollywood” of pushing, hence the problem again seems to be not so much with “Jewish Hollywood” as with a “general Hollywood way of looking at the world.”
How Stupid Does a Gentile Country Have to Be to Let a Tiny Pissant Tribe of Jews Take Over Their Country?
Lastly, antisemites complain about Jews taking over a few Gentile countries in some way. Note that this takeover has mostly been in order to get the government to support Israel because that’s the only common cause they have. Otherwise, Jews hardly concur on anything. Two Jews, three opinions.
Be that as it may, but how stupid do Gentiles have to be to let 2% of the population, a minority not including them, take over the country? If they had any sense, they wouldn’t allow it. I have no sympathy for Gentiles who let some tiny pissant tribe of humans take over their country. They’re fools and they got what they deserved. They handed the Jews the keys to the castle, and the Jews said thanks and walked right in. What did anyone expect them to do? If it was a hostile takeover, it was a consensual one.
The Main Reason for Antisemitism: The Jews Created and Maintain the Left
The antisemite line is that liberalism, the Left, socialism, and Communism are all Jewish plots. In that case, I say let’s hear it for the Jews!
No matter the negative aspects of Jews, we on the Left owe a tremendous debt to the Jews, for the Jewish virtually birthed and raised the Modern Left to maturity, and they continue to support it to this day, although the growth far Right Jewish Fascism in Israel and to some extent in the US has somewhat put a damper on that. True, the liberal Jews in the US supported the Jewish fascists in Israel, but they oppose fascism everywhere else, including here. Jews are some of the leaders in the pro-democracy and anti-fascism movements in the US today. I don’t know what we would do without them.
Jews, Especially Jewish Males, Are Highly Aggressive, Even Thuggish People
I do think a valid critique of Jews is that many are very aggressive people, especially the males. They have a reputation for rudeness, obnoxiousness, ruthlessness, zero-sum games, playing hardball, fighting dirty, throwing out all the rules, and an Old Testament eye for an eye mindset in contradiction to Mercy ideally inherent, though often not present, in Christian societies.
Many of the big Jews in academia and business have a thuggish character. I’ve been told by Jews themselves that this is all down to a culture that demands absolute success or else with no room left for not succeeding. This ends up creating a very aggressive person determined to succeed at all costs with a concomitant terror of failure.
Perhaps aggressive folks are well-liked in our hyper-capitalist society where such belligerent and Machiavellian folks prosper to the heights, but I’m an introvert, and they rub me the wrong way. But that’s no reason to hate or discriminate against anyone. I don’t hate aggressive people. I simply choose not to be around them. Them over there, me here. A divorce.
No ethnic group is perfect and for all of the flaws of the Jews, I think they have tremendous good qualities (see the Jews and the Left above) which may or may not outweigh the bad depending on your views. There are some ethnic groups out there who have what I call “all of the bad qualities of Jews and none of the good ones.” They are truly insufferable.
Rambo: Of course vegetarians say the reason human beings are bloodthirsty murderers is because of the consumption of meat. If everybody just went veggie, people wouldn’t be so lustful for blood.
I’m not so sure that is true. First of all, we don’t kill most of the animals we eat. If we had to, we might not eat them! When I eat meat, I purposely put the idea of the fact that this meat I am eating came from a living animal that had to be killed in order for me to eat it out of my head because it’s so upsetting. So when I’m eating spare ribs, I may as well be eating carrots for all my moral mind knows.
Killing Animals and Killing Humans May Be Two Completely Different Thought Mechanisms in Humans Having Little to Do with Each Other
But I’m well acquainted with homicidal feelings, as I’ve experienced them much of my life, although much less often now that I am older. The odd thing is that I’m a pacifist, maybe the nicest guy you’ve ever met, the least irritable person around who is bothered by nothing that others do, and I’ve never even tried to kill anyone in anything other than self-defense (we won’t discuss the possible exemptions to this rule here), much less a completely innocent person. So you can see that if even a passive pacifist like me has led this homicidal of a mental life, God forbid what your ordinary person thinks like, and I think we don’t even want to know what your average aggressive hypermasculine male thinks!
So homicidal thinking seems quite universal in humans, or at least in males. Yet I never think with joy about the animals I eat, and not only that but I brainwash myself into thinking that a living animal did not have to be killed for me to eat it. So I take my mind completely outside of the knowledge and awareness that an animal had to be killed in order for me to eat it. Such knowledge would seem to be necessary in order for there to be a connection between meat-eating and homicidality.
People who brainwash themselves into thinking eating a pork chop is the same thing as eating Brussels sprouts hardly have the murderous mindset necessary for the theory to be true. And as I pointed out, completely passive and more or less harmless people can think in markedly homicidal ways. So it seems that eating meat in which an animal had to be killed in order for one to eat it and homicidal thinking towards other humans are two completely different mechanisms and in many cases, have little to do with each other.
Actual Hunting of Animals Doesn’t Seem to Lead to Killing Humans
What about hunters? I used to be friends with a taxidermist who was an avid hunter and even a hunter guide. I brought up the question of whether killing animals may make someone more likely to kill people. He’d thought about it a bit, and he said that the thought streams were two completely different mechanisms. There is a huge gap or fence in place between killing animals and killing humans, and most hunters are aware of it. It’s as if the thoughts of killing animals and killing humans were from two different planets.
Hunters section these thoughts apart and make a vast divide between them as if they are two completely different things altogether. I’m not sure what the literature shows, but it seems as if hunters deliberately create a mental barrier for themselves when they kill animals, possibly to make sure that murderousness towards animals does not lead to homicidality towards humans. Or perhaps the two thoughts are already walled off that way due to socialization. Or perhaps the hard divide between them is hardwired into our brains.
Boys Killing Small Animals in Almost All Cases Does Not Lead Them to Kill Humans
Notice how easily children, especially boys, kill bugs, fish and in less frequent cases, amphibians and reptiles, even less often birds and least of all, mammals? Well, as a boy, I had no issues killing bugs and fish; in fact, it was a cause for delight. But those feelings would not even extend to amphibians, much less anything higher than that (We caught snakes but that was in order to make pets out of them!), and I’ve never killed an amphibian, reptile, bird, or mammal in my life. I tried to kill frogs recently because the ones around here are pests, but my mind stopped me. It seemed too cruel and disgusting.
So when do you hear about about even the cruelest animal-killing boys killing other humans, except in the case of adolescents? Almost never.
So already in boys the killing of lesser organisms, especially at the lower end, is sectioned off with a hard wall, probably genetically based, against even killing more advanced creatures, much less humans, which is verging on the unthinkable.
Teens Torturing Mammals to Death, Especially Dogs and Cats, Is Different
However, once teenagers get to the point where they are killing mammals, especially beloved domesticated ones like dogs and cats, a hard line has been crossed, and they are now more likely to kill higher mammals like humans. This is particularly the case because boys killing lesser animals often involves torture (it certainly did with us), and kids who kill dogs and cats often torture them to death. Torturing a mammal to death is completely different from a hunter killing a deer quickly and cleanly. The former is much more likely to be escalated to killing humans due to the sadistic nature of it.
The Original Theory Appears Unfalsifiable
But this is unfalsifiable in a sense. Where are all these human vegetarians we can test this theory on? They don’t really exist (but see below). So there’s no way to even test out the theory. Theories that can’t be tested out are nonfalsifiable; that is, there is no way to prove them wrong. Another way of saying is by saying not only is the theory not right, it’s not even wrong!
Largely vegetarian Hindus have conducted some major massacres in past decades.
And Hitler was said to be a vegetarian, and Nazis promoted vegetarianism due to an animal rights project they had that they unfortunately did not extend to human animals.
My understanding is that Hitler’s “extermination and mass murder campaigns” took the lives of 15 million people. 6 million of those were Jews. Super-Jews (Jewish tribal activists, otherwise known as stereotypical “loudmouth Jews”) angrily reject the 15 million and even Wiesenthal’s 11 million. I actually like this man, while I don’t like Elie “The Weasel” Wiesel. Wiesenthal’s a mensch, a human first and a Jew second. The Weasel is of the course the opposite type, a Jew first and a human second, if at all.
Also, although this man suffered horrendously, and I’m very sorry that happened to him, in his books, he made up a bunch of lies about what happened in the concentration camps. You would think that just reporting the facts of horrific Nazi behavior would be bad enough. But no. The Weasel had to go and make a bunch up a bunch of BS stories that never happened. This is bad for another reason because it’s bad for the Jews.
The antisemites see some of the stories Jewish Holocaust survivors reveal as made-up lies, and of course they use it as fodder for their sleazy Holocaust Denial project, the goal of which is to deny the Holocaust so they can do it again, and do it right this time! The Holocaust Deniers are playing a dirty game. Thanks for playing into the hands of Holocaust Deniers, Weasel.
Jews have a bad attitude towards the Shoah, as these other 9 million victims of Hitler’s extermination campaigns are not to be mentioned, and in fact it is even “antisemitic” to bring them up! Because to bring up non-Jewish victims of Hitler’s murder campaign would take the focus away from the “special” mass murder campaign directed against the Jews.
Granted the campaign against the Jews (the Holocaust) was genocidal in nature, while the death of the other 9 million was not, but still, Jews are notorious for not caring about these other victims. They also hate bringing up any other genocides such as the Armenian Genocide and the anti-Christian genocides of the Young Turks. They say it is “antisemitic” to bring this mass murder campaign up because it detracts from the “special” mass murder campaign directed at the Jews. You see this theme of Jewish “specialness” over and over? And they wonder why people don’t like them.
But those of us who are Jew-wise knew they would do that.
The Jews also turned Holocaust into an industry and a money-making franchise. A famous Jew said, “There’s no business like Shoah business.”
But we knew they would do that too.
They can’t help themselves. Of course they’re going to make a buck off of it. That’s how they roll.
A Super-Jew wrote: Funny how there are no other organized denial societies.
There is Turkish Denial of the Armenian and other Christian Genocides of the Young Turks. For a while there, Japanese would not own up to their killings. Muslims killed 50 million Hindus in India, and they attempt to wash that away.
Genocide denial is probably nothing new. It fits in with human psychology in a lot of ways. Furthermore, I am convinced that we humans are a genocidal lot from the start, so it’s a baken-in tendency, sadly.
Another really cool comment from a commenter on psychopathy, in this case from a Left perspective. I’m so glad some of my commenters have figured out I’m a Leftie. I am. I’m a really, really weird Leftie, but I’m basically a Leftie. There’s nothing in any form of US conservatism that appeals to me and the Democrats are far better than the Republicans, though my complaint is they are not left enough. On the other hand, I am rather socially conservative for a Leftie, but I have a feeling a lot of us are like that.
In Manuel’s previous post about his own country, Venezuela, where 70% of the citizens state openly that they are Chavistas (polls show that 70% of the population support the Chavista program), and hence Leftists, indicated nevertheless that this country is terribly patriarchal and most of the men and women for that matter are very socially conservative. I’d even venture so far as to call them backwards.
I’m thinking there are lot more “Conservative Left” types out there. I can see quite a few in Nicaragua. There seem to be a lot in Russia and the former USSR, Eastern Europe, Turkey, North Africa, the Basque Country, the Arab World, and especially in China. Conservative Left people are still on the Left. We will vote left most everywhere on Earth. We’re just not down with whatever the latest PC, SJW, woke lunacy of the week is, that’s all.
Manuel Rodriguez: Putting that aside, there is something else I wanted to talk about. Let’s talk about psychopathy from a leftist perspective! This is an angle that nobody seems to take.
I realized that just like patriarchy and capitalism go together, so are psychopathy and capitalism almost bedfellows. The values that capitalism promotes feed into psychopathy allow encourage it to resonate through society almost as an unseen force like gravity. The end products of individualism socially rewarded in capitalism, even though they maximizing one’s material wealth either morally or not and using other people to get it. Capitalism defends its interests from perceived threats with violence, often extreme violence, via endlessly creative methods.
One thing I always wondered about was how psychopathy might effect leftist and revolutionary processes. I thought of cases where a “dictator” type climbs up the social ladder and reaches the top. These people seem to be pretty brutal and in some cases, they have lived like kings via the labor of their countrymen. This same mechanism, these same types are easily able to infiltrate and advance in political parties to where they can climb the social hierarchy, often leading to these people becoming extremely corrupt.
Whenever psychopathy is brought up, there is always someone who points out who psychopathy can be beneficial to society in the case of controlled psychopaths in the police and military. This led me to wonder whether controlled psychopaths may have a role to play in revolutionary processes.
On the whole though, I think psychopaths, controlled and uncontrolled, do more harm than good.
Nice bit from a commenter on psychopaths and promiscuity. Also goes quite a bit into Game behavior. My comments are outside of the quote marks.
Manuel Rodriguez: Hello Robert, I see that you haven’t posted about geopolitics in a while! Like Afghanistan or Peru.
I know. I need to.
I wanted to talk about other theme: psychopaths.
Putting aside their main characteristics, one of the main issues that I see with psychopaths/sociopaths not so much that they tend to leave a lot of children around. One can see differences between a simple womanizer or machista and a sociopath/psychopath.
In my highly patriarchal country, young men who are with women who are strong-willed and/or have a close family tend to stay with them for a short while, bear a child, and leave.
I don’t think much of this sort of behavior. I hate to use the word but a lot of Whites would call that “niggerish.” Not so much that you are acting like a Black man but more that you are acting like a certain sort of Black man. Whites are not wild about this behavior but if it happens, they want the man to support the kid. I lived in a White working class community recently and we saw a lot of young White men engaged in the behavior above. However, my mother told me that most of these young men did end up supporting their children. As a man in White culture, you are supposed to support your kids. If you don’t, people really look down on you.
This is a big difference between Black and White culture. Black culture simply doesn’t seem to care whether men support their kids or not.
Men young or old who catch a succulent type of female prey (women that are weaker-willed and are the “people pleaser” personality type and also isolated family-wise) will proceed to destroy her self-esteem, make her emotionally dependent on him, and in general reconfigure her brain so her only required duties are to satisfy his needs while he goes off with other women.
This type of behavior is pretty reprehensible too but I’ve talked to so many women who have come out of abusive relationships with exactly this type of man. I actually think ~1/3 of women prefer bad or abusive men.
The interesting thing I observed about the “old type” is that he often lives off the woman, be it taking her wage or making her work as a slave if he is a merchant or small-business owner. The man takes control of all the money in the household while nobody else knows how he spends it. He spends most of his time outside the house, again, without the family knowing what he is doing.
This is terrible too.
Often the previously-mentioned other “subaltern” family members will observe this and decide it’s not ok, but the wife will engage in self-delusion. She will automatically think and say that he is doing these things for a good and beneficial reason for the family, and she will scold or gaslight whoever brings it up and disagrees.
Another element that separates the old psychopaths from the young is that the old type doesn’t “pump and dump” women like young psychopaths do but instead actually supports the families of his various lovers based on how much how much surplus value he can appropriate from wife and family.
I think this occurs for a few reasons. The main one is that old men are seen by women, especially younger ones, as ugly, so they have to Run the “Resource Game” or Money Game mating strategy and the young women they can get are often a bit on the older side. As you mentioned in your own anecdotes, old men are not as physically attractive as their younger selves and getting young girls with a silver tongue alone is not an option anymore as you age.
Yep, I need money to get a young woman nowadays. Without money I am pretty much SOL with every young woman out there. It’s been a brutal lesson.
This is the thing that ticks me off about women, the fact that the male traits they find very attractive are the physical and personality traits of antisocial, abusive, and disagreeable men.
Yep, women love bad boys and hate nice guys. Feminists lie and say this is because nice guys aren’t really all that nice, but this is a bad argument because women love overtly bad man who act much worse than even bad-behaved nice guys. This is just women lying because telling the truth about normal female behavior makes them look bad.
Here is the brutal truth: Women don’t like nice or passive men because they think they’re pussies. Wimps. Sissies. Possibly gay. Momma’s boys. On and on.
Sort of story of my life here. My reputation on the Net is a psychopath who is some sort of font of pure evil, crime, depravity, and perversion, but the truth is I’m actually a really nice guy. Including with women. If you met me, you might think I’m about the nicest guy you’ve ever met. I’m not irritable at all. Not only that but I seem completely harmless. Nothing bothers me. I don’t much care about what people do to the point where nothing much that anyone does bugs me.
And I just found out that I’m passive.
An ex told me that. It was a hard pill to swallow, but I’ve probably been passive most of my life. And I’m starting to think that women really hate passive men.
I’ve sort of gotten beyond it these days by cultivating an air of scariness or danger. Sadly, this actually benefited me a lot in relationships with women. Women have fallen harder, crazier, and wilder in love with me than ever before since I started being mean and vicious to them sometimes. I only do it if they are really out of bounds, and some women simply don’t have enough evil in them to get too nasty, so there’s no need to pull out my Psycho role for them.
If you want some advise about women, I would say that if you are having nice guy or passive guy issues, start fighting back against the women in your life. Don’t just sit there and take it. And really rip them a new one when they get seriously out of line. I just cuss them out. I don’t hit them.
She will fly into a wild rage, but I’ve found that she might fall deeply in love too.
I think women want the men they fall in love with to be capable of pretty mean or bad behavior at times.
But only at times. Or they want him to stand up to her crap. Hell, I don’t know what it is, but tearing them to pieces in brutal fashion when they get insulting and abusive seems to work wonders.
I’ve wondered why this is and one reason is because when you tear her to bits verbally, you are saying you could care less if she walks out the door right now.
Most men are pussy beggars and pussy-whipped idiots. They’re afraid to unleash on their women for fear that she’ll cut off the sex, so they just sit there and take the abuse. The more they sit there and take the abuse, the more the woman thinks he’s a great big pussy for not standing up to her. So she gets angrier and angrier and more and more contemptuous of her pathetic pussy-whipped idiot of a man.
I was like this for many years. I was afraid that if I ripped her up bad, she would take off, and there goes the sex. And even back in the day, sex was not that easy to come by. Once you get a woman who is giving you lots of regular sex, it seems to be something you want to keep around because it’s quite difficult to find a new woman who will give you as much sex as this one is. Hence most men are operating from a position of Scarcity or Pussy Poverty. They’re desperate.
They think, “I can’t let her leave because she’s the only woman I can get.” That’s probably not true but that’s how the pathetic thinking goes. The woman looks at her man and thinks, “This guy is so pathetic that if I leave him, no way can he get another woman. He’s only with me because nobody else will have him.” This seems pathetic and I think it makes women furious and contemptuous.
Instead, when you blast her from here to Kingdom Come, you are saying that you don’t give a flying fuck if she walks out the door, never to be seen again. Because you don’t care if you get laid or not. Because of course you can replace this toxic bitch with a better-behaved and hopefully newer model anytime you want.
That is operating from position of Abundance or Pussy Wealth.It is good to cultivate an attitude of Abundance even if you are not actually in that position. Just lie to the world and tell the whole world that you have an Abundance mentality and can get a new woman just like that. Women are intrigued by men with an Abundance mentality because they are not pathetic, desperate pussy beggars like most men. Women find a man who has the attitude, “Woman, I could care less whether you have sex with me or not. There’s plenty more where you came from” absolutely fascinating. And in my opinion, it turns them on and even makes them fall in love with you.
I get that there are several reasons about this.
In prehistoric times, genes for good health and strength in men were extremely important. Men also needed “manlier” personality traits in order to fight off, hunt, and kill dangerous animals and to fight men from other tribes.
And because of the way our brains process emotions, we are easily misled by personality traits that we think signal one thing while in fact they signal something completely different. The irresponsible behavior of psychopaths might instead be perceived as high confidence.
“Female Game” reduces down to only two points:
1. Marry or get into a relationship with a man who is not a loser, one whose positive traits match the environmental needs of her environment.
2. Try to get a partner who is not abusive.
Sadly, while the first point makes sense biologically and is socially emphasized, the second point is never brought up despite all the issues women are facing today. Neither society nor mothers teach girls the traits they should look out for in order to avoid abusive and possibly life-threatening partners. I think that even given girls’ immaturity, this would be hugely useful to them as a life lesson. Older women via life experience have generally learned that bad boys are not good for them, especially in the long run.
Promiscuity is so common among psychopaths that it’s actually one of the diagnostic criteria. I’ve tried to give a few explanations for it even though I’m not a psychopath myself, and only a psychopath can truly under the thought processes of such a persons.
Possible reasons for the promiscuity of psychopaths:
1. It is an unintended effect of some features of the psychopaths such as low sensitivity to threats and the affective-interpersonal features that psychopaths have. Psychopaths might not take into account the the risks, consequences, and guilt syndromes of PIV sex such as pregnancies or how whether the woman will feel hurt or not. Instead they choose pleasure of risk and guilt.
2. It an intended effect, either consciously or unconsciously. In recent years, we have seen a number of psychopaths openly declare that they intend to have a lot of children while not investing in or supporting them. There are also many historical accounts of powerful and murderous men, including kings, who sired a lot of children, Genghis Kan being the most famous.
Since promiscuity is a trait and psychopaths have an easy ability to attract women thanks to their social skills, the condition might causing them to try to breed as prolifically as possible.
This makes sense when you think of how not only is psychopathy itself common in highly unfavorable conditions, but such environments cause even non-psychopathic men to have higher rates of promiscuity than men raised in better environments.
In this case, humans wouldn’t be too different from organisms who evolved in unfavorable environments via a strategy of high reproduction. This can be seen in plants that spread a lot of seeds, mushrooms that spread many spores, and prey species such as rabbits that suffer high mortality having frequent and large litters.
The debate on the Indian IQ continues. Looks like what he was getting at is the question of what is the genetic Indian IQ if we get rid of all of the environmental impediments such as malnutrition that are no doubt driving down their IQ scores. In this sense, the argument adds up.
RL: I’ll go along with that. Are we sure that the smartest people survived (the mass culling events in Old Europe), though?”
Tamberlane: We can’t be sure that only the dumbest people survived either. Plagues and diseases don’t test for IQ before they infect you. The safest assumption is all people, regardless of their IQ, died proportionately. My point with the mass culling events in Europe was that survivors tend to have fewer genetic mutations and sturdier immune systems, which are signs of superior genetics (robust physique and facial symmetry i.e. beauty/handsomeness), which leads to a stronger, more robust stock. Plagues may not select for IQ, but they do select for other desirable superior traits. It doesn’t matter anyway, point being there were no mass culling events in India.
RL: But Indians are less intelligent than Blacks and Hispanics. The studies are quite clear about that.
Tamberlane: Yeah, only if you assume the average height of Indians (we’ll go with the male average for simplicity) is 5’7” or 5’7.5” or whatever the official number is for 2021.
“A secular trend in increase in height has been observed in developed countries since the late 19th century, mainly due to improvement in nutritional status as a result of socioeconomic development [1–4]. According to Tanner, growth of a population is a mirror that reflects conditions in society .
There has been intense research interest in the area of linear growth in developing countries, including India, because shorter height is associated with a number of consequences, such as poor cognitive development , obstetric emergencies , and low birthweight in the offspring of short women .
In addition, low birth-weight babies are more likely to suffer from growth faltering and become stunted adults, and thus the cycle of growth retardation is repeated .
So ultimately you are comparing fully nourished Whites (5’10″) and Blacks (5’9″) to malnourished Indians (5’7”). And then claiming an average IQ of 81 is genetic. That’s like breaking Pajeet’s leg, having him recover for three months, and then having him race a White man and a Black man that have been practicing the 100 meter dash for the past three months. It is unreasonable and dishonest to expect Pajeet to comparatively perform even remotely well. The official “studies” do not account for the aforementioned topic. They display these numbers without any disclaimers and mislead the reader to form a false conclusion. That was the entire point of my comment.
RL: But you can’t adjust for low IQ Indians breeding like crazy. The IQ of the population is the IQ of the population. It’s the sum total of the IQ’s divided by the population…
Tamberlane: I was just giving a guesstimate.
RL: Yes, but their average IQ is 81, no?
Tamberlane: Yes, but not the genetic average. When we look at Norwegians, Spaniards, Italians, American Whites, American Blacks, and Australians we are looking at the genetic average. When we are looking at Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, or even Africans we are not looking at the genetic average. Once again the studies lead us to form a false and dishonest conclusion.
RL: Ok, but we have to look at the population as a whole. The country is a shithole in part due to an average IQ of 81, correct?”
Nice little debate here between Tamberlane and me about the Indian IQ. Enjoy. Tamberlane is in blockquotes, and my responses follow.
Wouldn’t the Indian IQ have gone up after the end of famines and diseases?
You claim it is low because the lower classes have been having more kids surviving due to lack of famines and cures for diseases? Follow?
Anyways, there were plenty of diseases in India, but there were no mass culling events like there were in Europe, where 1/4 to 1/3 of the population was slaughtered. These mass extermination events culled the European populations and made their entire groups more genetically robust, of a superior stock.
I’ll go along with that. Are we sure that the smartest people survived, though?
Besides, using common sense, there is no way Indians are dumber that American Blacks or even Hispanics.
But they are. The studies are quite clear about that.
Adjusted for all third world detriments and low-IQ Indians breeding like rabbits, Indians have average IQ’s somewhere between 94-97.
But you can’t adjust for low IQ Indians breeding like crazy. The IQ of the population is the IQ of the population. It’s the sum total of the IQ’s divided by the population. Are you trying to say that the average Indian who comes here is 94-97? You may have a point. Over here, Indians have IQ’s of 94-96. I believe even Pakistanis have IQ’s of 92, which would be a Flynn gain over the 83 IQ in Pakistan. So just moving to the UK raises the Pakistani IQ by nine points! And the Pakistanis who came to the UK were the lowest class of them all.
If you are trying to arrive at a pure genetic Indian IQ, I’m with you. What would their IQ be if they had a Western diet and upbringing?
The rest of the 95% of non-Brahmin Indians are not all low-IQ.
Yes, but their average IQ is 81, no?
Plenty of Kshatriyas and Vaishyas perform well in all fields.
Ok, but we have to look at the population as a whole. The country is a shithole in part due to an average IQ of 81, correct?
Main issue I have with this theory is that the Indian IQ would not have dropped so fast in just 70 years with the end of famines and the reduction of diseases. A disproportionate number of lower classes would have had to have survived for centuries for it to have an effect on IQ. Is that really what happened? Weren’t they dying in droves back then? Keep in mind that the higher IQ Brahmins are only 5% of the population. A good 95% of the population is lower, maybe down ~81 IQ. The less intelligent have been vastly outnumbering the intelligent forever down there.
I agree that Hinduism is indeed a severe regression, degradation, and I would argue vandalization of Santam Dharma.
Tamberlane: The shittiest, weakest, dumbest, and most cowardly Indians bred the most prolifically due to the wide availability of food year-round in combination with the lack of devastating plagues and diseases. The vast majority of Indians have low-tier genetics due to the Indian trash component of their population having 4-5 kids, while the best Indians only had only 1-2 kids.
This in turn creates a toxic, overcrowded, deracinated environment and culture. Let’s not even get started with the malnutrition, lack of infrastructure, toxic air quality, etc. Therefore you get a sandbox in which the vast majority of Indians are sexually frustrated Beta males with an inferiority complex wanting to one up each other for a mere rupee.
Hinduism is a severe regression and degradation of Sanatan Dharma, arguably one of the most beautiful and complete spiritual philosophies in the world. Modern-day Hinduism is just the dog-turd on top of the shit sundae that is India.
Although I will admit, Indians have a lot of untapped potential and are becoming a better and better version of themselves every year. 2000’s India was exponentially better than 1990’s India. 2010’s India was exponentially better than 2000’s India. And 2020’s India is exponentially better than 2010’s India.
I have to admit there is something attractive about terrorism. The brutal calculations, the wrongs and the rights, the deathly equation, the equalizing hand where the weak vanquishes the strong, if only for a brief moment of ecstasy. I love the idea that there are no alibis, no excuses, and no compromises for the terrorist. He knows he’s bad and he doesn’t care. He’s not even pretending to be a good guy.
It’s all about that brutal equalization of power between the strong and the weak. Only the strong can afford to fight fair. All weak parties must fight dirty or die. That’s why women fight dirty and men believe in honorable fights and rules of war. Women laugh at that. Honor in a fight! Pshaw! Rules in war? You nuts? Children fight dirty, slaves, maids, servants and beaten-down wives fight dirty. Terrorists all. Terrorists every one.
There’s something off-putting about physical terrorism in practice. Let’s face it. You have to truly have to your back up against a wall with all options run out to rejoice in the blood and guts of the enemy’s civilians, their women and children, their weakest leaks. Sure, I can understand the desperation, but I’m not that beaten down. Not yet. I pray I’m never beaten so low.
So much better than terrorism on the physical plane is what I would call Psychic Terrorism. Perhaps it is Magic. Perhaps it is just Psychology. I have no idea, but it’s a glorious force.
Our priorities are all wrong. We’ve fingered the least terrorists and made them the worst while we build statues to the worst terrorists of them all – the psychic terrorists.
There’s a poem by Philip Layton along the lines of…
Sure you guys blow up an airliner and kill a few kids.
Pick up the pieces, shed a few tears, say a few prayers, and it’s done.
Penny ante stuff, pikers, bit players on the world stage.
Look at our terrorists – Jesus, Freud, Marx, Einstein.
The world is still quaking.
Psychic terrorism. Now there’s a beautiful thing. I think I will conjure me up a potion of that tonite. Maybe I can rock the world just that one tiny, near-imperceptible bit.
Sure, 16 year old girls look awesome, but she opens up her mouth and she sounds like a 10 year old. Total turnoff. Even those two topless 17 year olds were a turnoff and one of them had awesome huge tits. But they sounded like brain-dead idiot teenyboppers and that was the biggest turnoff. I don’t like “girlishness.”
I like “womanlyness.” To the extent that a female is womanly, she turns me on. To the extent that she is girlish in a silly or stupid way, she turns me off. I don’t date morons. Plus it feels creepy to fuck a woman who acts girlish. I had an 18 year old girlfriend a while back. She was head over heels in love with me. To the extent that she acted like an adult, she turned me on, but when she acted girlish, it was a turnoff.
I don’t have anything against men who are oriented towards girls instead of women, though that’s not me. 16% of men are hebephiles and 3% of men are pedophiles, and if you want to expand the definition of hebephile to where the Shitheads want it, it goes up to 26% or even 100% of all men! Those men are going to be attracted to girlishness and youth. The more a woman looks neotenic or childlike (think Asian women), the more turned on they get.
It’s been said that all men are turned on by neotenism, and perhaps they are feature-wise. But the norm for men is to be teliophilic, not pedophilic or hebephilic.
81% of men are teleiophilic. That means they are maximally attracted to females from 15 up. That includes 15-17 year old girls and women in general. These men are attracted to the features of maturity of “womanishness” in a female. This is the polar opposite of “pedophilia” or whatever the Shitheads are screaming about today. Being attracted to womanishness and turned off by girlishness is the norm for all males. But note that this attraction to maturity includes 15-17 year old girls because in the sexual minds of men, 15-17 year old girls are just women and men are attracted to them because they are womanish, not girlish. Hence this is an incredibly normal attraction.
We can diagnose people with sexual orientations not so much based on the “objects” they are attracted to but more on the “essences” to which they are attracted. Attracted to girlishness? Fine, that’s 19% of all men, but it’s also “pedo-ish” if you will. But note that 19% of all men are “pedo-ish,” so to me, it’s almost normal. How can you that 20% of all men have a horrific and dangerous sexual deviation or paraphilia so awful that they need to be locked up forever? You can’t.
Once you start getting into features that are displayed by large percentages of the population, we really start balking at calling them mental disorders. I don’t think we would call any feature or set of features that 20% of men display a disorder. That’s too many.
“Normal” in psychiatry or psychopathology is more of a numbers name than anything else. In a society where all men beat their wives, sadly, wife-beating is “normal.”
But then we get into the notion of whether bad things can be normal. I would argue that a lot of bad behavior is normal. Is stealing abnormal? Hitting people? Throwing tantrums? Succumbing to depression from time to time? Grieving after a death? Hell, I would almost argue that rape, jealously, and murder are “normal.” We humans sure do it a lot, don’t we? We do it all the time, we’ve been doing it in vast numbers forever, so how could it be abnormal? It’s shitty, but it’s common as Hell and it’s never going away. These things are an essential aspect of our behavior as a species.
But it is a very interesting question whether normal behavior can actually be bad or even horrendous in the sense that normal simply means “common.”
So, readers, which is it, are a lot of bad behaviors actually “normal” in that our species sure does it a lot? So that means “normal” could encompass both good and bad behaviors.
I’m very torn philosophically as far as this goes. Perhaps we should just chuck the idea of “normal” altogether. Normies wrecked it ages ago anyway so what good is it?
I guess girlishness is attractive in terms of features, though I’m not even sure there. I’ve seen 18 year old girls on Tinder who looked underage. I’m sure they were 18 but the fact that they looked underage was a huge turnoff for me. I want a woman, not a girl!
Now I have nothing against a woman acted child-like in the sense of getting in touch with her Inner Girl. Now watch the Shitheads panic because I said that.
There’s a girl in every woman and a woman in every girl. The Shitheads already went batshit insane when I said that.
Her Inner Girl is her Inner Child if you will. A lot of adult women have killed off their Inner Child, and that is a huge turnoff. The Inner Child particularly comes out to play during sex or sexual times or when you are madly in love.
PUA/Game pro-tip: When a woman starts laughing hysterically and acting child-like or girlish, you can absolutely fuck her, guaranteed. Jump on her, Goddamn it! Don’t worry, she’ll go for it.
Because sex somehow is connected with child-like or girlish behavior in the female. Sex is also funny. I can’t help but notice how many people think sex is funny. Think back to the women you’ve slept with and notice how often they started laughing when you were having sex. There was a Joy of Sex book that came out back in the 1970’s back when people were sane, before Mass Shithead Disorder infected 90% of the population. I remember that book said that when it comes down to it, sex is pretty damn funny.
I’ve been with women and we were madly in love with each other and she was acting like a kid. I started acting like a kid too and saying, “Mommy can you fix me some bweckfast?” I’ve done that with other girlfriends too and they think it’s funny. I get to play the little boy and they get to play the mother. One laughed every time I did that and said, “Ok, little boy.” I usually did it in the morning because I wanted “Mommy” to fix me breakfast and I wanted to play “little boy.”
All women want to be mothers. If they don’t have a kid, they have a dog that subs for a kid. The maternal instinct cannot be extinguished. I had a girlfriend age 49 who had never had kids and even said she hated kids. But at some point in her life, she had babysat or looked after this little six year old boy, and she simply would not stop talking about him.
It wasn’t pedo-ish or weird in that sense, but she would not stop talking about that damned little boy! I finally figured out that she had mothered him in a sense, and in a way, that was the child she never had. She got to play mother with him and he got to play son. She talked about him all the time because in a way, that boy she took care of was the child she never had. It seemed to important to her. Her relationship with her French poodle dog was absolutely nuts. He was basically her kid. He even slept in her bed. That’s not uncommon. A lot of single women sleep with their dogs. The dog is their kid in a sense. Or a substitute for a man? Which is it? Both?
I got banned from Reddit a while back. I still go there all the time and I am always greeted by this horrible message that my account is permanently banned. The site keeps throwing it in my face while I surf around the site. It’s very depressing to see that message over and over. It makes you feel hopeless. I kept sneaking back on and they kept banning me again. Sucks that these bans are for a lifetime. I hardly think what I did was worth a lifetime ban. I posted something. My opinion on a particular issue. You know, like free speech. And it wasn’t even particularly outrageous.
People were posting the usual insane bullshit about adult men and teenage girls, and someone discussed a man and a 13 year old girl. I made a post that said, “A man having sex with a 13 year old girl is normal.” I was banned for promoting pedophilia!
You can’t “promote pedophilia.” You can’t be for it or against it. It’s a biological disorder that some folks just end up with. Can you promote schizophrenia? Blue eyes? Albinism? Manic-depressive illness? Borderline Personality Disorder? Foot fetishism? Depression?
How on Earth can you promote or oppose any of those things, and what difference would it make if you did? None of those are really acquired behaviors. You can’t just decide you want to acquire any of those things. You either get wired up that way or you don’t, pretty much. Most are acquired in childhood, adolescence, or early adulthood, and tend to have a chronic course. People acquire mental disorders. You cannot promote or oppose any mental disorder. It’s ridiculous. These are simply maladaptive ways of thinking that some people get into. They’re not something where you wake up one day and decide you want to be this way.
And what would happen if you did promote any of the things above? Would you increase the rate of that thing? Of course not. What if you opposed it? Would you stop people from acquiring those conditions? Of course not. Those conditions are not really willed actions as in I can decide to go to the store right now.
Get my pack, comb my hair, get my keys and phone, open the door, shut it and lock it, walk out of the complex to the sidewalk, and walk 200 yards to the store, then walk in, buy something, get change, turn around, and walk home with my item. Those are all willed actions. I can decide to either do them or not. You can support or oppose any willed actions. Perhaps you wish people would not make decisions to do certain things. Perhaps you think it’s just fine if people decide to do this or that.
Anyway, what did I mean? Well, the American Psychiatric Association has decided that Hebephilia, usually an attraction or preference for pubescents aged ~12-14 is not a mental disorder. There was a big fight about it in the discussions of the latest DSM-5. The people saying it was not a disorder won. Furthermore, they went beyond that to say that not only was it not a disorder, it was also completely normal!
Turns out what they meant was that is it is completely normal for men to be attracted to 12-14 year old girls. In fact, 16% of all men have a primary attraction for girls that age; that is, they are more attracted to 12-14 girls than they are to mature females. It’s hard to say that 16% of all men are sick with some terrible mental disorder.
81% of men are primarily attracted to mature females, 15+. These men are called teleophiles. However, teleophilic men are also attracted to 11-14 year old girls, albeit on a slightly lower level than they are to matures. The usual estimate is that 100% of men are attracted to 12-15 year old girls and 95% of men are attracted to girls 2-12! However, in the latter case, almost all of those men are attracted to little girls at substantially lower level than they are to mature females. 3% of men are pedophiles; that is, they have are more attracted to girls under 11 than they are to mature females. That’s a lot of men.
So it is absolutely normal for a man to be attracted to 13 year old girls. There’s nothing wrong with that. Basically, all men have this attraction to some degree.
Hence, does it follow that if he acts on the attraction, is that normal too? I said it was on Reddit, but I am not sure. It doesn’t strike me as intrinsically disordered behavior like child molestation. Men have been having sex with girls that age for almost all of human evolution. They still do in primitive societies, where men generally start having sex with girls after menarche, which is typically age 13.
In the DSM debate, they said that men who acted on their hebephilic urges were criminals in many Western countries. I would agree with that. If you’re asking me if I am advocating men to have sex with 13 year old girls in places where it is illegal, I am not. The reason is because it’s illegal and you might get caught. If you get caught they will throw the book at you and you may go to prison for a long time, where you might not be real welcomed by the other inmates. If you ever get out you go on the Sex Offender list for life.
So I absolutely am not saying men should do these things. I completely oppose adult men having sex with 13 year old girls in our society. In addition, it ought to be illegal for grown men to have sex with 13 year old girls. I would give a break to, say, an 18 year old man, but once you start getting a bit above that, you have to seriously outlaw it. And if men are caught having sex with 13 year old girls, I think they should be incarcerated. I don’t wish to live in a society where it’s legal for grown men to have sex with 13 year old girls. That creeps me out.
I’m just saying it’s not psychologically disordered to do so. Is it normal? Well, maybe, but perhaps a lot of bad behavior is normal. Almost all crime is considered “normal” in that it is not mentally disordered behavior. Criminals don’t do it because they’re crazy. Committing crimes doesn’t make you nuts.
Instead, while crime is “normal,” it is also wrong in most cases. And I think you can make a case that a lot of crime is intrinsically wrong. That is, when you seriously harm other persons or their property or cause them losses, that seems to be immoral in a global sense of universal morality. Wife beating is probably intrinsically wrong too. But it’s not nuts. Sadly, it’s very normal to beat your wife.
But is a man having sex with a 13 year old girl intrinsically wrong? You can’t really make a case for that. If the girl seduces the man and the sex is 100% consensual, it’s hard to see how it is wrong. If there’s any coercion involved and the man is seducing a reluctant girl, that strikes me as wrong.
A good rule is that non-coercive sex with is generally morally right (except with adults and little children), and coercive sex is morally wrong. And in certain societies, men having sex with girls that age is morally proper. It’s seen as immoral and abnormal in our society. Our society and any society has a right to decide what is right and what is wrong within reason. Societies get to make their own rules about morality.
Men having sex with young teenage girls is a behavior that is intrinsically neither right nor wrong. This is one of those behaviors where society decides whether and how right or wrong it is. Quite a few societies think it’s just fine. Our society thinks it is wrong, bad, immoral, evil, disgusting, creepy, on and on.
That’s the value that our society has placed on that act. It’s perfectly acceptable for a society to decide that men having sex with 13 year old girls is dead wrong, a seriously immoral act. So societies have a right to outlaw this behavior and even throw the book at people who violate these laws. So it’s acceptable for a society to punish men who have sex with 13 year old girls with imprisonment.
These things are more matters of right and wrong, good and bad, good and evil than matters of crazy or sane or normal or abnormal. These are not things that psychiatry deals with. Psychiatry only cares if you are nuts or not. We don’t care if something is right or wrong, and we don’t have a good idea what is anyway. Issues of right and wrong and good and bad behavior are matters for Moral Philosophers, Societal Morality, and the Law to figure out. They are moral and legal matters, not psychiatric ones.
I still think it was low and hysterical to ban me on this petty offense. Obviously, Redditors are in the throes of this idiot sex panic. Society has gone completely hysterical about this stupid issue. Shame on every one of you for falling for this asinine moral panic.
Originally posted as a repost from the old site in 2008. I recently looked over this old piece and I was surprised at how good it was. I think it’s time for a re-run. Feel free to comment. Warning: long, runs to 28 pages.
On August 27, 2008, Joseph Edward Duncan III was sentenced to death by a federal court in Idaho after being charged with ten federal charges for the homicide of Dylan Groene, age 9, in Montana in 2005. He served 13 years on death row, but he died on March 28, 2001 of glioblastoma, a brain tumor, before he could be executed.
I don’t know any of the principals in this case, but Thrillseekerman knows Steve Groene and Chris Groene, Doperman knows Chris Groene and not Steve, and Sexmaniacman knows Steve Groene but not Chris. T-man went to elementary school with Steve Groene and his brother, Chris Groene. Steve Groene is the father of Shasta Groene, Dylan Groene and Slade Groene. I called Thrillseekerman, Doperman, and Sexmaniacman to get their recollections of these two guys, who I never really knew. Their recollections are at the end of the article.
Joseph E. Duncan III broke into the victims’ house on May 15, 2005, tied everyone up, and then bludgeoned Slade, 13, his mother Brenda, 39 and his stepfather, Mark McKenzie, 37 to death with a claw hammer. He took Dylan and Shasta so he could torture and molest them.
Police who came upon the scene were stunned by the sight. There was blood and gore everywhere, and the faces were nearly unrecognizable. One officer who came upon the scene was so shocked by the sight that he quit police work for months afterward. An APB went out for Shasta and Dylan.
Duncan took them in a stolen 2000 Red Cherokee jeep with Missouri license plates to a very remote campsite in the Lolo National Forest in Montana and kept them there for a few weeks, having sex with both of them and torturing Dylan. He made a video of the crimes, and the video was shown to jurors and those in the courtroom. He raped Shasta and forced Shasta and Dylan to perform sex acts on each other.
May 2005: Murder of Dylan Groene in the Lolo National Forest, Montana
“The devil is here, boy, the devil himself. The demon couldn’t do what the devil sent him to do so the devil came himself,” Duncan yells in one of the videos. “The devil likes to watch children suffer and cry.”
Duncan cracks sick jokes through the videos.
In one video, Duncan jokes, “They kidnapped me – they won’t let me leave.”
In another video, he cracks, “I shouldn’t be taking pictures of you pulling up your pants like that, young man – people might think I’m a pervert.”
In another video, Duncan asks the kids about their wishes. Dylan says he just wants to go home.
One video showed Duncan raping and torturing Dylan in various ways. At one point, he took Dylan into an old shack, where he forced Dylan to perform a sex on him and whipped him with a belt. Then he told Dylan to stand on a bench, hung a wire around his neck, and masturbated as he watched Dylan nearly die from hanging. “Then Jet took him down and said, ‘Wake up, wake up, wake up,'” Shasta Groene said in a police interview.
She said Dylan screamed when he woke up because he thought he had been in heaven. Duncan then offered the half-dead Dylan an opportunity to watch his “death” by hanging on tape. A little while later, he forced Shasta to drag the half-dead Dylan through the campfire with a rope around his neck, burning him horribly. Then Duncan “accidentally” shot Dylan in the stomach with a shotgun.
Dylan was alive and possibly could have lived for a few hours, though his guts were hanging out. Duncan decided that there was no way to save him, so he shot him in the head. It was later determined that he probably did not shoot Dylan “accidentally” after all. After Dylan was dead, Duncan chopped his body into little pieces and filmed himself forcing Shasta to throw the body parts on the fire. Then he forced Shasta to pick the body parts out of the fire and filmed that too.
Whew. Wow. Whoa.
This must set some sort of a record for evil, but I’m not sure. The FBI did say that this was the first time that they had ever heard of anyone murdering adults just to get at kids, so it does set a depravity record in that sense. Details of whatever he did to Shasta have not been made available yet, but she was definitely raped. Normally, in this sort of thing, the name of the living kid, Shasta, would be kept secret, but her name was already out there as an APB Amber Alert, so the cat was out of the bag.
I guess you are wondering why no one heard all this mess up in the mountains. The makeshift campsite is at the end of a very remote logging road. It’s a one-hour drive down a terrible road to get to the remote site at the bottom of a cliff. It seems like hardly anyone ever goes there.
There are a lot of remote places out in the Western forests where you can stay for weeks at a time and not see another human. One article said the video was shot at a cabin, but I think it was just a campsite. They also went to various other campsites and drove long distances while Duncan bragged to Dylan and Shasta about killing the kids’ Mom, brother, and stepdad.
July 2, 2005: Arrested in Coeur D’Alene, Idaho with Shasta Groene
Later, on July 2, 2005, Duncan went back to a Denny’s restaurant with Shasta in Coeur D’Alene, Idaho, where she was immediately spotted by a resident who went in and told the manager who then wisely called 9-11. It was 1:30 AM and the cops pulled in with their lights off. Duncan saw the cops and took Shasta into the bathroom with him. He came out later and the police quickly surrounded the table and asked him to come outside. Shasta was taken back to her father her Mom and stepfather were dead.
Steve was briefly considered as a suspect but then they cleared him. They told him that he failed a polygraph, but lots of innocents do. They also suspected Steve’s eldest son, 18. They gave him a polygraph also and told him he failed too. Good thing neither one gave a fake confession in the midst of those interrogations.
The son was also into drugs – I bet meth – had a significant criminal record, and was most recently in jail for burglary. He said that that imprisonment was going to make him go straight.
Brenda Groene and Mark McKenzie were also drug users, but they were primarily recreational users. Brenda was a good mother. Initially, drugs were thought to be involved in the murders. Meth and pot were found in the systems of both Brenda and Mark. The couple ran with biker types who are in abundance in this area. Brenda had a criminal record for possession of drug paraphernalia and had served time for this offense.
Robert Roy Lutner was an original suspect in the case since he had a criminal record for relatively minor offenses and owed Mark and Brenda $2,000. They thought he killed them over the financial dispute. Further, he had visited them on the evening of Sunday the 15th, when the murders occurred. He turned himself in immediately, passed a polygraph, and was let go.
After he took the kids, Duncan was spotted in a sporting goods store with them in Bonners Ferry, Idaho, asking for directions to Libby, Montana. An APB went out but they were nowhere to be found.
Soon before he was caught, a video camera caught Duncan and Shasta entering what looks like a 7-11 about 40 miles outside of Coeur D’Alene. The girl looks mad and has her arms folded angrily across her chest. They buy something, get back in a red jeep, and leave. This footage was not discovered until later. Soon afterward, they were caught at the Denny’s in Coeur D’Alene.
Police discovered that the man was Joseph Edward Duncan III, a 43 year old fugitive sex offender from Fargo, North Dakota. He had recently been charged with molesting a 7 year old boy he knew who lived near him. He was born, one of five in a military family, in Fort Bragg, Virginia, in 1963. His parents soon moved to Tacoma, Washington, where he grew up. He was described as lonely and displaced in high school, especially after his parents’ divorce in 1979. He soon dropped out of high school. He engaged in sex at age 8 with two of his sisters. They apparently initiated it. What this had to do with his later offenses, I have no idea.
1975: Age 12, Arrested in Tacoma, Washington for Rape of a 5 Year Old Boy
He committed his first serious offense at age 12, when he raped a 5 year old boy, but he was not caught. In this way, he resembles Ted Bundy, who probably committed his first homicide of an eight-year-old girl who delivered the papers in his neighborhood at age 14. Bundy was never charged with this offense.
1978: age 15, Arrested in Tacoma, Washington for Rape of a 9 Year Old Boy
By age 15, he was charged with raping a 9 year old boy and sent to juvey. There he admitted that he had bound and raped six boys already.
1979: Age 16, Had Already Raped 13 Young Boys in Tacoma, Washington
He later said had already raped 13 younger boys by the time he was 16.
1980: Age 17 Arrested in Tacoma, Washington for Auto Theft
The following year, he was arrested for stealing a car.
1980: Age 17, Sentenced in Tacoma, Washington to 20 Years in Prison for Rape of a 14 Year Old Boy at Gunpoint
At age 17, he was arrested, charged and sentenced to 20 years in prison (apparently as an adult) for raping a 14 year old boy at gunpoint. The tortures that he put the boy through were similar to those seen on the Dylan Groene tape.
At the time, he was diagnosed as a psychopath, or antisocial personality disorder under the current rubric. In my opinion, knowing little about his upbringing, he is a pure psychopath. This condition is largely genetic. They are just born bad from seemingly Day One. This condition is impossible to treat, though some of them burn out and often descend in alcoholism and depression in their 40’s. Duncan is clearly not one of those.
He was paroled 14 years later at age 33 and sent to a halfway house in Seattle. A man named David Woelfert had testified at the parole board that Duncan was no threat whatsoever. He had loaned Duncan $3,000 and had found a place for him at the halfway house. Woelfert was also homosexual, and for a while, Duncan and Woelfert had a gay relationship. It looks like Woelfert was conned too. In 1996, Duncan was released from the halfway house.
1996: Sentenced in Seattle, Washington to One Month for Parole Violation
Almost immediately after his release from the halfway house, he violated parole by using marijuana and possessing a firearm. He was given 30 days and released.
July 6, 1996: Disappearance and Subsequent Murders of Carmen Cubias, 9, and Sammiejo White, 11, in Seattle, Washington
Apparently soon afterwards, 9-year-old Carmen Cubias and her 11-year-old half-sister, Sammiejo White, went missing from the motel where they were staying with their homeless family. A while before, Duncan was living only three blocks away from the motel where they vanished. These girls later turned up dead, and they were definitely killed by Duncan.
The girls were last seen by their 16-year-old brother at 8:30 pm on July 6, 1996 after they left the Crest Motel in Seattle, where they were staying with older and younger siblings and their mother. The girls were used to be out at all hours and knew their way around the neighborhood very well.
They said they were going to the Taco Time where they were going to bum some spare change so they could eat and get some money for a pack of cigarettes for their brother. Apparently they never made it.
It turns out that Duncan has confessed to Shasta Groene that he killed two little girls in Seattle. He made the same confession to investigators, but he said he did not know their names. At the time of their disappearance, Duncan was living and working in Bothell, Washington, where the girls’ bones were found almost two years later in February, 1998, by a transient staying in an abandoned barn. They had both been murdered violently, but the details could not be ascertained. But both of their skulls had been crushed.
After Duncan was arrested for the Idaho killings, a woman came forward and said that she had worked at the Quality Food Mart in Bothell that summer. That summer she repeatedly saw a man she now says was Duncan come into the store to buy stuff accompanied by a frightened little girl, who she now identifies as Carmen Cubias. Once again, we see that Duncan kept his victim alive for a long time, molesting and possibly torturing them before killing them.
When talking to investigators, Duncan revealed enough details of the crimes, without confessing, to convince the cops that he killed the two girls. After he confessed, his lawyer convinced him to clam up about any other crimes he may have committed.
March 26, 1997: Disappearance and Murder of Deborah Palmer, 7, in Oak Harbor, Washington
On March 26, 1997, Deborah Palmer, age 7, disappeared on her way to school in Oak Harbor, Washington, about 50 miles away from Seattle. Palmer disappeared while walking the two blocks from her Kettle Street apartment home to school.
Duncan had an appointment in Seattle to take a polygraph test at an unknown time. Oak Harbor would have been a 1 1/2 hour drive away. Palmer may have been killed in Deception Pass State Park, near where her body washed up.
The week before, around March 19, Duncan had tested positive for marijuana, which would have violated his parole. Eleven days later, he quit his Bothell job, stole his girlfriend’s car, and fled his Seattle home for California to visit his father in Pahrump, Nevada. That was the very same day that Deborah Palmer’s body washed up on a Pacific Ocean beach seven miles away from Oak Harbor, and the story was all over the news.
She had been raped and strangled. The previous day, Deborah’s backpack and jacket were found at a gravel pit. There is no direct evidence linking Duncan to this homicide. There are also suspicions that a family member was involved.
April 1997: Disappearance and Murder of Anthony Martinez, 10, in Beaumont, California
After he fled to California, he killed again. This time, he took off from his Dad’s house in Vista and went to Beaumont, California, where he approached 10 year old Anthony Martinez and his brother who were playing in alley behind their home. He asked them to help find a lost cat, and they declined. Duncan then put a knife to Anthony’s throat and shoved him into a white car.
On April 19, Anthony’s nude body was found in a shallow grave 110 miles away in the desert near Indio, California. He had been raped and beaten to death and his skull had been crushed.
After his arrest in the Idaho killings, Duncan confessed to interrogators that he had killed a little boy in California. He also quite closely resembled the composite drawing of the suspect in the Martinez case. Cops then looked into the Martinez case and amazingly found a match for a thumbprint on the duct tape used to bind Anthony’s body and Duncan’s prints.
August 27, 1997: Sentenced to Three Years in Prison for Parole Violation in Kansas City, Missouri
In May, Duncan was back in Northern California. On June 2, he met Dr. Richard Wacksman (see below) at a coffeehouse in San Francisco. At this point, he seemed to have been living on the streets. Four months later, on August 27, 1997, Duncan was arrested by the FBI at his sister’s house in Kansas City, Missouri for a parole violation and sent to prison for three years.
At the hearing for the parole violation, a Fargo, North Dakota doctor, Dr. Richard Wacksman, testified that Duncan was not dangerous anymore and that upon his release, he could stay at Wacksman’s home in Fargo. The parole board disagreed and sent him away. Upon his release on July 21, 2000, he moved to Fargo, North Dakota, but I believe it was not long before he started killing again.
After his release, in 2000, he visited Wacksman at his home in Fargo. The neighbors found out about it and confronted Wacksman. Duncan did not return to Wacksman’s home, and Wacksman soon moved to Florida. Duncan then visited Wacksman numerous times at his Florida home, where Duncan liked to scuba dive.
I do not think this Wacksman fellow is a bad guy. Psychopaths are often very charming and have the ability to convince all sorts of decent people that they are really ok, including Dr. Wacksman. However, it should be noted that Wacksman, while married and with family, was bisexual. It seems certain that Wacksman and Duncan had a homosexual relationship.
After he moved to Fargo, Duncan began attending North Dakota State University there, working on a BA in Computer Science. He would have graduated in May 2005, but he decided to go on a homicide spree instead. At the university, he worked in software development for both the college and a local business called iCat.
He also worked as a teaching assistant at Edmonds Community College where he taught introductory programming courses. He frequented at least one Korean Personals site where he said he was looking for “something more than just sex.” At the time, he was also taking karate lessons at the university (photo from his karate class in Spring 2003). While Duncan was living in Fargo from 2000-2005, I believe that he did not stop killing.
February 12, 2001: Disappearance and Probable Murder of Steven Earl Kraft, Jr., 12, in Benton Township, Michigan
On February 12, 2001, Steven Earl Kraft, Jr., age 12, disappeared while walking his dogs between 8-9 PM about 1/2 block from his home. The dogs were found later, but Steven is still missing. Duncan may have been involved in this kidnapping and probable homicide.
On April 21, 2001, Duncan set up his Jazzi-Jet gay website on the Pridesites gay website. Although the links have been deleted, on one page he was shown in a black dress and makeup talking about how much he liked to get fucked in the ass. Oh, well.
Duncan talked about how much gay sex he had in Walla Walla Prison, getting screwed by 50 different guys in there, getting gangbanged once by seven guys, being the “queen of the prison,” and being owned by a great big Black inmate named “Al”, all while posing in suggestive gay poses. On another deleted photo, Jazzi-Jet was once again done up like a woman. In one picture, he was masturbating, but you couldn’t see that very well. He touched up one of the pics to make it look like he has breasts.
On February 12, 2002, Duncan created this online resume. He was obviously highly intelligent and it looks like he was also a good computer programmer (I never could figure out Java programming myself). In March 2002, he created this page of a fake Time Magazine and Duncan praising Arnold Schwarzenegger.
July 12, 2002: Disappearance and Murder of Russell Turcotte, 19, in Grand Forks, North Dakota
Russell Turcotte, age 19, a Turtle Mountain Chippewa, was last seen at a truck stop in Grand Forks, North Dakota, on July 12, 2002, after spending the night with friends in Fargo, North Dakota. He was returning to his home in Wolf Point, Montana from a Rainbow Gathering in Michigan.
Surveillance cameras have now revealed that Duncan was at that truck stop hours after Turcotte was there. Turcotte was hitchhiking with a backpack home on a desolate stretch of Highway 2 west of Grand Forks at around 2 AM. I believe he was picked up by Duncan and taken to a side road near Grand Forks Air Force Base. He was probably raped there. He was then taken to Devils Lake, 90 miles west of Grand Forks, where his partially nude body was dumped and covered with brush. His possessions vanished, probably tossed into one of the area’s many rivers and lakes. His skull had been crushed.
The previous day, his mother had wired him some money. He was living with a girlfriend and running low on cash. Months later, in November 2002, his skeleton was discovered by a rancher in a clump of trees.
Objections have been made to the notion that Duncan committed this crime. First is that he would have had to drive 85 miles north from Fargo to Grand Forks and then another 90 miles west to dump the body.
However, I believe that since 1997, Duncan had started killing quite a ways away from where he lived. His first two killings seem to have pretty close to where he lived. The Seattle girls were abducted while Duncan was living in Bothell, 20 miles away.
Deborah Palmer (assuming he killed her) was killed in Oak Harbor, 30 miles from his home in Bothell, and her body was found nearby. He’s clearly capable of driving 80 miles away from his home to kill someone. Similarly, Beaumont was about 85 miles away from his father’s house in Vista where Duncan was staying.
Anyway, the surveillance camera had Duncan at the truck stop within hours of when Turcotte was there, so the distance question seems to be ruled out. Furthermore, July 12 was a Friday, so Turcotte was last seen on a Friday night. I believe that Duncan picked him up hitchhiking about 2 AM on the morning of Saturday, July 13 and killed him soon afterward. At some point he drove 90 miles east to dump the body.
Duncan was a college student at this time and was probably working too. It’s certainly possible that he had the whole weekend off. He had lots of free time and was always traveling to the Lakes Country in Minnesota to go scuba diving. Also, Turcotte’s skull had been crushed in the same manner that Anthony Martinez, Sammiejo White, Carmen Cubias, Slade Groene and Mark McKenzie had been dispatched.
Another question about the Turcotte killing is that Turcotte seems old for Duncan’s tastes. However, it has been pointed out that the 19 year old looked very young for his age. A photo of him taken before his death seemed to belie that, but another picture taken by his girlfriend shortly before he died showed him very thin, unhealthy, and quite young-looking.
Hunter Bear, an American Indian retired university professor and leftwing activist, had a webpage up about Turcotte. Here is a description of who he thought the killer is, written in 2003 before anyone knew about Duncan:
I continue to feel that Russ’ killer is an Anglo, maybe in his late 30s or early 40s, a so-termed “professional” person with a quite good, reassuring kind of car and out-of-state license plates. It’s obvious that he is a criminal psychopath.
Not bad, huh? At the time he wrote that, Duncan was 40 years old (!), White, and though not a professional, he could certainly come off as one. It seems like he liked to drive nice cars too. About the out of state plates, I have no idea. Hunter Bear said that the cops did not try very hard to find the Turcotte’s killer, at one point saying that they had no interest in a routine store surveillance camera tape that filmed Turcotte at the last place he was seen.
Hence, the tape was destroyed. Hunter Bear made a good case that the population and the police in North Dakota and Idaho were very racist towards American Indians. We don’t see much of it out here in California, but it seems to be more of a big deal back there. Some people are still looking at Seattle, Tacoma, or Portland as the connection between the killer and Turcotte, but I am pretty certain that this is a Duncan crime.
March 26, 2003: Disappearance and Murder of Dalton Mesarchik, 7, in Streator, Illinois
On March 26, 2003, Dalton Mesarchik, 7, of Streator, Illinois vanished from the front yard of his home. His body was found the next day in creek. His skull had been crushed with a hammer. That’s Duncan’s style. In June 2003, Duncan began going on trips to Minnesota and Michigan to scuba dive. He went on dives all summer.
On October 3, 2003, Duncan was visited by three police officers who accuse him of harassing women downtown. The women knew who he is from the Sex Offender database, and they had photos of him. He was accused of repeatedly asking them out and not going away when they told him to. That doesn’t sound like much of a crime to me. The cops said they knew who he was and they watched him all the time. Guess they did not watch him enough. He wrote about this incident later on his blog, The Fifth Nail.
Here is the final edition of the Jet Gazette, with photos of his scuba diving trips and videos that he made.
February 15, 2004: Disappearance and Probable Murder of Justin Phillip Edwards, 13, in Casper, Wyoming
Between late February 14 and early February 15, 2004, Justin Phillip Edwards, 13, disappeared. He was living at R. L Mills Home, a state-run facility, located at 116 East “H” Street in Casper, Wyoming since the summer of 2003. He was 5′ tall and weighed only 100 pounds and was retarded. He had the mind of a 6 year old. In his blog entry of February 16, Duncan said he went skiing for the first time that weekend, alone. Some think he may have been involved in Edwards’ disappearance.
July 3, 2004 Molestation of a Boy, 7 and Attempted Molestation of Another in Detroit Lakes, Minnesota
On July 3, 2004, Duncan molested a 7 yr old boy and tried to molest another boy at a school playground. He had a video camera with him. He was not caught until later.
March 4, 2005 Charged in Minnesota for the Molestation Incidents
In March 4, 2005, Duncan was charged with molesting a 7 year old boy and attempting to molest the boy’s young friend in Detroit Lakes, Becker County, Minnesota. On April 5, a judge set his bail at $15,000. This was the July 2004 incident above.
The same day, a Fargo businessman, Joe Crary, wrote a check for that amount to the court and bailed out Duncan. Crary said he befriended Duncan when they both rode their bikes on bike trails in Fargo. Somehow, Duncan gave off the impression of being polite, soft-spoken, and seemed sincere about wanting to turn his life around. Duncan also seemed sincere that he was innocent of the Minnesota charges.
I will never understand how psychopaths fool people like this, but they do it all the time. The ability to con and lie with a straight face in these people is amazing. Crary is now maligned, but I feel he was just another good person that this psychopath conned. It should be noted, however, that Crary is apparently a homosexual who had a sexual relationship with Duncan beginning in early January 2004.
After being bailed out, Duncan made plans for his crime spree. He purchased night vision goggles and a video camcorder at a Walmart. He also purchased a shotgun, shells, and a claw hammer. On April 15, 2005, he rented a 2005 red Jeep Cherokee in St. Paul, Minnesota.
After the rental agreement was up, he never turned it back in, and on May 4, auto theft charges were filed against him. On the same day, the key tag to the stolen car was found in Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area in Wyoming, so Duncan must have been here at some point in his travels.
Between those two dates, Duncan traveled all the way to the far southwest portion of Missouri, where it meets Oklahoma, Kansas and Arkansas. There, on April 27, he stole license plates off a vehicle and placed them on his vehicle.
Then he continued his travels. No one knows where he went during this period, but I believe that he was in Spokane using GPS to stalk young children at a preschool, Kindermusik, which has kids from toddlers up to age 7. While in flight, a warrant was issued for his arrest in Fargo for failure to appear in a court date stemming from the Minnesota case.
He stopped in the Wolf Lodge area eight miles east of Coeur d’Alene. This post from Duncan’s horrifying blog, The Fifth Nail, was somehow posted from Wolf Lodge just four days before he committed the Idaho crimes.
May 13, 2005 Murders of Brenda Groene, Slade Groene, and Mark McKenzie in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho
On May 12 or 13, he ended up on Frontage Road at the home where the crimes occurred. He spent the next two or three days scoping out the house, and on Sunday night, he entered the home with gloves, night vision goggles, a claw hammer, and a shotgun.
He pointed the gun and Brenda, Mark, and Slade and tied them up or forced them to tie each other up. Brenda Groene called Shasta down to the living room from where she had been sleeping. Dylan also came downstairs. Duncan quickly hustled Shasta and Dylan outside and into his van. Then he went back in to kill the others. With blows of the claw hammer, he dispatched them.
Shasta heard Mark scream, then she saw Slade try to run out of the house, wounded. He was hauled back in and dispatched. The kids in the van did not witness the killings, but Duncan later told them how he had killed her family. He told her that the name of the hammer was a Fatmax and she learned to call him “Jet” for his initials, Joseph Edward Duncan.
After his arrest, Duncan started blogging again with the help of others from inside prison. The blog is here. Here is an undated picture of Jet.
Here are two awesome time lines (Timeline One, Timeline Two) on Duncan’s life on the great The Cellar blog which is devoted to this case. This is a website Duncan made, the usual whining stuff about how terribly society treats convicts.
I interviewed my friends Thrillseekerman, Doperman, and Sexmaniacman about Steve Groene, the father of the three child victims and Chris Groene, his brother. All these guys, Doperman, Thrillseekerman, Sexmaniacman, grew up together with me in Southern California, and we all ran with the same crowd. They’re scattered to the five winds now, but all still keep in touch by phone and Internet.
I can’t say where they are, but they’re all still in the USA! I grew up with all of them, but I don’t remember Steve Groene or Chris Groene. I think the Groenes and I knew some of the same people, but I don’t remember the Groenes specifically.
Thrillseekerman shared his reminiscences about the Groenes:
Hi Bob, this case really wears on my mind. It’s amazing that I know this guy, and I know his brother, Chris, too. I haven’t seen Steve in 27 years, and I haven’t seen Chris in probably 25-26 years. Doperman knows Chris but I don’t think he knows Steve.
We all grew up together, Steve, Chris, Sexmaniacman, Doperman, and me, Thrillseekerman! And all the rest of the gang! And you, Bob! Ha ha! I heard about the case and saw the strange name, Groene, and wondered if it was him.
I saw his pic and knew it was him, though at the time I had not seen him in 24 years. He looked like he’d had a hard life; I don’t know if there is any better way to put it. His sister now says he already had cancer at the time. I don’t know enough to comment. Life’s hard on all of us in one way or another. Hang in there, Steve!
Steve was into drugs when I knew him, but then so was I! Ha ha! We all were! Ha ha! I think I went to grade school with the guy in Orange County and he was in my grade, but I’m not entirely sure.
I never really knew him that well, but I went to see him play with a blues band at a party in an industrial park one night in 1980. He’s a damn fine blues musician and I have good memories of that party. I was drinking Heinekens and later on smoking some dope.
Later I got to know Steve better, and somehow in 1981 I was buying Thai weed from him. I realize that sounds bad, but I was a dealer too! For many years! Ha ha. All of us – my friends and I – were drug users and dealers for many years. Ha ha! Plus, Steve sold me some damn good Thai weed too! Eat your hearts out, puritans!
Steve was working in the carnivals, traveling all around as a carny, was in with the biker crowd, and he was doing methamphetamine, but I don’t think he was doing very much. He was just a recreational user. Back in those days, the only people doing meth were bikers and carnies, people like that. Now meth is this huge deal.
He used to come over once in a while, mostly to sell me pot. I was just a pothead at the time. That’s all I know about Steve Groene and dope. Pothead, occasional meth user. But that was Summer 1981, and I never saw him again. I won’t guess about the rest of his life.
I remember he came over once. I was living in an apartment and there was this young guy staying there. He was really mentally ill and he needed a place to stay. He was living on the couch. Ha ha! There was a guitar case owned by this guy, a great guitarist who was going through a manic episode.
There were cigarette burns all up and down the case, and I pointed to them, shocked, then to the guy in the midst of the manic episode. Steve gave a smile, of sadness, wisdom, truth, and life itself. And then he said, “That’s the blues, man.” That’s right, Steve, you got it, man. The blues is life, and life is the blues. Ain’t that so true now, though? Damn.
I realize that I may be trashing his reputation here, but Steve has already admitted to being a heavy drug user as a younger man. Besides, what’s wrong with being a doper? Ha ha! I’m 50 years old, and I’m still a stoner! By the way, can you get me any good pot? Ha ha!
I want to point out that Steve Groene was always the nicest guy to me, a real warm and kindhearted person, always was. I value that, and I’ll always remember him for that.
I also knew Chris Groene, too.
That handsome face, beautiful long hippie surfer hair, and words of honey – no wonder the girls ate him up! Ha ha! Chris was a doper too, a pothead! Ha ha! We all were! He was a juvenile delinquent as a kid, but hey, a lot of us were. Even me! Ha ha! A nice, friendly, charming delinquent. I think Chris was probably a better thief than I was, though. Ha ha! I never was good at stealing.
Chris was also a real nice and warmhearted guy the whole time I knew him. I guess he outgrew that delinquent stuff. I still saw him later, into the early 1980’s, and he was still a kind, warmhearted person. I understand he’s got a really good job now.
I see in a recent pic Steve’s got himself a really nice looking new girlfriend. And he’s still a blues musician, which he always was. He’s a damn good musician, too.
I’m amazed that Steve has appeared to hold up pretty well in all this. Two of his kids and his ex-wife were brutally murdered, and his daughter was kidnapped and molested. But in the last pic I saw of him, he seems to be holding up. I think I would have snapped a long time ago.
All of us, me, Doperman, Chris, Steve, and all our friends, and you, Bob! Ha ha! We were bad boys, rebels, longhairs, surfers, stoners, mavericks, and trillseekers. Badass middle class dopesmoking White boys! Ha ha! We were White Punks On Dope ! Ha ha! Those were the days, man.
I’ll always remember Steve and Chris Groene. Whatever else they’ve been in their interesting lives, they were never mean. They both have hearts as big as the ocean. You don’t see that a lot in this world. Even, with the ravages of time and an unknowable future, if my heart becomes cold and hard, there will always be a tiny warm place there set aside just for Steve and Chris Groene.
Steve and Chris Groene, presente!
Doperman reminisced about Chris Groene:
I was working at the local elementary school as a janitor when I was 16. It was 1974. One night Chris, then age 15, came up to me and wanted me to give him access to the auditorium so Chris could steal a microphone. I guess Chris was a musician too? He almost talked me into it, but I eventually chickened out.
Chris was more of a charming type, and he had natural good looks, really long hair, and he got all kinds of girls and women. He could charm the poison right out of a cobra. This dude had style, man! He was one slick guy! I liked Chris Groene, Bob.
He was always really good to me, even when he was trying to convince me to participate with him in a juvenile crime! I think he grew out of that delinquent stuff, and I hear he has a great job now. You go, Chris! A ghost from your past!
Sexmaniacman recalled Steve Groene. The only recollection he had was one night 30 years ago when he was out of mind on LSD:
“I remember one time, it was the summer of 1978, it was around 10 PM, and I was flying on LSD! I think I was with my buddy Craig L. Anyway, we were headed to this party at Alan B’s place. We came to the street where the party was, and there were cops there! I was on acid, driving a car, and I looked right into this cop’s eyes! With my huge saucer eyeballs! Scary!
Well, we went inside, and I was flying on fucking LSD! Oh man! Steve Groene was there! He had this big, friendly, warm smile, enough to light up the whole room, like always. It was Alan B’s party, an Italian guy. A hippie and an acidhead! Ha ha!
Well, I walked in and there’ was this beautiful Mexican chick, about 20 years old, sitting on the couch. She was kinda big, but not too big. Just big enough, baby! Lotsa curves! Well, she was looking at me the whole time. I was kinda looking back, but I didn’t really know what to do.
So after a while Steve Groene said, way too loud, “Hey! Sexmaniacman! Why don’t you get her a beer, Sexguy? She wants you to get her a beer, Sexman!” He was smiling and laughing, but he was also like, “You idiot! Pick up on the chick! She likes you! Go for it, dummy! Like, duh!” So I go and get her a Heineken. I forget what happened after that. I fucked up; I don’t think I even got her number. I was so stupid sometimes.
Later that night, I was in Alan’s bedroom. I told him I was on LSD. He said, “Hey, Sexmaniacman! Let’s do some more acid and go to Black Star Canyon and fry all night!” I opened up a box full of blue LSD tablets. But we never did it.
I love Steve Groene, Bob, I really do. He’s a good person, and his heart is solid gold. He ran with a rough crowd, and he looked like a pretty tough guy, but he was good people all the way. A shout out to Steve Groene! Blast from the past!
Suicide and a thousand different ways to do it. Aggressive homicide all the way up to serial murder, rape, molesting kids, torture, every sex crime you can think of, robbing banks, burgling houses, mugging people, fraud, embezzlement, extortion, setting forest and brush fires, arson of homes, executing prisoners and civilians in wars, dropping bombs on people, you name it, I’ve thought of it.
Thing is, I’ve been imagining myself committing all of these acts since adolescence and yet I’ve never committed any of these acts even one time. But it was almost always like, “Can I do this? Do I have it in me to do this? What if I did this?” It wasn’t really a fantasy in most cases
I imagine it in your brain and typically the fantasy is not able to play itself out. I start to do the crime and then my brain steps in and says, “Forget it, man. I just can’t. No way in Hell. No way in a million years.” Quite a few times I have imagined myself committing one of these crimes and I have a knife or gun in my hand, menacing the terrified victim. That scene right there feels pretty bad. Most of the time, in my fantasy I simply drop the weapon on the ground or floor, say, “I can’t. I just can’t,” and then start crying or plead with the victim for forgiveness. I can’t even imagine doing something like that. My mind won’t even carry though the fantasy.
Sometimes I imagine committing some horrible crime, and then I imagine escaping or trying to escape afterwards.
However, probably since I am a good person, my mind always says, “Wait! You might get caught. You need to imagine getting caught if you are really going to do something like this.” So then I imagine getting caught. In a lot of cases, the getting caught part looks and feels real bad. It’s a horrorshow. My mind makes me exaggerate it to make it as horrible as possible, probably worse than it would be, probably to keep me from doing it.
I think this type of thinking is completely different from what people call fantasy. Fantasy is something you want or might want to do. You typically carry out the act in the fantasy. This is more of a “Could I do this?” type of “experimental thinking” where you are trying to figure out what your limits are behaviorally.
Once you consider you might get caught and you imagine the Hell you will have to pay with the cops afterwards, I think a lot of people will conclude that a lot of crime isn’t worth it.
Actually, it keeps me from doing these things because whenever I consider actually doing something bad for real, I’ve usually thought it over in my head and concluded that I didn’t have it in me to do it. I think we should test ourselves regularly with bad temptations just to clarify our moral boundaries. If you don’t do that, you don’t know what you are capable of, and you may just do something you regret for the rest of your life.
I’m starting to think there might not be a lot of difference between good people and bad people except that bad people act on their antisocial tendencies and good people repress them.
A commenter: Too much self-awareness leads to weakness and self-harm which, as you know, isn’t a good idea in any society let alone India.
Intuitively, it seems correct, but would any commenters like to expand on this?
Ignorance is bliss I guess. And you can obviously know others too well. This is why family members often hate each other so much. It’s all tied up with shame. You see, your family members know you inside and out, up and down, forwards and backwards, warts and all. They know the good side of you but boy do they know the bad side of you too. They know all your secrets. Nothing is hidden from them.
Hence, they are quite dangerous if they ever decide to spill the beans. The father who comes home from work, kicks the dog, yells at the kids, and badgers the wife is operating on this principle. Obviously, he’s displacing the rage he feels towards others at work whom he is not allowed to express it too. But it’s also the shame. The dog doesn’t know his secrets, but everyone else does. He looks at them and knows that they know his secrets and that makes him very angry because he feels ashamed. Rage often follows shame.
I’ve come to the conclusion that with a lot of people, it’s better to know a little bit about them than a lot about them. I know the locals at the local stores pretty well and they treat me like long-lost family every time I walk in. But I don’t know them very well. I’ve never hung out with them outside of work. I know nothing of their home life. So I’m really quite ignorant of these people. But from my limited vantage point, I can mostly see good things about these folks. I have no doubt that once I got to know them better, I could see a bad side of them. People tend to be on good behavior at work, especially if they face the public.
I feel this way about women too. I get called misogynist all the time, but it’s not really true. Actually I love women. But in spite of all the great times I’ve had with women in my life, I’ve had some of my worst experiences on Earth with none other than women, particularly girlfriends. They’ve hurt me as badly or worse than anyone else. So I love them, but they’ve caused me a lot of pain and this makes me angry.
Also I understand women pretty well. In part it is because I’m not the most masculine guy out there. When I was younger, people sometimes thought I was gay. A number of them refused to believe I was straight even when I told them. I have no idea why they thought this because I’m not effeminate. Maybe I’m just soft. Everyone thinks soft men are gay, but actually most soft and even wimpy men (two different types actually) are straight. Wimpy gay men are so wimpy it’s ludicrous. Some gay men are soft, but most others tend to be effeminate.
Anyway I get along with women very well or at least I did until I got to late middle age and the female population of the Earth starting hating me. I will confess that women my age still like me. But that’s about it. Young women seem to utterly detest me. I can’t even talk about the weather with them. But my whole life I’ve got on well with women. Often most of my friends were women.
I used to say I wouldn’t mind being around women all the time and being around men as little as possible. To this day, I prefer the company of women to that of men. And one reason for that is, I must admit, that there’s a part of my brain that literally thinks like a woman. In this way I can connect with them very well whereas with most other people, the male-female dyad seems to be some odd connection of opposites.
Anyway, the problem is that I definitely know women too well. Way too well. Way too well for my own good. And to tell the truth, I liked them more (but in a very stupid and naive way) when I didn’t understand them so well. As I’ve come to know them better and better, I’ve grown more cynical about them.
You see, I can see the whole wonderful good side of women (and girls for that matter, as I love girls too). The good side of women is one of the most glorious things in God’s green Earth.
And then there is the bad side.
A good way to look at a lot of things is to say they are 50% good and 50% bad. Men are 50% good and 50% bad. Women are the same.
The bad side of men is utterly terrifying as in literally physically dangerous to life and limb, but the bad side of the Feminine Principle is pretty monstrous too, with the exception that they won’t hurt you physically. They will hurt you verbally, psychologically, and spiritually, but they don’t tend to engage in physical violence. That is in the universe of the men.
The thing is that I often find myself regretting that I know women so well. It was a lot more fun when I walked around half the time thinking “I love women! I love women!” I thought that mostly because I hadn’t really figured out their bad or even evil side. I’d seen some of it but I found it baffling in the same way you react to a crazy person in the streets. I thought it was an aberration or just craziness. Now I see that that nastiness wasn’t aberrant at all. It was simply the half of women that is bad, or even evil.
So I definitely know women way too well, and it was sure a lot more fun when I was quite ignorant about them.
I went to this punk rock show in LA in fall 1981. I talked to this 15 year old girl, a blond punker chick, who was sitting on a low wall outside the place. She said her Dad had brought here there. She was swinging her legs back and forth like a teenager. She kept talking about fags and faggots the whole time I was talking to her. Each time she said it, she looked me dead on in the eye. I think she was calling me a faggot, but at the same time had a dead-on blank frozen robot stare in her eyes.
She was calling me a fag, but she also wanted to fuck me. Tug of war in her head. What’s a girl to do? Females have contradictory thoughts like this going on all the time, and its very hard for them to sort them out and try to make sense of them.
I think an essence of the Female Character is Conflict between Contradictory Feelings. One part of her is pulling her one way, and the other part of her is pulling her the other way. All of this mental jumble is probably pretty confusing. They’re probably trying to untie these mental knots all the time, but being in the middle of a tug of war like that would drive anyone nuts. That may be why they seem nutty a fair amount of the time. All those wild contradictory feelings going this way and that all the time would drive anyone nuts.
If you’re Chad, a lot of women don’t particularly care if you look or seem faggy. Sometimes I wonder if they care if you are faggy. Some of the most fagged out men I met in LA, including one totally obvious haunted closet case, had the hottest girlfriends you’ll see.
Chad’s looks just blind women to everything else about him. Nothing else matters but that damned pretty face. They overlook it all, at least at first. I think Chad’s looks are literally intoxicating to women. So women are in sense drunk or high out of their minds when they first hook up with Chad, and they’re not really in control of themselves anymore. They’re entranced by those hot looks so deeply that they can’t think straight and they overlook all of his flaws, at least for a while.
I saw her later at a punk concert with the Angry Samoans in the San Fernando Valley in Summer 1982. She was sitting on this table-like thing in the concert hall, literally chewing and smacking and blowing bubbles with bubble gum, the stereotypical teenage girl. But she was mature far beyond her age and hanging out at nightclubs where almost everyone was an adult. She was 15 going on 30, face it. She’s hanging out at punk rock adult nightclubs all the time full of degenerate punk rockers, and she’s hot. You don’t think she’s going to get fucked by one of those young degenerate nihilist punker guys at some point? She threw herself into the cauldron. She’s liable to get cooked.
After the show, my friend and I saw her and her friends in the parking lot and went over and talked to them. She stopped and had a dead frozen stare. Her friends could care less that she was talking to a couple of young men. They were all probably teen going on 30 too. She also seemed to be drawing slowly closer to me as if some force field was sucking her towards me. She was locked into me like radar so bad you would almost have to pull her to get her outside of my orbit. I could have easily gotten her number, but I chickened out.
My friend looked a bit concerned as we walked away. “Bob, don’t you think she’s a little young? She’s 15 years old, man.” I shrugged my shoulders.
I was living in the Valley and so was she, with her Dad. I think she was in Sylmar. I was in Van Nuys. I could have easily gotten her number and dated her, and I’m pretty sure I could have had sex with her. And back then, I’m sad to say that I would have definitely done it. It’s true that she was 15 and I was 24, but back in 1982, no one much cared about that.
I haven’t had the slightest thing to do with those girls since then or for three years prior. I’m glad I quit those girls when I was so young because if I would have kept doing it I would have so much more to feel guilty about and live down in these manic days of frenzied sex panics. Of course I’ve sometimes felt that I would like to, but the penalties are so insane that you have to control yourself.
Whenever a woman seems to go into a robot-like trance and gives you that blank frozen stare, it only means one thing. It means she likes you! As in, really, really likes you. As in, she’s in love with you, she wants to fuck you, you’re making her horny, she wants to have a romantic/sexual relationship with you. Whenever you see a woman staring at you like that, jump on it fast and do something. Go talk to her. Get her phone number.
Now, if you make a poor performance, she will leave.
I remember when I was 27 at the peak of my looks in Summer 1984 or 85, and I was sitting on an island in the Carson Mall, probably on a weekend. I haven’t the faintest idea why I was there. I was stoned out of my skull like I was every weekend.
I sat there for an hour or two. One after the other, a young single woman would lock eyes on me, go into the frozen robot trance, and head straight for my island as if she were under remote control. I think three of them did that in the course of an hour or two. These women kept homing in on my like radar and being remote-controlled to my island. At the time, I didn’t know that when a woman acts like that, it means she wants to fuck. Period.You’re making her horny.Period. Turned out these were all single Moms in their late 20’s to early 30’s.
Unfortunately, my head was a complete mess at the time, and I was in the middle of what was basically a nervous breakdown that went on for 3-4 years. Even worse, it was rather obvious to anyone who looked that my head was fucked, and it was turning people off everywhere. You can’t always hide mental illness. So at the mall that day, we would talk for a bit and after a bit they would get a concerned look on their face. Soon they would get tuned off and leave.
So you see, just because she goes into autopilot when she sees you, it doesn’t mean you’ve got her. You can still blow it if you don’t play your cards right.
This was happening to me all the time back then, but I was still connecting with some women, and I was definitely dating a lot and having a lot of sex. Apparently I looked really good back then, so the killer looks were getting me laid despite my screwed head. I’m not sure if women care that much if Chad is nuts. Of course they do care, and it throws a monkey wrench into things pretty badly, but Crazy Chad still probably does better than your AFC as long as he’s not too far gone.
Looking back on it, I probably could have fucked all three or four of them. Just ask to go to her apartment from the mall, and it’s done. That’s how easy it is to pick up a woman in the daytime if you’ve got the Looks and Game. Or get her number at least.
I almost never get these dead-on blank frozen robot zombie entranced looks anymore. I got one recently from a young woman at a coffee shop though. It’s the first time I’ve gotten that look in it seems like years. I wonder what she means by that. She’s been extremely friendly ever since. I think I will try to find out.
Thing is, “social skills” is a sick joke. No one ever learns them 100%, there are 300,000-3 million of them at any given time, they’re always changing, and it’s impossible to keep track of all of them and their permutations. Everyone thinks they have great social skills, but they’re almost all liars. No one knows all those rules.
Anyway, extroverts break all of them all the time, and no one cares. We introverts agonize over every single one of them, are always worried about breaking them, and then get creamed when we forget to dot one i or cross one t.
With this insane #metoo crap, it’s gotten 10X worse than it already was, and it had been getting very bad for a good 15 years already. It started getting very bad in 2005-2008, somewhere thereabouts.
I remember for instance in the 1990’s, the baristas at a local coffee shop when I was told by the female manager that all the baristas talked about how I was always checking them out, but no one really cared because, you know, it’s normal for straight men (as in guys who are not screaming faggots) to, you know, look at women. Like, it’s what we do. Sure, they tell you not to stare and whatnot, but that’s hard to do. Some of the other baristas talked about it too, but they just shook their heads and sort of laughed. This is always the way it’s been my whole life. I’ve never even thought of this questions my whole life. “Do you stare at women? or “Do you look at women?” It seemed like I was doing it the whole time and simply never came up.
Punish Bad Service
I didn’t like the way the baristas were treating me, so I stopped tipping them. Then they got one that was really nice and I started tipping her. After a while, I saved up all my tips from the ones I was shunning and dumped them all on the nice one. One time I gave her $4.50, all in change. One of the ones I snubbed said, “Hey! You gave her a huge tip, and you never give me anything!” I said, “That’s right. Because she’s nice!” She said, “I’m nice…” and I said, “I don’t think so…” Anyway they figured out the drill and after that day all the baristas who had been so cold and mean to me were suddenly extremely friendly, almost over the top friendly.
I never knew if it was fake or not and I couldn’t care less if it was, honestly. I’m not sure if I care that people are just pretending to like me. Pretending to like me is a lot better than disliking me.
You have to discipline people sometimes.
There are a lot of things you can do. Animate your face a bit so it doesn’t look like a blank, creepy stare. Move your eyes around somewhat. Anyway, if a woman likes you, I assure you that she doesn’t give two one-hundreds of a shit about the fact that you “stare” at her. She won’t even call it staring. She’ll say, “He’s always looking at me he he.” It’s only staring if she doesn’t like you. Otherwise it’s just looking. Truth is you can “stare” exactly the same way at different women, and if they don’t like you, they will call it staring and if they like you, they will call it looking.
So there’s no real difference between staring and looking. Stares look creepy because they’re blank. Animate your face. Look happy. Smile. Tell yourself little jokes. If you look like you’re enjoying yourself, you’re not “staring.” It also helps to look around. Don’t stare at one woman the whole time. Though to be honest, I’ve “stared” at one woman a hundred million times, and I don’t think any of them ever cared. A lot of them like it, and they will call you over to talk to them.
Truth is, I’ve never given two-hundreds of a shit about any of this, and now that I think about it, I’ve probably been “staring” at women and girls my whole life. Generally speaking there have been no repercussions.
Until I started getting older.
At age 47, I got temporarily banned from a Starbucks for “looking at baristas’ bodies.” Some cuck faggot banned me and told me to “control myself.” Weird thing is he thought he was a big man but no real man confronts another man about something that pussy and gay. No real man gets another guy in trouble for checking out chicks.
I suppose if I were in a supervisory position and I was told to tell a customer that he was making the female employees mad by looking at them, I would take him outside and talk to him, man to man, smiling and winking, calling the women misogynistic names like “stupid bitches” and saying, “Look, there’s nothing wrong with looking at women but you’re being too obvious about it. Try these tricks instead.” The truth is the female employees tried to get him banned for the crime of being ugly and looking at women. Ugly men can’t look at women. Only Chad can look at women. The rest of the men? I dunno.
So what I had been getting away with my whole life, I could no longer get away with. All of the rules had changed. See how I told you they change the rules on you.
I also learned a few other things.
You Can’t Look at Kids Anymore. At All
You can’t look at kids anymore. Well, we all love kids, and everybody likes to look at cute little kids of either sex running around or having fun. At the same shop as above, there were these two boys running up and down this very steep hill, laughing and playing the whole time. They might have been 10. I did the same stuff when I was that age, so it reminded me of my youth.
I sat there and watched those boys going up and down that hill with a big smile on my face, traveling back in time. After a while, it seemed like some of the local cucks and fags were staring at me with a very hostile look. It took me until a while later to figure it out, but in our insane society nowadays, a grown man cannot watch two young boys play and enjoy themselves. If he does, that means he is a gay pedophile who is plotting to molest them. Pedophile Mass Hysteria again. Sigh. I don’t even date men. Why would I have sex with a boy?
But after that, I started being a lot more careful at how I look at kids. I still look at them sometimes, but I’m a lot more careful how I do it.
How to Talk to Kids Or Adults with Kids
Most of us are not molesters, but even if you’re not a molester, most adults still find kids delightful and any normal adult might want to talk to a kid of a parent with a kid sometime.
This is to show you how to do that.
I saw a boy with his apparent father the other in the store. They smiled back at me, and I went over and said, “Father and son?” I pointed to the boy, “Ten?” He smiled, “Eight.” That was it. I walked away. They were Hispanic and Hispanics are way less weird about this stuff.
One time a man and a woman and what must have been a 12 year old girl came into a coffee shop. The girl had to have been 12 years old because no other age looks like that. 12 year old girls are adorable and wonderful creatures, but obviously you can’t touch them. I don’t even have sexual thoughts when I look at them because they really don’t do it for me. The girl had an equally adorable puppy in the pocket of her dress, poking its head out. The whole scene was quite adorable really, the adorable young girl and her adorable little dog and their obvious love for each other. She was with Mom and Dad.
I did turn around and look at her quite a bit. I would look for a bit, and then I would turn back around. I always mostly looked a the dog. I put these thoughts in my head while I was doing it,
What a wonderful, adorable dog! Look at that adorable little girl and how devoted she is to that too-cute little puppy! Tugs at your heartstrings!
I didn’t have any sexual thoughts about her, though there would have been nothing wrong if I did. Those girls just don’t do it for me. I like grown up girls, not little girls. I’m convinced that the thoughts you put in your head when you look at people help to convey a message. If you’re going to look at a little girl and her puppy, put innocent, angelic, “Oh how cute” thoughts in your head. I did that a while and no one cared. If you looked at me, it mostly looked like I was looking at the dog anyway. The parents didn’t care, but they were Hispanics and Hispanics don’t give a fuck. They probably figured I was looking at the cute dog, not perving on the girl, and they didn’t give a damn.
I Have to Admit It’s Pretty Fun Living in a Patriarchal Society as a Man
Now that I live a patriarchal “men rule” Hispanic community, you can sometimes approach a father and son and ask in a neighborly way whether they are father and son, that sort of thing. Don’t get nervous or scared that you will think the wrong thing. Just put completely innocent thoughts in your head.
Hey, I’m going over to talk to this guy and his son in a totally innocent and non-creepy way.
As long as you have that mindset, you should be ok. One guy to another sort of thing. For some reason, Hispanic men never think you’re trying to fuck their little boy like stupid White men are.
Now if it’s a girl, it’s a whole other ballgame. I was in a coffee shop and an Hispanic man had his little daughter in there. She was doing dance moves, running from the center of the room 15 feet towards the front and doing twirls and whatnot. She was wearing a little ballerina dress. It was cute as all get out watching that little girl do her delightful dance moves in public, so I sat back and admired her with a big smile on my face for a few minutes. I didn’t think sexual thoughts about her, but it wouldn’t have mattered if I did. Anyone can think anything they want. Seven year old girls just don’t do it for me, sorry!
The father soon glared at me, grabbed his daughter, and walked out. Ridiculous. See? You can’t even look at kids being their delightful selves anymore. Pedophile Mass Hysteria.
How to Ask How Old a Kid Is
Maybe you want to know how old the kid is. The ages of children and teens are interesting because they change so much with every year. Think of the growth spurts and changes from one year to the next from ages 1-10 or 11-17 and compare them to the year to year changes of someone in their 20’s. People in their 20’s barely register any perceptual changes from year to year. As far as kids go, I mostly want to guess their ages more than anything because that is interesting to me and it’s also a bit of an intellectual challenge.
Remember how I said you could ask the age of a man’s son? You can, but I prefer to do it as a guess. I nod to the kid and guess his age, “Eight?” Then the father beams and you’re either right or he happily corrects you. “How old is he?” sounds a bit weird and creepy in these ridiculous and hysterical times. It’s better to do it super casual like I do. Be totally relaxed when you do this because if you seem nervous or fearful, you might freak out the father.
After that I generally turn away unless the father gives me a signal to keep talking. It’s very non-creepy to walk up to a father and son, inquire if they are father and son, non-creepily ask the age of the kid, smile and then walk away, acting extremely casual about it the whole time. Don’t try to have conversations where other people clearly don’t want to have them.
Talking to Female Minors
The best attitude here is to do it as infrequently as possible because it’s so rent with landmines. But many men with no sexual intentions at all nevertheless wish to speak to female minors and even children because all normal humans love and are enchanted by kids and even teenagers.
Now if you see a girl and you want to ask her age, that’s going to be a lot more difficult, especially if she’s a teenager. If she’s a little girl with her Mom and you say it innocently enough, it will probably go over. A little girl alone or with a friend, just forget it. But you need to be extra careful where any female minors are involved. Most of the time, I probably wouldn’t even ask.
I used to but I started getting some bad vibes. I would talk to the mother, nod my head at the girl and say, “13?” Sometimes it went over but other times it didn’t at all. And once they start getting into 14-17, you can barely ask their ages at all because everything has sexual overtones and everyone assumes you are trying to fuck her. I’m not trying to fuck any girl that age, but if I try to talk to her, everyone is going to assume just that. Teenage Girl Sex Panic.
There were a pair of young Hispanic females who came in the other day. I kept looking at them because they were both quite Indian-looking and about the same height. One was 13 or so obviously, but I couldn’t figure out the other one. Was she the mother? I started thinking the mother looked about as old as the daughter. This was very puzzling to me so I was looking at them and trying to figure out which one was the mother and which was the daughter! This shows you the degree of peadomorphiism and neotenism in some of these Indian groups. Their neotenic appearance is enhanced by their small sizes – they are typically quite short.
I was looking at them ordering from behind, and I was looking at the older one’s body and trying to figure out if she was the mother. I wasn’t even really thinking anything sexual, though that would have been just fine. I was trying to discern a familial relationship! The barista looked at me weird like I shouldn’t be looking at them, and I didn’t understand that. Why can’t I look at a woman?
They ordered and then came back near me. I sidled over to them and spoke to them in extremely casual, “I don’t care” type of way (which could also be construed as “not serious” and “no need to worry about me”). Females of all ages feel pretty threatened by us men, especially male strangers, so it’s important to try to put them at ease not just for your own, not just for your own purpose but even if only from a humanistic point of view.
“Mother and daughter?,” I asked, as if it were the most casual, don’t give a damn question on Earth. They were very Hispanic which means very relaxed about most uptight bullshit like Teenage Girl Mass Hysteria. The older one looked at me and said, “No, sisters.” I laughed hard and said, “No way.” Then I think I asked their ages, but I was laughing the whole time. If you’re going to ask the ages of female minors, you have to do so in a joking, laughing, “don’t care” sort of way because this question can be frightening to them. When you laugh it takes the tension off and makes it seem less sexual.
“I’m 15 and she’s 13,” she said. I just said, “No way” and laughed some more. They didn’t particularly seem like they wanted to talk anymore, so I ended the conversation very quickly and walked away. Whenever someone acts like they don’t particularly want to talk to you (which is all day long every single day at my age), just end the conversation quickly, and turn around or walk away, all very casually. Don’t act angry. You can roll your eyes, though because it is pretty dicky to shut down friendly strangers.
The problem here is your brain. Your brain or ego really sees it as an insult that this person is giving off vibes saying, “I don’t want to talk to you.” Your brain and psyche would rather have a quite unpleasant conversation where the person acts like they don’t want to talk to you the whole time than to be shut down right away and walk away in humiliation. I suppose if you managed even an unpleasant conversation, your psyche sees it as some sort of a perverse win or at least not a fail.
You can often ask the age of the minor if you see what looks like an obvious mom and daughter. It’s probably better if she is a child than if she is a teenager because with the teenager both the girl and the mother are going to make a lot of automatic sexual assumptions. You might want to try to clear out sexual thoughts when you say it too, to the extent that’s possible. With a lot of teenage girls, that’s going to be quite difficult, so try to put them aside so to speak instead. Put them “on the backburner” in your brain. I am convinced that sexual thoughts get transmitted pretty easily to others.
Look at the girl, point to her, and guess an age in a very quick and casual way, and then turn and look away from them. Or look at both of them and ask, “Mother and daughter?” The latter question seems to go over a lot better. When you turn and look away from people this is a sign of submissiveness and harmlessness so you can appear casual, nonsexual, and nonthreatening. That’s how I see it. Keep it “casual.” Super, super casual. They will probably give you the girl’s age. Then just smile and nod and walk away if it doesn’t seem like they want to carry the conversation beyond that, which is the usual case.
I’m not sure what else you could say afterwards anyway, and I’d be afraid of continuing for fear of being seen as sexual. Generally I’m extremely cautious about saying much of anything to any female minors. Also, mothers of teenage girls are extremely dangerous and are insanely suspicious about any male stranger inquiring even in the most harmless way about her daughter. Especially now with Teenage Girl Mass Hysteria where even the admission of having the normal attraction that all men have to teenage girls is enough to bring out death threats and lynch mobs.
Teenage girls and their mothers are all totally paranoid nowadays because of the Moral Panics, so it’s best for you to be paranoid too.
You Can’t Just Go Up and Talk to Anybody
I got banned from a Starbucks for the crime of “talking to humans.” Some young women banned me. I think I knew the ones who did, too. I was literally talking to them about the weather. At that point in my life I was going up and talking to people all the time, talking to people out of the blue, etc. Basically treating a lot of strangers like potential conversation partners. Which I’d been doing my whole life because I’m the sort of person who strikes up conversations with strangers a lot. It had never been much of a problem but now at my age, it’s turning into a big deal.
Turns out I had been talking to young women, but I had been talking to people of every other age group too. I would walk over to a table and say something, make a joke or something, and walk away. Turns out you can’t do that anymore. Truth is I’d been going to this shop for years. Sure, I talked to a number of young women, but in my utter patheticness, I never flirted with a single one of them for even one second. I just chit-chatted about this, that, or whatever, the weather, made jokes, just casual conversational bullshit. Absolutely no sexual content or vibes whatsoever with any of them.
I would have loved to have flirted with some of them or even be openly sexual, but none of them even seemed to give off strong enough signals that they wanted to me to do that, and I need green lights.
Turns out you can’t do that anymore or at least I can’t do it anymore at my age. Past a certain age, you just can’t walk up to young women and start talking to them, even if they are standing next to you in life. It’s pretty much banned, and if you do it, people act like they are going to call the cops.
So I got banned for “talking to humans.” Apparently “talking to humans” is now “harassment.” I guess nowadays you are “harassing” people by trying to talk to them! Who knew? The speech need not be sexual in any way. The mere fact The sexual overtones are obvious but I never once even flirted with one of those women in the slightest. It shouldn’t really matter it I did because after all, men have a right to flirt with women, but I didn’t.
What I learned is that I have to be totally paranoid at my age. I only talk to people if they give off a strong vibe of wanting to talk to me. If they seem like they don’t want to talk to me, I don’t talk to them. If they seem like they are ignoring me, I don’t talk to them.If a woman acts like she’s ignoring you, she probably is. I don’t think you should approach her.
Look at people and see how they react. If they ignore you, leave them alone. If she’s busy on her laptop or with her schoolwork, leave her the Hell alone. Can’t you see she’s busy? Look over at people.
If you think you might want to talk to them, you can look at them a number of times. Look at them a bit, then look away. Then look at them a bit, then look away. Or look at them out of the corner of your eye. If they see you look at them but don’t act open and friendly, don’t go over and talk to them. That’s what I was doing before. It was a bad idea.
If people seem like they are not open and friendly and you go over and talk to them, they may open up. But more often than not, they don’t. They may just stay cold. You get vibes like:
“Why the Hell are you talking to us?”
“Who the Hell are you, anyway?”
“What gives you the right to talk to us?”
“You’re a stranger, why should I talk to you?”
“You’re being audacious.”
“We don’t know you, so why are you talking to us.”
I’ve gotten all of these messages a million times in my life, and nowadays it’s pretty much an all day every day type of thing.
The thing is once you get that vibe, you need to just take off. And try not to get mad. They have a right not to talk to you. They’re not being mean or cold or rude or anything by not talking to you. Nobody has to talk to anyone.Just because they don’t want to talk to you doesn’t mean that they necessarily don’t like you or hate you. Mostly you’re probably just not on their mind at all.
There’s a problem here. When someone gives off those vibes, your brain rebels. Actually, your ego rebels. Your ego takes it as an insult. Your ego will want to ignore the vibes they are giving off and try to keep talking to them. Your ego will tell you, “If you keep talking to them, they will warm up.” Also to walk away is to admit that someone snubbed you, and that’s an insult. It seems less of an insult if you keep talking to them. It keeps the insult at bay.
There’s a real problem here. It doesn’t work.When conversations start out bad like that, they never or almost never warm up. In fact, they tend to go downhill if they go anywhere. Still, your ego tells you to keep plugging on.
The “Subconscious Cope”
I call it “the subconscious cope.”
It has very serious Game/PUA implications. The subconscious cope is where your brain keeps telling you some woman is into you when she’s not. You always interpret everything in a positive way as if it’s a possible come-on. I’ve had to deal with this my whole life, but now that I am paranoid, I have a handle on my subconscious cope. The subconscious cope keeps telling you:
“Hey, that woman likes you!”
“Look, that woman smiled at you!”
“She stared at you – that means she likes you!”
“She stared at you with frightened eyes – that means she’s horny!”
“She’s nervous around you – that’s because she likes you!”
“She acted cold. She doesn’t mean it. Really she still likes you. Ignore it and keep trying!”
Your ego wants to think that all the women everywhere are into you and it’s going to be telling you that your whole life. Problem is it’s lying to you. They’re not all into you. A lot of them probably hate you. There are plenty of young women (and even some older women for that matter) around here who act like they hate me. I haven’t the faintest idea why they feel this way.
The woman who looked at you with those frightened eyes? That’s because you’re scaring her, not because she’s horny. And lately I have found a few cases of women staring at me because they hate me.
And for the first time in my life, I have found women acting nervous around me because they think I’m hitting on them and they’re not comfortable with that, probably because of my age. I’m starting to get pretty worried now whenever any woman acts nervous around me. Lately that’s just not a good thing at all.
I started noticing some other things too.
Some baristas at the coffee shop would go into the back room soon after I showed up. I didn’t think anything of it for a long time until it hit me with a hammer in the face. They were going to the back room because I looked at them, and they didn’t like it. Solution was to try not to look at them, but they were hot, so that was almost impossible. But that realization really hit me in the face. In order to see something like that, you have be able to see patterns. That’s hard to do because your brain doesn’t want to see patterns, especially lousy patterns.
Subconscious cope. Your brain is very biased to ignore expressions unpleasant patterns where people seem like they don’t like you. That’s something it just wants to ignore because it’s so painful. And it wants to look for pleasant and uplifting patterns because those make it feel good. So it’s always going to be biased towards thinking people like you when they don’t, and not recognizing it when people act like they don’t like you. When you’re being dumped, the subconscious cope says it’s not happening and she’s really still with you. It’s looking for positives everywhere and imagining a lot of them and ignoring all the negatives, even when they are real.
You need to recognize that your subconscious cope is operating all the time, and you need to try to combat it because if you listen to it, you tend to get into trouble.
My advice to any Black readers would be if you have any sense at all to stay as far away from that ghetto culture as possible. I understand it might be appealing for a Black man who wants to run Bad Boy Game or Thug Game as a PUA/Game strategy to get laid to be a part of that culture or pretend to, but I don’t think it’s worth it. We White men are attracted to the bad boy aspects of our culture, and I am convinced that a lot of us act bad and commit crimes simply because women love bad men and criminals so much, so pretending to be somewhat sociopathic is a good way to get laid. If women demand sociopaths, fine! Then I will act like one! Is the thinking.
I’ve told women about my criminal past, and they often seem to get excited. They hardly ever act turned off. When I tell them I never got caught, they look amazed. They act like it makes them horny. I’m convinced that women like dangerous men. The trick is to act like enough of a dangerous man to get laid but then to make it fake enough so you stay out of jail. It’s not so much “be a criminal” as “act like a criminal without committing many crimes.” It’s like being an actor.
Women love dealers too, at least pot dealers. Tell a woman that you’re a drug dealer and she often acts very excited. They seem of like to be partners in your criminal enterprise too for some reason. It seems to make them excited. I think women want to be “bad girls” in the same way that a lot of us men want to be “bad boys.”
Your “Game” in this sense means “the Game you are running.” “Running Game” means whatever sort of attitude, lifestyle, hobby, or occupation you are engaging in part of the purpose of which is as a seduction device in your seduction arsenal is to make yourself more attractive to women. Your “Game” in general is simply your attractiveness, charm, and ability to seduce or get women. A monogamous married man could have great Game. It would just mean that many women find him sexy if not irresistible.
If you have “good Game” it means you are attractive to women and have the ability to charm them in a sexual way. You don’t necessarily have to be a player or any of that. A very sexy man, monogamous or not, has great Game by default. A man with lousy Game or no Game just means that he’s not attractive to women and he is very clumsy and incompetent as far as talking to, getting to know, charming, and seducing women. A man with terrible Game is the guy who “can’t get laid with God’s help” and he might have a hard time getting laid if he was the last man on Earth.
A lot of people hate the idea of Game because it implies dishonestly, lying, cheating, etc. Other than the fact that seducing women in and of itself is pretty much a gigantic way of charming, manipulating, scamming, tricking and fooling women into sleeping with you. In fact, all married men have to run Game all the time no matter how monogamous they are or how deeply they love their wives.
You have to keep your wife attracted to you in a sexual sense. Wives attraction to their husbands falls away all the time in marriages, especially after a couple of kids. Sexless marriages and dead bedrooms are as common as dirt. You also have to “Game” her all the time to keep your relationship steady and functioning well. Women probably need to run their own “Game” for the same reason. It refers to plotting out your life in the way to maximize your success and minimize your failure.
It’s true a lot of Game practitioners have advocated some sleazy if not outright criminal stuff, but it need not be that way. In what way does “how you make your appearance and behavior so it is attractive to women” imply trickiness, sleaziness or not being straightforward. All men bring something to the table in terms of being attractive to women. The degree to which you bring that to the table is your Game level. A man with great Game is loved by women. A man with terrible Game is despised by women.
Some examples of “running Game” would be say:
Bad Boy Game
Rock Star Game
Running Rock Star Game would mean being in a rock band the partial purpose of which is to attract women and get laid.
Men with no Game are not running any Game at all, obviously. In fact, I think it is possible to run “Negative Game” and a lot of them are doing just that. Negative Game is basically “chick repellent.”
I thought the shooter was White, but it looks like she’s Black also. Perhaps simply of the more light-skinned variety with died blond hair. By her clothing and jewelry belt, we can see that she’s pretty ghetto. The victim absolutely did not deserve to die, but looking at her photos, she was rather ghetto herself, albeit of the higher class sort that likes to appear classy and moneyed. I’m not trying to say she was a bad person because I have no idea how she behaved in her life. Thing is you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. Be careful who you befriend and hang out with!
The point is if you are involved in that ghetto culture at all as a Black person, you’re already in danger, and you might be a menace yourself. It’s not just that that culture is full of lousy and dangerous people. It’s more that even the better ones as perhaps this victim was are also in danger merely by being part of that culture. It puts you at risk just being in proximity to those people.
I have heard LE people say that many homicide victims were not particularly bad people themselves, but they were often hanging out in some pretty shady and dangerous places. In other words, a lot of victims do sort of bring it on themselves a bit by going out of their way to put themselves in harm’s way.
Of course I’ve done this myself hanging out in punk rock clubs and living a drug dealing criminal* for 14 years. But the White soft drug dealing culture I was part of was hardly violent at all, although once I bought thousands of dollars worth of pot in a garage from some ~18 year old Hispanic kids.
The pot had reportedly come from the Eme or the Mexican Mafia. It was quite scary but it was also an incredible danger rush of the kind that only committing crimes gives you. I also learned in living like that what an incredible rush committing crimes and being a criminal is. The danger and exhilaration rush, a mix of terror and excitement) is hard to match. I understand why men do it just for the testosterone rush and the bad boy credentials you get. I don’t know what to say except be careful and try not to victimize innocent people.
The thing is you start getting above street level dealing into say, selling pounds, and you are running with the big boys now, and things start to get shadier. Also these people often live restricted “Don’t want to meet any new people” lifestyles, and generally you hear about them all the time because you get your pot from them in a roundabout way, but then you almost never see them, and no way can you go over to their house and meet them. But generally the White pot-dealing culture wasn’t very dangerous even as you got into the higher levels. Whites just aren’t that violent. Even White criminals are not that violent.
I figured it was coming to this. I know how these people operate. Wokeism isn’t just about liberation of oppression or whatever, it’s about the easing of any and all cultural restrictions on human life. Everything goes. Count me out.
I hang out on some pretty unsavory places on the Net like porn blogs for instance because that’s my idea of fun. Also, you can meet or at least talk to a lot of women there for at least some spicy chat. I’m sorry! I’m a degenerate!
Anyway, you can also talk to other straight men on there. I was talking to one guy, who does incredibly well with women by the way, and he told me that he was now woke, and to him that meant performing fellatio on other males!
Now I know a lot of straight guys have some faggy fun sometimes, but gosh! I thought, “If this is what woke means, count me out, brother!”
By the way, on the perverted sites I hang out on like Pornhub, I have noticing in the comments to the videos for years now more and more non-gay men having this type of sex with men. You can also see it in the Reddit sex subs. There’s one called Random Acts of Blowjob where people post about wanting to suck a cock or get their cock sucked.
Most of the commenters are straight men, and of course they get almost zero replies.
There are many gay men posting, often saying “Looking to suck straight men,” which is an extremely typical fantasy with gay men. If you look on the Pornhub top video searches for gay men, it’s all about seducing a straight man. It’s part of what the syndrome of being gay is all about.
But one thing I have been disturbed to notice lately is how many posts there are from “Straight Guy Looking to Suck His First Cock.” I can’t tell you how disappointed that makes me. But it makes sense along with everything else I’ve been seeing.
Women do post there and the average woman gets ~150 replies to each post, through which she has to wade and pick out a single man. Being a male is competitive! Quite a few straight men avail themselves of these offers because women don’t exactly put out for free very often, and it’s typically quite hard for a single man to get laid. If it were easy, why would a whore market exist? Of course if men could get sex as easily as women could, the prostitute market would evaporate. The prostitute market exists because there are many more buyers (men looking for sex) than sellers (women putting out).
Hence there is a permanent Vagina Shortage. It’s in women’s interest to drive up the cost of pussy by making it as scarce, and they work hard to just that. If you were assured of meeting a woman for sex anytime you went to a bar, men would be lined up for blocks before the bars open at 11 AM! Obviously that’s not happening.
Nevertheless, I keep meeting women who insist that all a man has to do is go to a bar, and he’s assured for free sex for the evening, no doubt with a hottie. I keep trying to set them straight, but they keep insisting they are right. Women will and can never understand what it’s like to be a man, and this forms part of the War of the Sexes. It’s a war the ingredients of which in part are sheer ignorance. One can argue that most wars are like that, but still. Women don’t get us men. They get us a lot better at 40 or 50 than at 20, but they still don’t really get us. Understanding men is probably like understanding psychopaths. You can’t understand one unless you are one!
It’s an ominous trend – straight guys sucking dick – but I figured it was coming given the general thrust of SJWism.
If you tell straight men that there’s nothing wrong with having some faggy fun now and again, obviously a fair number are going to start doing just that. In fact, even worse, if you tell people there’s nothing wrong with doing just about anything, then quite a few people are going to start doing it. I’d say as a society we should be careful about what we tell people is ok and not ok.
That’s why I don’t like this idea that all sexual behaviors are acceptable if not wonderful choices. It leads to this crap.
I’m of the school that says certain sexual behaviors are not ok. And if you’re a straight guy who likes his faggy fun, you will not be my friend. I’ve met way too many of these characters for one lifetime, and I’m really sick and tired of them. And you wouldn’t believe how many of them are ordinary married men with wives and even kids.
Warning: Long, runs to 57 pages. This article is intended at the moment more for the general audience than for specialists, but specialists may also find it of interest. At the moment, it is not properly formatted or edited to be of use for publication in an academic journal, but perhaps it could be published in such a format some day.
For background into what Historical Linguistics is, see this Wikipedia article. Basically it involves determining which languages are related to each other via various means and once that is determined, reconstructing a proto-language that the related languages descended from, along with, hopefully, regular sound correspondences which supposedly proves the relationship once and for all. The argument in Historical Linguistics now is between conservatives or splitters or progressives or lumpers.
Splitters say that the comparative method – described above as reconstructing a proto-language with regular sound correspondences – is necessary in order to prove that two or more languages are related. However, they also say, probably correctly, that this method is not useful beyond ~6,000 years. Any relationships beyond that time frame would not be provable by the comparative method and hence could never be proven. This effectively shuts down all research into long-range older language families.
Some lumpers say that this method is not necessary and instead relationships can be determined by simply looking at the two or more languages, a process called comparison or mass comparison. I point out below that comparison need not be cursory but could mean deep study of languages over 10, 15, or 20 years.
They tend to focus on core vocabulary, numerals, family terms, pronouns, and deictics, in addition to small morphological particles – all things that are rarely borrowed. Once they find a number of these items that resemble one another greater than chance, they say that the two languages are related because chance and borrowing are ruled out.
They say that this is the way to prove language relatedness, not the comparative method. The comparative method instead is used to learn interesting things about language families that have already been discovered via comparison, such as reconstructing proto-languages and finding regular sound correspondences.
Splitters say that comparison or mass comparison is not a valid way of proving that languages are related and that only the comparative method can be used to prove this. However, as noted, they set a 6,000- year time limit on the method needed to prove this, and this walls off a lot of potential knowledge and about ancient and long-range language relationships as unprovable and hence undiscoverable. In a way, they are shutting the door to new scientific discovery beyond a certain time frame by claiming that the method needed to make these discoveries doesn’t work beyond X thousand years.
Other lumpers disagree that the comparative method has a time limit on it and are attempting to use the comparative method to reconstruct ancient long-range language families and find regular sound correspondences between them. Unfortunately, most of their efforts are in vain as splitters are using increasingly strict criteria for proof of language relationship and hence are shooting down most if not all of these efforts being done “in the proper way.”
So they are saying that proof must be done in a certain way, but when people try to play by the rules and use that way to find proof, they keep moving the goalposts and using increasingly strict, petty, and quibbling methods to in general say that the relationship is not proven.
So the say, “You must use this tool for your proof!” And then people play fair and use the tool, and almost always say, “Sorry, you didn’t prove it!” It all feels like a game that is rigged to fail is most if not all cases.
Hence, the current trend of extreme conservatism in Historical Linguistics has set up rules seem to be designed to prevent the discovery of most if not all new language families, in particular long-range families older than 6-8,000 years.
I am quite certain that long-range language families such as Altaic (with either three families or five), Indo-Uralic, Uralic-Yukaghir, Hokan, Penutian, Mosan, Almosan, Japanese-Korean, Gulf, Yuki-Gulf, Elamite-Dravidian, Quechumaran, Austroasiatic-Hmong Mien, Coahuiltecan, North Caucasian, or Na-Dene will never be proven in my lifetime, and that’s not to mention the more extreme proposals such as Eurasiatic, Nostratic, Dene-Caucasian, Austric, and Amerind, although the evidence for the first and last of these is quite powerful.
There are simply too many emotions tied up in any of these proposals. Further, many linguists have spent a good part of their careers arguing against these proposals. It is doubtful that any amount of evidence will cause them to change their minds. Scientists, like any other humans, don’t like to be shown that they’re wrong.
Lyle Campbell, Maryanne Mithun, Mauricio Mixco, Sarah Grey Thomason, Joanna Nichols, William Poser, Peter Daniels, Dell Hymes, Larry Trask, Gerrit Dimmendaal, Donald Ringe, Juha Janhunen, William Bright, and Paul Sidwell are among the leaders of this new conservatism.
At first I was very angry at what these people were doing, especially the most egregious cases such as Campbell. Then I realized that people lie and misrepresent things all day long every single day in my life and that this behavior is fairly normal behavior in humans, especially in a mushy area like this one where hard truths are hard to come by and most stated facts are more properly matters of opinion or could be construed that way.
I realized that they are simply defending a scientific paradigm and that unfortunately, this is the rather underhanded and emotion-ridden environment that defending paradigms tends to produce.
Though to be completely honest, I should not be singling these people out because the current conservatism is simply consensus and acts as the current paradigm on the language relatedness question in Historical Linguistics. The people listed above are at the top of the profession and are often considered the best historical linguists. They write books on historical linguistics. A number are considered to be ultimate authorities on questions of language relatedness. They are simply the leading edge of the current conservative consensus and paradigm in the field.
Although granted, of all of them, Campbell seems to be the most extreme conservative. He is also one of the top historical linguists in the world. Mixco, Mithun, and Poser are about on the same level as Campbell.
Campbell, Mithun, Thomason, and Mixco are Americanists whose conservatism was set off by the publication of Joseph Greenberg’s Language in the Americas (LIA) in 1987.
All of the linguists above are noted for the excellent scholarship.
The conservatives who are denying most if not all new families are are called splitters.They tend to be very angry if not out and out abusive, engaging in bullying, mockery, ridicule, ostracization, and all of the usual techniques used in science against the proposers of a new paradigm.
The people who propose long-range families are called lumpers. Lumpers are heavily disparaged in the field nowadays such that almost no one wants to be known as a lumper or associated with such. However, many other historical linguists seem to be taking a more moderate fence-sitter stance where they are open to questions of new language families, including long-range families.
Among the long-range families that the moderates are open to considering nowadays are Indo-Uralic, Dene-Yenisien, and Austro-Tai. Some of the smaller long-range families in the Americas even have supporters among the most hardline of splitters. I’m even dubious about well-argued proposals such as Dene-Yenisien.
Thomason takes extreme umbrage to the notion that splitters have a bias that will not allow few if any new families to be discovered after Greenberg compared them with Malcolm Guthrie’s objections to Greenberg’s new classification of Bantu. However, after thinking this over for some time now, I now believe that Greenberg is correct. The splitters have their minds made up. They are going to allow few if any new families to be discovered. A few of them have caved a bit.
I also work in mental health, and it’s pretty obvious to me when something is not right about a scientific debate. I’ve been getting that vibe about the splitters versus lumpers debate from the very start. When a debate in science has degenerated into bias, ideology and ideologues, propaganda, politics, and in particular extreme emotion, it gives off a certain intuitive feel about it. This debate has felt this way from Day One. To put it simply, the debate simply doesn’t smell right. I have a feeling that science left the room along time ago here.
One thing I noticed was that people who have worked on one particular language or family for much of their careers are especially angry and aggressive about the notion that their family could possibly be related to anything else. Indeed famous linguists were remarking on this tendency as early as 1901. Among the reasons given was that they had their hands full already without new work to take on and a disinclination to see their language family related to anything else as this would deny its specialness.
Trask is forceful that Basque could not possibly have any outside relatives.
I saw a debate on the Net some years ago with Trask and a Spanish assistant holding court over a debate over the external relations of Basque. Those who argued for external relations were pushing a relationship with the Caucasian languages, which is possible though not proven in my opinion. Trask and his assistant were very angry and aggressive in holding down the fort. Apparently everything was a Spanish borrowing. The debate didn’t smell right at all.
With a background in psychology, I wonder what is going on here. One possibility is as Greenberg suggests and as was suggested back in 1901 – simple narcissism. When one specializes in a language family for a long time, it probably become blurred with the self such that the self and the family become married to each other, and it’s hard to tell where one ends and the other begins. Yourself and the family you’ve spent your career working on become one and same thing. If your family is not related to anything else, it’s special.
We all think we are special. This is the essence of human narcissism. To say that their favorite language has relatives is to deny its specialness almost as if to say that our egos were not real but were instead extensions of other people’s egos. Actually if you read Sartre or study modern particle physics, that’s not a bad theory, but most people bristle at the notion.
I met Korean and Japanese people when I was doing my Masters. Both beamed when they told me that their language had no known relatives. Of course that made it special in their eyes and played right into their ethnocentrism.
Another problem may be the trajectory of one’s career. If one has been arguing forcefully for 30 years that there are no known relations to your family, your reputation is going to take a huge hit if you have to agree that you were wrong all those years.
There is also a politics question.
Another reason is Politics. We are dealing here with a Paradigm. For a good description of a Scientific Paradigm, see Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn holds that science is by its nature very conservative, some sciences being more conservative than others. A Paradigm is set up when the field reaches a satisfactory consensus that a particular theory is correct. After a while, serious barriers go up to any challenges to overthrow the proven theory.
The challenges are first ignored, then ridiculed (often severely), then attacked (often ferociously) and then, if the challenge is successful, it is accepted (often slowly and grudgingly). Kuhn pointed out that defenders of the old theory are usually so reluctant to see the paradigm overthrown that we often must wait literally until their deaths to finally overthrow the paradigm. They defend it to their deathbeds. I suggest we are dealing with something more than pure empiricism here.
It is quite risky to challenge a paradigm in science. People’s careers have suffered from it. A supporter of Keynesian economics, then challenging the current paradigm in economics, could not get hired at any university in the US during the 1930’s.
In the splitters versus lumpers debate, we have been in the Anger phase for some time now. We seem to be settling out of it, as many are taking a fence-sitting position and arguing for attempts to resolve the debate to make it less heated.
The Paradigm here involves extreme skepticism about any new language families to the point that any new families are simply going to be rejected on all sorts of grounds. Paradigms involve politics at the academic level. When a Paradigm is set up in science, almost all scientists write and do research within the paradigm. Anything outside of the paradigm is derided as pseudoscience or worse.
The problem is that when a Paradigm in in effect, all scholars are supposed to publish within the Paradigm. Publishing outside the paradigm is regarded as evidence that one is a kook, a crank, is practicing pseudoscience, or that one is crazy or a fool. It is instructive in this debate to note that most of the prominent lumpers are independent scholars operating outside of the politics of academia.
I have had them tell me that the only reason they can take the lumper position that they do is because they are independent and don’t have a university job, so there are no repercussions if they are wrong. They told me that if they had a professorship, they would not be able to do this work. They have also told me that they know for a fact that certain splitters might jeopardize their jobs, careers, and especially their funding if they took a lumper position. This was given as one of the reasons for their dogmatic splitterism.
In addition, science works according to fads, or more properly, standard beliefs. The trends for these beliefs are set by the biggest names in the field. The biggest names in Linguistics are all splitters now. They are the trendsetters, especially in whatever specialty of Historical Linguistics you are working in. Everyone else in the field is dutifully following in their footsteps. As an up and coming young scholar, you are supposed to follow the proper trends and hypotheses of your field to uphold the consensus of scholars in your area of specialty. As you can see there is a lot more than simple empiricism going on here.
With my background, I look for psychological motivations anywhere I can find them. And science is no stranger to bias and emotional psychological motivations driving, or usually distorting it. We are human and humans have emotions. Emotion is the enemy of logic. Logic is the basis of empiricism. Hence, emotions are the enemy of science.
Scientists are supposed to remain objective, but alas, they are humans themselves and subject to all of the emotional psychological motivations that the rest of them are. Scientists are supposed to police themselves for bias, but that’s probably hard to do, especially if the bias is rooted in psychological processes or in particular if it is unconscious, as many such processes are.
Campbell’s case is an extreme one, but I believe it is simply motivated by internal psychological process inside of the man himself.
Campbell is driven by psychological complexes. His entire turn towards extreme conservatism in this debate was set off by the huge feud he had with Greenberg, and everything since has flowed from that. He took a very angry position that LIA was completely false and did his best to trash its reputation far and wide. This disparagement is still the order of the day, and Greenberg’s name is as good as mud in the field.
Then Campbell generalized his extreme splitterist reaction to LIA out to all of the language families in the world because if he allowed any new families elsewhere in the world, he might have to allow them in the Americas, and he could not countenance that. Note also that Campbell has gone out of his way to specifically attack Greenberg’s four-family split in his proposal for language families in Africa.
This proposal, done with Greenberg’s derided method of mass comparison, has had a successful result in Africa and has been proven with the test of time. Campbell cannot allow this because if he admits that Greenberg was right in Africa, he might have to accept that he might be right in the Americas too, and that’s beyond the pale. So in his recent works he has specifically set out to state that Afroasiatic, Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Kordofanian, and Khoisan – the four families of Greenberg’s classification – have not been proven to exist yet. The truth is exactly the opposite, but the psychological process here is bald and naked for all to see.
Here he specifically trashes these language families because they were discovered by Joseph Greenberg, Campbell’s bete noir. Campbell’s agenda is to show the Greenberg is a preposterous kook and crank, although he was one of the greatest linguists of the 20th century. Greenberg’s African work is regarded as true, and this poses a problem if Campbell is to characterize Greenberg as a charlatan.
If Greenberg was right about one thing, could he not be right about another? In order to lay the foundation for the theory that Greenberg’s method doesn’t work and that it cannot discover any language relationships, Campbell will have to deny the method ever had any successes. So he sets about to deny that Greenberg’s four African families are proven.
Splitters have come up with a repertoire of reasons to shoot down proposed language relations and most are pretty poor.
They rely on overuse of the borrowing, chance, sound symbolism, nursery word, and onomatopoeia explanations for non-relatedness. There is also an overuse of the comparative method with excessively strict standards being set up for etymologies and sound correspondences. In a number of cases, linguists are going back to the etymologies of their proto-languages and reducing them by up to half.
In the last 20 years, Uralicists have gone back over the original Proto-Uralic etymologies and gotten rid of fully half of them (from 2,000 down to 1,000) on a variety of very poor reasons, mostly irregular sound correspondences. It appears to me that while there were some obvious bad etymologies in there, most of the ones that were thrown out were perfectly good.
Irregular sound correspondences is a bad reason to throw out an etymology. Keep in mind that 50% of Indo-European etymologies have irregular correspondences. By the logic of Uralicists we should throw out half of IE etymologies then. If Campbell finds any irregular sound correspondences in any new proposal, he automatically rejects it on those grounds alone. What the Uralicists have done is vandalism.
This is not just conservatism. It is out and out Reaction. Worse, it is nearly a Conservative Revolution, which I won’t define further. It is akin to a city council declaring that all of the old, beautiful buildings in the city are going to be torn down because they were not constructed properly. Will they be rebuilt? Well, of course not. Most of the top Uralicists are involved in this silly and destructive project.
In a recent paper, George Starostin warned that the splitters were not just conservatives determined to stop all progress. He pointed out that there was actually a trend towards rejection and going backwards in time to dismantle families that have already set up on the grounds that they were not done perfectly enough. As we can see, his warning was prescient.
There are statements being made by moderates that both sides, the splitters and the lumpers, are being equally unreasonable. As one linguist said, the debate is between lazy lumpers (Just believe us, don’t demand that we prove it!) and angry splitters (Not only is this new family false, but all new families proposed from now on will also be shot down!). He suggested that they are both wrong and that the solution lies in a point in the middle. I don’t have a problem with this moderate centrist belief
The splitter notion itself rests on an obvious falsehood, that there are hundreds of language families in the world that have no possible relationship with each other.
According to Campbell, there are 160 language families and isolates in the Americas. The question is where did all of these entities come from. Keep in mind, in Linguistics, the standard view is that these 160 entities are not related to each other in any way, shape, or form. Thinking back, this means that language would have had to have developed in humans 160 times among the Amerindians alone.
The truth is that there was no polygenesis of language.
Sit back and think for a moment. How could language possibly have been independently developed more than one time? Obviously it arose in one group. How could it have arose in other groups too? It couldn’t and it didn’t. Did some of the original speakers go deaf, become mutes, forget all their language, and then have children, raising them without language, in which case the children devised language for themselves?
Children need comprehensible input to develop language. No language to hear in the environment, no language for the children to acquire on their own. With coclear implants, formerly deaf people are now able to hear for the first time. A woman got hers at age 32. Since she missed the Critical Period for language development, the window of which closes at age 8, she has not, even at this late date, been able to acquire language satisfactorily. She missed the boat. No input, no language.
Obviously language arose only once among humans. It had to. And hence, all human languages are related to each other de facto whether we can “prove” it by out fancy methods or not. In other words, all human languages are related. Those 160 language families and isolates in the Americas? All related. Now we may not be able to prove which languages they are related to specifically and most closely, but we know they are all related to each other.
In the physical sciences, including Evolutionary Psychology, many things are simply assumed because the alternate theories could not have happened. But we have no evidence of much of anything in Evolutionary Psychology or Evolutionary Anthropology. We know our ancestors lived in X place at Y times, but we have no idea what they were doing there. We can’t go back in time to prove that this or that happened.
Using the logic of linguists, since we cannot make time machines to go back in time and make theories about Evolutionary Anthropology and Evolutionary Psychology of these peoples, we can make no statements about this matter, as the only way to prove it would be to see it. In physics, there are particles that we have never seen. We have simply posited their existence because according to our theories, they have to exist. According to linguists, we could not posit the discovery of these particles unless we see it.
Contrary to popular rumor, everything in science does not have to be “proven” by this or that rigorous method. Many things are simply posited, as no real evidence for their existence exists, either because we were not there or because we can’t see them, or in the case of pure physics, we can’t even test out our theories. They exist simply because they have to according to our existing theories, and all competing theories fall down flat.
Well, the Americanists beg to disagree. Greenberg’s theory was so extreme and radical that the entire field erupted in outrage. None of their alternate theories, not even one of them, make the slightest bit of sense.
Despite the fact that these languages are obviously related to each other, in order to “officially prove it” we have to use a method called the comparative method whereby proto-languages and families are reconstructed and regular sound correspondences are shown between the languages being studied.
This is the only way that we can prove one language is related to another. That’s simply absurd for a few reasons.
First of all, I concur with Joanna Nichols that the comparative method does not really work on language families older than 6-8,000 years. Beyond that time, so many sound changes have taken place, semantics have been distorted, and terms fallen out of use that there’s not much of anything left to reconstruct. Furthermore, time has washed away any evidence of sound correspondences.
Although Nichols is a splitter, I have to commend her. First, she’s right above.
Second, realizing this, she says that the comparative method will always fail beyond this time frame. I believe she thinks then that we need to use new methods if we are to prove that long-range families exist. The method she suggests is “individual-identifying evidence,” which seems to be another way of saying odd morpheme paradigms that were probably not borrowed and are hardly existent outside of that family.
This harkens back to Edward Sapir’s “submerged features,” where he says we can prove the existence of language families by these small morphemic resemblances alone.
The rest of the field remain sticks in the mud. They say that we must use the comparative method to discover that languages are related because no other method exists. The problem is that as noted, as splitters themselves note, if the comparative method fails beyond 6,000 years back, all attempts to prove language families that old or older are bound to fail.
The splitters seem positively gleeful that according to their paradigm, few if any new language families will be discovered. This delight in nihilism seems odd and disturbing. What sort of science is gleeful that no new knowledge will be found? Even in the even that this is true, it’s depressing. Why get excited about something so negative?
Many language families in the world were discovered by Greenberg’s “mass comparison” or simply comparing one language to another, which should be called “comparison.” And in fact, many of the smaller language families in the world are still being posited by the means of comparison or mass comparison. Comparison need not be the broad, sweeping, forest for the trees, holistic method Greenberg employs. I argue that it means lining up languages and looking for common features. We could be lining up one language against another and that would also be “comparison.”
It need not be a shallow examination. One could examine a possible language for five, ten, fifteen, or twenty years.
After studying a pair or group of languages for some time, if one finds a group of core vocabulary items that resemble one another and are above the rate found by chance (7%), and after which borrowing has been ruled out (core vocabulary is rarely borrowed), then you have proof positive of a language family.
I fail to understand why examining a language or group of languages for a long period of time to find resemblances and try to rule out chance or borrowings is a ridiculous method. What’s so ridiculous about that? Sure, it’s nice to reconstruct and get nice sound correspondences going, but it’s not always necessary, especially in long-range comparisons when such methods are doomed to failure.
One more thing: if splitters say that the comparative method fails beyond 6,000 years, why do they keep putting long-range families to the test using the comparative method? After all, the result will always come up negative, right? What’s the point of doing a study you know will come up negative? Just to get your punches in?
There are a number of folks who have bought into the splitters’ arguments and are trying to discover long-range families by the comparative method of reconstructing the proto-language and finding regular sound correspondences between them. A number of them claim to have been successful. There have been attempts to reconstruct proto-languages and find regular sound correspondences with Altaic, Nostratic, Dene-Caucasian, Dene-Yenisien, Austro-Tai, Totonozoquean, and Uralo-Yukaghir.
Altaic, Nostratic, and Dene-Caucasian all have proto-languages reconstructed with good sound correspondences running through them. Altaic and Nostratic have etymological dictionaries containing many words, 2,300 proto-forms in the case of Altaic in a 1,000 page volume. Further, a considerable Nostratic proto-language was reconstructed by Dogopolsky and Illich-Svitych.
All of these efforts claim that they have proven their hypotheses. However, the splitters such as Campbell have rejected all of them. So you see, even when people follow the mandated method and play it by the book the way they are supposed to, the splitters will nearly always say that the efforts come up short. It’s a rigged game.
How about another question? If the comparative method fails is doomed beyond 6,000 years, why don’t we use another method to discover these relationships? The splitter rejoinder is that there is no other method. It’s the comparative method or nothing. But how do they know this? Can they prove that other methods can never be used to successfully discover a language relationship?
The following quotes are from a textbook or general text on Historical Linguistics by Lyle Campbell and Mario Mixco, A Glossary of Historical Linguistics. The purpose of this paper will be misrepresented as critics who will say that I am a lumper who is saying criticizing splitters for their opposition to known language families.
There is some of that here, but more than lumper propaganda, what I am trying to do here more than anything else is to show how Campbell and Mixco have been untruthful about linguistic specialist consensus regarding these families. In most cases, they are openly misrepresenting the state of consensus in the field.
As will be shown, Campbell and Mixco repeatedly seriously distort the state of consensus regarding many language families, particularly long-range ones. They usually favor a more negative and conservative view, saying that a family has little support when it has significant support and saying it is controversial when the consensus in the field is that the family is real. Campbell and Mixco engage in serious distortions of fact all through this text:
Campbell and Mixco:
Afroasiatic: Enjoys wide support among linguists, but it is not uncontroversial, especially with regard to which of the groups assumed to be genetically related to one another are to be considered true members of the phylum.
There is disagreement concerning Cushitic, and Omotic (formerly called Sidama or West Cushitic) is disputed; the great linguistic diversity within Omotic makes it a questionable entity for some. Chadic is held to be uncertain by others. Typological and areal problems contribute to these doubts. For example, some treat Cushitic and Omotic together as a linguistic area (Sprachbund) of seven families within Afroasiatic.
Campbell and Mixco are wrong. Afroasiatic is not controversial at all. There is widespread consensus that the family exists and that all of the subfamilies are correct.
The “we can’t reconstruct the numerals” argument is much in evidence here too. See the Altaic debate below for more on this. One argument against Altaic is “We can’t reconstruct the numerals.” However, Afroasiatic is a recognized family and not only has reconstruction itself proved difficult, but the numerals in particular are a gigantic mess. It seems that one does not need to have a fully reconstructed numeral set after all to have a proven language family.
There is consensus that Cushitic is a valid entity. Granted, there has been some question about Omotic, but in the last 10-15 years, consensus has settled on an agreement that Omotic is part of Afroasiatic.
The great diversity of Omotic is no surprise. Omotic is probably 13,000 years old! It’s amazing that there’s anything left at all after all that time.
Where do we get the idea that a language family cannot possibly be highly diverse? Chadic is also uncontroversial by consensus. I am not aware of any serious proposals to see Cushitic and Omotic as an Altaic-like Sprachbund of mass borrowings. Campbell and Mixco’s comments above are simply not correct. The only people questioning the validity of Afroasiatic or any of its components are Campbell and Mixco, and they are not an experts on the family.
Campbell and Mixco:
Berber is usually believed to be one of the branches of Afroasiatic.
This is far too pessimistic. Berber is recognized by consensus as being one of the branches of Afroasiatic.
Campbell and Mixco:
Niger-Kordofanian (now often just called Niger-Congo): A hypothesis of distant genetic relationship proposed by Joseph H. Greenberg in his classification of African languages. Estimated counts of Niger-Kordofanian languages vary from around 900 to 1,500 languages. Greenberg grouped ‘West Sudanic’ and Bantu into a single large family, which he called Niger-Congo, after the two major rivers, the Niger and the Congo ‘in whose basins these languages predominate’ (Greenberg 1963: 7).
This included the subfamilies already recognized earlier: (1) West Atlantic (to which Greenberg joined Fulani, in a Serer-Wolof-Fulani [Fulfulde] group), (2) Mande (Mandingo) (thirty-five to forty languages), (3) Gur (or Voltaic), (4) Kwa (with Togo Remnant) and (5) Benue-Congo (Benue-Cross), with the addition of (6) Adamawa-Eastern, which had not previously been classified with these languages and whose classification remains controversial.
For Greenberg, Bantu was but a subgroup of Benue-Congo, not a separate subfamily on its own. In 1963 he joined Niger-Congo and the ‘Kordofanian’ languages into a larger postulated phylum, which he called Niger-Kordofanian.
Niger-Kordofanian has numerous supporters but is not well established; the classification of several of the language groups Greenberg assigned to Niger-Kordofanian is rejected or revised, though most scholars accept some form of Niger-Congo as a valid grouping.
As Nurse (1997: 368) points out, it is on the basis of general similarities and the noun-class system that most scholars have accepted Niger-Congo, but ‘the fact remains that no one has yet attempted a rigorous demonstration of the genetic unity of Niger-Congo by means of the Comparative Method.’
There is consensus among scholars that Niger-Kordofanian is a real thing.
Campbell and Mixco:
Nilo-Saharan: One of Greenberg’s four large phyla in his classification of African languages. In dismantling the inaccurate and racially biased ‘Hamitic,’ of which Nilo-Hamitic was held to be part, Greenberg demonstrated the inadequacy of those former classifications and argued for the connection between Nilotic and Eastern Sudanic.
He noted that ‘the Nilotic languages seem to be predominantly isolating, tend to monosyllabism, and employ tonal distinctions’ (Greenberg 1963: 92). To the extent that this classification is based on commonplace shared typology and perhaps areally diffused traits, it does not have a firm foundation. Nilo-Saharan is disputed, and many are not convinced of the proposed genetic relationships. It is generally seen as Greenberg’s wastebasket phylum, into which he placed all the otherwise unaffiliated languages of Africa.
First of all, Nilo-Saharan is not classified based on its language typology which were perhaps areally diffused. There is also a great deal of the more typical evidence in favor of this language family. Second, it is not true that it lacks a firm foundation and that many are not convinced of its reality. The consensus among experts is that this family exists and the overwhelming majority of the subfamilies and isolates Greenberg put it in are correct.
Saying that it is a wastebasket phylum does not make sense because the Nilo-Saharan languages are only found in a certain part of Africa. If it was truly such a phylum, there would be languages from all over Africa placed in this family.
According to Roger Bench, a moderate, there is now consensus in the last 10-15 years that Nilo-Saharan is a real thing.
Consensus has formed that 75% of the languages and families Greenberg put in Nilo-Saharan form a valid family. Controversy remains about the other 25% including Songhay, the Gumhuz family, and a few isolates. Some say these are part of Nilo-Saharan but others say they are not. Nilo-Saharan probably has a great time depth of ~13,000 years at least, such that little probably remains to reconstruct. Reconstruction of Nilo-Saharan has proved difficult.
Yes, Campbell and Mixco say that Nilo-Saharan is not real, but they are not specialists.
Campbell and Mixco:
Khoisan: A proposed distant genetic relationship associated with Greenberg’s (1963) classification of African languages, which holds some thirty non-Bantu click languages of southern and eastern Africa to be genetically related to one another. Greenberg originally called his Khoisan grouping ‘the Click Languages’ but later changed this to a name based on a created compound of the Hottentots’ name for themselves, Khoi, and their name for the Bushmen, San.
Khoisan is the least accepted of Greenberg’s four African phyla. Several scholars agree in using the term ‘Khoisan’ not to reflect a genetic relationship among the languages but, rather, as a cover term for all the non-Bantu and non-Cushitic click languages.
Although it is probably true that Khoisan is the least accepted of Greenberg’s families, that’s not saying much, as it only means that 80% of experts accept its reality instead of 100%. I do not know who these several scholars are who feel that Khoisan is a typological area for click languages, but they do not seem to be specialists. Overall, Campbell and Mixco seriously distort consensus on Khoisan in this passage.
According to George Starostin, in the last 5-10 years, there is now consensus that Khoisan exists. There are five major Khoisan scholars, and four of them agree that Khoisan is real, with all of them including Sandawe and most including Hadza. There is one, Traill, who says it’s not real, but he is also a notorious Africanist splitter.
Campbell and Mixco:
Eurasiatic: Greenberg’s hypothesis of a distant genetic relationship that would group Indo-European, Uralic–Yukaghir, Altaic, Korean–Japanese–Ainu, Nivkh, Chukotian and Eskimo–Aleut as members of a very large ‘linguistic stock’. While there is considerable overlap in the putative members of Eurasiatic and Nostratic there are also significant differences. Eurasiatic has been sharply criticized and is largely rejected by specialists.
I have no doubt that Eurasiatic has been sharply criticized, but apart from a negative review in Language by Peter Daniels, the controversy seems quite muted compared to the furor over Amerind. I am also not sure that it is largely rejected by specialists. It probably is, but most of them have not even bothered to comment on it. I believe that this family is one of the best long-range proposals out there.
Based on the data from the pronouns alone, it’s obviously a real entity, though I would include Indo-European, Uralic-Yukaghir, Altaic including Japanese and Korean, Chukotian, and Eskimo-Aleut, leaving out Nivki for the time being and certainly leaving out Ainu. Nivki does seem to be a Eurasiatic language but it’s not a separate node. Instead it may be a part of the Chukotian family. Or even better yet, it seems to be part of a family connected to the New World via the Almosan family in the Americas.
I feel that Eurasiatic is a much more solid entity than Nostratic. Not that I am against Nostratic, but it’s more that Eurasiatic is a simple hypothesis to prove and with Nostratic, I’m much less sure of that. On the other hand, to the extent that Nostratic overlaps with Eurasiatic, it is surely correct.
Campbell and Mixco:
Indo-Anatolian: The hypothesis, associated with Edgar Sturtevant, that Hittite (or better said, the Anatolian languages, of which Hittite is the best known member) was the earliest Indo-European language to split off from the others. That is, this hypothesis would have Anatolian and Indo-European as sisters, two branches of a Proto-Indo-Hittite.
The more accepted view is that Anatolian is just one subgroup of Indo-European, albeit perhaps the first to have branched off, hence not ‘Indo-Hittite’ but just ‘Indo-European’ with Anatolian as one of its branches. In fact the two views differ very little in substance, since, in either case, Anatolian ends up being a subfamily distinct from the other branches and in the view of many the first to branch off the family.
The view that Anatolian is just another subgroup of IE is not the more accepted view. In fact, it has been rejected by specialists. Indo-Europeanists have told me that Indo-Anatolian is now the consensus among Indo-Europeanists, so Campbell and Mixco’s statement that Indo-Anatolian is a minority view is false.
Campbell and Mixco:
Nostratic (< Latin nostra ‘our’): A proposed distant genetic relationship that, as formulated in the 1960s by Illich-Svitych, would group Indo-European, Uralic, Altaic, Kartvelian, Dravidian and Hamito-Semitic (later Afroasiatic), though other versions of the hypothesis would include various other languages. Nostratic has a number of supporters, mostly associated with the Moscow school of Nostratic, though a majority of historical linguists do not accept the claims.
There are many problems with the evidence presented on behalf of the Nostratic hypothesis. In several instances the proposed reconstructions do not comply with typological expectations; numerous proposed cognates are lax in semantic associations, involve onomatopoeia, are forms too short to deny chance, include nursery forms and do not follow the sound correspondences formulated by supporters of Nostratic.
A large number of the putative cognate sets are considered problematic or doubtful even by its adherents. More than one-third of the sets are represented in only two of the putative Nostratic branches, though by its founder’s criteria, acceptable cases need to appear in at least three of the Nostratic language families. Numerous sets appear to involve borrowing. (See Campbell 1998, 1999.) It is for reasons of this sort that most historical linguists reject Nostratic.
It is probably correct that consensus among specialists is to reject Nostratic, but serious papers taking apart of the proposal seem to be lacking. Nevertheless, most dismiss it and it is beginning to enter into the emotionally charged terrain of Altaic and Amerind, particularly the former, and belief in it is becoming a thing of ridicule as it is for Altaic. Nevertheless, there have been a few excellent linguists doing work on this very long-range family for decades now.
Campbell and Mixco:
Indo-Uralic: The hypothesis that the Indo-European and Uralic language families are genetically related to one another. While there is some suggestive evidence for the hypothesis, it has not yet been possible to confirm the proposed relationship.
This summary seems too negative. Indo-Uralic is probably one of the most promising long-range proposals out there. I regard the relationship between the two as obvious, but to me it is only a smaller part of the larger Eurasiatic family. Frederick Kortland has done a lot of good work on this idea. Even some hardline splitters are open to this hypothesis.
Campbell and Mixco:
Altaic: While ‘Altaic’ is repeated in encyclopedias and handbooks most specialists in these languages no longer believe that the three traditional supposed Altaic groups, Turkic, Mongolian and Tungusic, are related. In spite of this, Altaic does have a few dedicated followers.
The most serious problems for the Altaic proposal are the extensive lexical borrowing across inner Asia and among the ‘Altaic’ languages, lack of significant numbers of convincing cognates, extensive areal diffusion and typologically commonplace traits presented as evidence of relationship.
The shared ‘Altaic’ traits typically cited include vowel harmony, relatively simple phoneme inventories, agglutination, their exclusively suffixing nature, (S)OV ([Subject]-Object-Verb) word order and the fact that their non-main clauses are mostly non-finite (participial) constructions.
These shared features are not only commonplace typological traits that occur with frequency in unrelated languages of the world and therefore could easily have developed independently, but they are also areal traits shared by a number of languages in surrounding regions the structural properties of which were not well-known when the hypothesis was first framed.
This one is still up in the air, but Campbell and Mixco are lying when they say that idea has been abandoned. Most US linguists regard it as a laughingstock, and if you say you believe in it you will experience intense bullying and taunting from them. Oddly enough, outside the US, in Europe in particular, Altaic is regarded as obviously true. However, notorious anti-Altaicist Alexander Vovin has camped out in Paris and is now spreading his nihilistic doctrine to Europeans there.
The problem is that almost all of the US linguists who will laugh in your face and call you an idiot if you believe in Altaic are not specialists in the language. However, I did a study of Altaic specialists, and 73% of them believe in some form of Altaic.
So the anti-Altaicists are pushing a massive lie – that critical consensus has completely abandoned Altaic and regards as a laughingstock, but their project is more Politics and Propaganda than Science. In particular, it’s a fad. So Altaic is in the preposterous position where almost all of the people who know nothing about it will laugh in your face and call you an idiot if you believe in it and the overwhelming majority of specialists will say it’s real.
Altaic must be the only nonexistent family that has an incredibly elaborate 1,000 page etymological dictionary, full reconstructions of the proto-languages, etymologies of over 2,000 Altaic terms, and elaborate sound correspondences running through it. The anti-Altaicists use the silly “we can’t reconstruct the numerals so it’s not real” line here.
Altaic is obviously true based on 1-2 person pronoun paradigms at an absolute minimum. The anti-Altaic argument of course, is preposterous. As noted, they dismiss a vast 1,000 page Etymological Dictionary with 2,300 reconstructed etymologies as a hallucinated work.
There are vast parallels in all three families at all levels, in particular in the Mongolic-Tungusic family, which gets a 100% with computer programs. The go-to argument here has always been that these changes are all due to borrowings, but for this to have occurred, borrowing would have had to occur between large far removed language families on such a vast scale the likes of which has never been seen anywhere on Earth.
The argument that entire 1-2 pronoun paradigms have been borrowed is particularly preposterous because 1-2 pronouns are almost never borrowed anyway, and there has never been a single case of on Earth of the borrowing of a 1-2 person pronoun paradigm, much less the borrowing of one at the proto-language level. So the anti-Altaicists are arguing that something that has never happened anywhere on Earth not only happened, but happened more than once among different proto-languages. So the anti-Altaic argument is that something that could not possibly have happened actually occurred.
This is the conclusion of every paper the splitters write. Something that has never occurred on Earth and probably could not possibly happen not only occurred, but occurred many times around the globe for thousands of years.
Many regard including Japonic and Koreanic in Altaic as dubious, although having looked over the data, I am certain that they are part of Altaic. But they seem to be further away from the traditional tripartite system than the traditional three families are to each other. If we follow the theory that Japanese and Korean have been split from Proto-Altaic for 8,000 years, this starts to make a lot more sense.
The ridiculous massive borrowings argument specifically fails for geographical reasons. Proto-Turkic was never next door to Proto-Mongolic and Proto-Tungusic. The Proto-Altaic homeland is in the Khingan Mountains in Western Manchuria and Eastern Mongolia. Tungusic split off from Altaic 5,300 years ago, leaving Proto-Turkic-Mongolic in Khingans. 3,400 years ago, Proto-Turkic broke from Proto-Turkic-Mongolic and headed west to Northern Kazakhstan and the southern part of the Western Siberian Plain, leaving Mongolic alone in the Khingans.
Proto-Transeurasian – Khingans 9,000 YBP
Proto-Korean – Liaojiang on the north shore of the Bohai Sea 8,000 YBP.
Proto-Japanese – Northern coast of the Shandong Peninsula on the southern shore of the Bohai Sea 8,000 YBP
Can someone explain to me how Mongolic and Tungusic borrow from Turkic 3,000 miles away in a different place at a different time in this scenario? Can someone explain to me how any of these proto-languages borrowed from each other at all, especially as they were in different places at different times?
Not only that but supposedly both Proto-Mongolic and Proto-Tungusic each borrowed from Proto-Turkic separately. These borrowings included massive amounts of core vocabulary in addition to an entire 1st and 2nd person pronoun paradigm.
Keep in mind that the borrowing of this paradigm, something that has never happened anywhere, supposedly occurred not just once but twice, between Proto-Tungusic 5,300 YBP on the Amur from Proto-Turkic in North Kazakhstan 3,000 miles away 2,000 later, and at the same time, between Proto-Mongolic in the Khingans and Proto-Turkic in Northern Kazakhstan 3,000 miles away. How exactly did this occur?
And can someone explain to me how Proto-Korean and Proto-Japanese borrow from either of the others under this scenario?
Campbell and Mixco:
Turkic: A family of about thirty languages, spoken across central Asia from China to Lithuania. The family has two branches: Chuvash (of the Volga region) and the non-Chuvash Turkic branch of relatively closely related languages. Some of the Turkic languages are Azeri, Kyrgyz, Tatar, Crimean Tatar, Uighur, Uzbek, Yakut, Tuvan, and Tofa. Turkic is often assigned to the ‘Altaic’ hypothesis, though specialists have largely abandoned Altaic.
As noted above, it is simply incorrect that specialists have largely abandoned Altaic. This is simply carefully crafted propaganda on the part of Campbell and Mixco. In fact, my own study showed that 73% of experts in these families felt that Altaic existed at least in some form, if only in a relationship with two out of the three-five languages.
Campbell and Mixco:
Some scholars classify Korean in a single family with Japanese; however, this is a controversial hypothesis. Korean is often said to belong with the Altaic hypothesis, often also with Japanese, though this is not widely supported.
Japonic-Koreanic has considerable support among specialists in these languages, although it is not universally accepted. Campbell and Mixco are excessively negative about the level of support for an expanded Altaic. In fact, an expanded Altaic which includes Japanese and Korean in some part of it has significant though probably not majority support. Perhaps 30-40% of specialists support it.
Proto-Japanic and Proto-Koreanic were both spoken in Northeastern China 8,000 YBP. Proto-Japonic was spoke on the north of the Shandong Peninsula and Proto-Koreanic was spoken across the Bohai Sea in Tianjin and especially across the Bohai Straights on the Liaodong Peninsula. They may have stayed here next to each other for 3,000 years until the Proto-Koreanics moved to the Korean Peninsula 5,000 YBP, displacing the Ainuid types there. Proto-Japonics probably stayed in Shandong until 2,3000 YBP when they left to populate Japan and the Ryukus, displacing the Ainu who were already there.
Campbell and Mixco:
Yeniseian, Yenisseian: Small language family of southern Siberia of which Ket (Khet) is the only surviving member. Yeniseian has no known broader relatives, though some have been hypothesized (see the Dené-Caucasian hypothesis).
Campbell and Mixco state and serious untruth here, including some weasel words. By discussing Dene-Caucasian in the same breath as relatives of Yenisien, they are able to deflect away from the more widely accepted proposal of a link between Yenisien in the Old World and Na-Dene in the New World. This is Edward Vajda’s Dene-Yenisien proposal.
The problem is that this long-range proposal has the support of many people, including splitter Johanna Nichols. Of the 17 experts who weighed in on Dene-Yenisien, 15 of them had a positive view of the hypothesis. Campbell and Mixco are the only two who are negative, but neither are experts on either family. All specialists in either or both families support the proposal. When 15 out of 17 is not enough, one wonders at what point the field reaches a consensus. Must we hold out for Campbell and Mixco’s approval for everything?
Campbell and Mixco:
Nivkh (also called Gilyak): A language isolate spoken in the northern part of Sakhalin Island and along the Amur River of Manchuria, in China. There have been various unsuccessful attempts to link Nivkh genetically with various other language groupings, including Eurasiatic and Nostratic.
Granted, there is no consensus on the affiliation of Nivkhi. However, a recent paper by Sergei Nikolaev proved to me that Nivkhi is related to Algonquian-Wakashan, a family of languages in the Americas. One of these languages is Wakashan, and there has been talk of links between Wakashan and the Old World for some time.
Michael Fortescue places Nivkhi in Chukotko-Kamchatkan. Greenberg places it is Eurasiatic as a separate node. But as Chukotko-Kamchatkan is part of Eurasiatic, they are both saying the same thing in a way. My theory is that Nivkhi is Eurasiatic, possibly related to Chukoto-Kamchatkan, and like Yeniseian, is also connected to languages in North America as some of the Nivkhi probably migrated to North America and became the American Indians. In this way, we can reconcile both hypotheses.
There are three specialist views on Nivkhi. One says it is Eurasiatic, the other that it is Chukotian, and the third that it is part of the Algonquian-Wakashan or Almosan family in the New World. Consensus is that Nivkhi is related to one of two other entities – other languages in Northeastern Asia or a New World Amerindian family. So expert consensus seems to have moved away from the view of Nivkhi as an isolate.
Campbell and Mixco:
Paleosiberian languages (also sometimes called Paleoasiatic, Hyperborean languages): A geographical (not genetic) designation for several otherwise unaffiliated languages (isolates) and small language families of Siberia.
Perhaps the main thing that unites these languages is that they are not Turkic, Russian or Tungusic, the better known languages of Siberia. Languages often listed as Paleosiberian are: Chukchi, Koryak, Kamchadal (Itelmen), Yukaghir, Yeniseian (Ket) and Nivkh (Gilyak). These have no known genetic relationship to one other.
Taken as a broad statement, of course this is true. However, Chukchi, Koryak, and Kamchadal or Itelmen are part of a family called Chukutko-Kamchatkan. This family has even been reconstructed. Campbell and Mixco’s statement that these languages have no known genetic relationship with each other is false.
Campbell and Mixco:
Austroasiatic: A proposed genetic relationship between Mon-Khmer and Munda, accepted as valid by many scholars but not by all.
The fact is that Austroasiatic is not a “proposed genetic relationship.” Instead it is now accepted by consensus. That there may be a few outliers who don’t believe in it is not important. I’m not aware of any linguists who doubt Austroasiatic other than Campbell and Mixco, and neither is a specialist. Austroasiatic-Hmong-Mien is the best long-range proposal for Austroasiatic, but it has probably not yet been proven. Austroasiatic is also part of the expanded version of the Austric hypothesis.
Campbell and Mixco:
Miao-Yao (also called Hmong-Mien): A language family spoken by the Miao and Yao peoples of southern China and Southeast Asia. Some proposals would classify Miao-Yao with Sino-Tibetan, others with Tai or Austronesian; none of these has much support.
This seems to be more weasel wording on the part of the authors. By listing Tai or Austronesian and Sino-Tibetan as possible relatives of Miao-Yao and then correctly dismissing it, they leave out a much better proposal linking Hmong-Mien to Austroasiatic.
This shows some promise, but the relationship is hard to see amidst all of the Chinese borrowing. As noted, the relationship between Hmong-Mien and Sino-Tibetan is one of borrowing. The relationship with Tai or Austronesian is part of Paul Benedict’s original Austric proposal. He later turned against this proposal and supported a more watered down Austric with Austronesian and Tai-Kadai, which seems to be nearing consensus support now.
Campbell and Mixco:
Austric: A mostly discounted hypothesis of distant genetic relationship proposed by Paul Benedict that would group together the Austronesian, Tai-Kadai and Miao-Yao.
More weasel wording. It is correct that Benedict’s original Austric (which also included Austroasiatic) was abandoned even by Benedict himself, a more watered down Austric that he later supported consisting of Austronesian and Tai-Kadai called Austro-Tai has much more support. They get around discussing the watered down Austro-Tai with good support by limiting Austric to Benedict’s own theory which even he rejected later in life. In this sense, they misrepresent the debate, probably deliberately.
In fact, evidence is building towards acceptance of Austro-Tai after papers by Weera Ostapirat and Laurence Sagart seem to have proved the case using the comparative method. Roger Blench also supports the concept. In addition, to Benedict, it is also supported by Lawrence Reid, Hui Li, and Lawrence Reid. It is opposed by Graham Thurgood, who is a specialist (he was my main academic advisor on my Master’s Degree in Linguistics). It is also opposed by Campbell and Mixco, but they are not specialists. Looking at expert opinion, we have seven arguing for the theory and one arguing against it. Specialist consensus then is that Austro-Tai is a real language family.
Even the larger version of Austric, including all of Benedict’s families plus Ainu and the South Indian isolate Nihali, has some supporters and some suggestive evidence that it may be correct.
Campbell and Mixco:
Tai-Kadai: A large language family, generally but not
universally accepted, of languages located in Southeast Asia and southern China. The family includes Tai, Kam-Sui, Kadai and various other languages. The genetic relatedness of several proposed Tai-Kadai languages is not yet settled.
Tai-Kadai is not “mostly but not universally accepted.” It is accepted by consensus as an existent language family. Perhaps whether some languages belong there is in doubt but the proposal itself is not controversial. Campbell and Mixco’s statement that Tai-Kadai remains controversial is a serious distortion of fact.
Campbell and Mixco:
Na-Dene: A disputed proposal of distant genetic relationship, put forward by Sapir, that would group Haida, Tlingit and Eyak-Athabaskan. There is considerable disagreement about whether Haida is related to the others. The relationship between Tlingit and Eyak-Athabaskan seems more likely, and some scholars misleadingly use the name ‘Na-Dené’ to mean a grouping of these two without Haida.
Levine and Michael Krauss, two top Na-Dene experts, are on record as opposing the addition of Haida to Na-Dene for 40 years. A recent conference about Edward Vajda’s Dene-Yenisien concluded that there was no evidence to include Haida in Na-Dene. However, a recent paper by Alexander Manaster-Ramer made the case that Haida is part of Na-Dene. This paper was enough to convince me. Further, the scholar with the most expertise on Haida has said that Haida is part of Na-Dene. So Campbell and Mixco are correct here that the subject is up in the air with both supporters and opponents.
The statement that a relationship between Tlingit and Eyak-Athabaskan seems “more than likely” is an understatement. I believe it is now linguistic consensus that Tlingit is part of Na-Dene, so Campbell and Mixco’s statement is not quite true.
Campbell and Mixco:
Tonkawa: An extinct language isolate of Texas. Proposals to link Tonkawa with the languages of the Coahuiltecan or Hokan-Coahuiltecan hypotheses have not generally been accepted.
I’m sure it is the case that Coahuiltecan and Hokan-Coahuiltecan affiliations of Tonkawa have been rejected. A Coahuiltecan connection was even denied by Manaster-Ramer, who recently proved that the family existed. That said, there are interesting parallels between Tonkawa and Coahuiltecan that I cannot explain. However, a recent paper by Manaster-Ramer made the much better case that Tonkawa was in fact Na-Dene.
Campbell and Mixco:
Amerind: The Amerind hypothesis is rejected by nearly all practicing American Indianists and by most historical linguists. Specialists maintain that valid methods do not at present permit classification of Native American languages into fewer than about 180 independent language families and isolates. Amerind has been highly criticized on various grounds.There is an excessive number of errors in Greenberg’s data.
Where Greenberg stops – after assembling superficial similarities and declaring them due to common ancestry – is where other linguists begin. Since such similarities can be due to chance similarity, borrowing, onomatopoeia, sound symbolism, nursery words (the mama, papa, nana, dada, caca sort), misanalysis, and much more, for a plausible proposal of remote linguistic relationship one must attempt to eliminate all other possible explanations, leaving a shared common ancestor as the most likely.
Greenberg made no attempt to eliminate these other explanations, and the similarities he amassed appear to be due mostly to accident and a combination of these other factors.
In various instances, Greenberg compared arbitrary segments of words, equated words with very different meanings (for example, ‘excrement/night/grass’), misidentified many languages, failed to analyze the morphology of some words and falsely analyzed that of others, neglected regular sound correspondences, failed to eliminate loanwords and misinterpreted well-established findings.
The Amerind ‘etymologies’ proposed are often limited to a very few languages of the many involved. Finnish, Japanese, Basque and other randomly chosen languages fit Greenberg’s Amerind data as well as or better than do any of the American Indian languages in his ‘etymologies’; Greenberg’s method has proven incapable of distinguishing implausible relationships from Amerind generally. In short, it is with good reason Amerind has been rejected.
The movement into the Americas came in three waves.
The first wave brought the Amerinds. It is here where the 160 language families reside. According to the reigning theory in Linguistics, this group of Amerindians came in one wave that spoke not only 160 different languages but spoke languages that came from 160 different language families, none of which were related to each other. These being language families which, by the way, we can find scarcely a trace of in the Old World.
The second wave was the Na-Dene people who came along the west coast and then went inland.
The last wave were the Inuits.
Greenberg simply lumped all of the 600 languages of the Americas into a single family. The argument was good, though I’m not sure he proved that every single one of those languages were all part of Amerind. But a lot of them were. The n-m- 1st and 2nd person pronouns are found in 450 of those languages. The ablauted t’ana, t’una, t’ina word, meaning respectively human child of either sex, all females including family terms, and all males including family terms are extremely common in Amerind.
So t’ana just means child. T’una means girl, woman, and includes various names for all sorts of female relatives – grandmother, cousin, aunt, niece, etc. T’ina means boy, man, and includes the family terms grandfather, brother-in-law, uncle, cousin, and nephew. This ablauted paradigm is found across a vast number of these Amerind languages, and it is nonexistent in the rest of the world.
Quite probably most to all of those languages having that term are part of a single family. What are the other arguments? That 300 languages independently innovated these terms, in this precise ablauted paradigm, on their own? What is the likelihood of that?
That these items occurring across such vast swathes of languages is due to chance? But this paradigm does not exist anywhere else, so how could it be due to chance? That these core vocabulary items were borrowed massively all across the Americas, when family terms like that are rarely borrowed? That’s not possible. None of the alternate theories make the slightest bit of sense.
Hence, the Amerind languages that have the n-m- pronoun paradigm and the t’ana, t’una, t’ina ablauted names for the sexes and the terms of family relations by sex are quite probably part of a huge language family. I’m well aware that a few of the languages having those terms could be due to chance. I’m pretty sure that about zero of those pronouns and few, if any, of those family terms were borrowed.
However, not all Amerind languages have either the pronoun paradigm or the ablauted sex term. In those cases, I’m unsure if those languages are all part of the same language. But if you can put those languages in families and reconstruct to the proto-languages and end up with the pronoun paradigm or the ablauted family term reconstructed in the proto-language of that family, I’m sure that family would be part of Amerind. That’s about all you have to do to prove relationship in Amerind.
Campbell and Mixco:
Penutian: A very large proposed distant genetic relationship in western North America, suggested originally by Dixon and Kroeber for the Californian language families Wintuan, Maiduan, Yokutsan, and Miwok-Costanoan. The name is based on words for ‘two’, something like pen in Wintuan, Maiduan, and Yokutsan, and uti in Miwok-Costanoan, joined to form Penutian.
Sapir, impressed with the hypothesis, attempted to add an Oregon Penutian (Takelma, Coos, Siuslaw, and ‘Yakonan’), Chinook, Tsimshian, a Plateau Penutian (Sahaptian, ‘Molala-Cayuse,’ and Klamath-Modoc) and a Mexican Penutian (Mixe-Zoquean and Huave).
The Penutian grouping has been influential, and later proposals have attempted to unite various languages from Alaska to Bolivia with it. Nevertheless, it had a shaky foundation based on extremely limited evidence, and, in spite of extensive later research, it did not prove possible to demonstrate any version of the Penutian hypothesis and several prominent Penutian specialists abandoned it. Today it remains controversial and unconfirmed, with some supporters but with many who doubt it.
The statement that today it “remains controversial and unconfirmed, with some supporters but with many who doubt it,” has no basis in fact. It is surely controversial and it is probably unconfirmed by linguistic consensus. Yes, it has a number of supporters, and there are quite a few who doubt it. However, among those who doubt it, none of them are specialists in these languages. Hence, we are dealing with an Altaic situation here, where the specialists believe in it but the non-specialists insist it’s nonsense.
In fact, the consensus among the specialists on these languages is that Penutian exists. A Penutian family comprising Maiduan, Utian (Miwok-Costanoan), Wintuan, Yokutsan, Coosan, Siuslaw, Takelma, and Kalapuyan andAlsean (Yakonan), Chinookan, Tsimshianic, Klamath-Modoc (Lutuami), Cayuse and Molala (Waiilatpuan), Sahaptian has been proven to my satisfaction. I am uncertain of the Penutian status of Mixe-Zoque and Huave (Mexican Penutian), although I believe that Huave and Mixe-Zoque are related to each other, albeit at a very deep time depth of 9,000 years.
Anti-Penutianists have not published a paper in a long time. The last one I remembered was published by William Shipley, and he’s been gone for a while. I am not aware of one expert on these languages who says Penutian does not exist.
Campbell and Mixco:
Cayuse-Molala: A genetic classification no longer believed that linked Cayuse (of Oregon and Washington) and Molala (of Oregon) in a single assumed family. The evidence for this was later shown to be wrong and the hypothesis was abandoned.
According to Campbell and Mixco, Cayuse is an isolate. I assume they see Molala as an isolate too. There probably is no Cayuse-Molala family, but Molala is part of Plateau Penutian, and Cayuse may be part of the same group. Plateau Penutian is part of the Penutian hypothesis, which appears to be true. By not mentioning these facts, Campbell and Mixco’s statement is quite misleading.
Campbell and Mixco:
Mosan: A now abandoned proposal of distant genetic relationship that would group Salishan, Wakashan and Chimakuan together.
Another part of this proposal was that Mosan was part of a larger family with Algonquian called Almosan. An excellent series of papers was published recently by Sergei Nikolaev that validated Almosan and proved to me that it was related to Nivkhi in the Old World.
Michael Fortescue argued a few years before that Mosan was a valid entity and that was related to the Old World language Nivkhi. Recently, Murray Gell-Mann, Ilia Peiros, and Georgiy Starostin also supported Almosan and grouped it with Chukotko-Kamchatkan and Nivkhi. David Beck recently argued that Mosan is a language area or Sprachbund instead of a genetic family.
So far we have four specialists arguing that Mosan exists, and one saying it does not. The consensus among specialists seems to be that Mosan is a valid language family. At any rate, Campbell and Mixco’s statement that this proposal is “now abandoned” is false.
For Almosan, we have four specialists saying it exists and two apparently saying it does not. Expert consensus on Almosan is optimistic.
Hokan: A controversial hypothesis of distant genetic relationship proposed by Dixon and Kroeber among certain languages of California; the original list included Shastan, Chimariko, Pomoan, Karok, and Yana, to which they soon added Esselen, Yuman, and later Chumashan, Salinan, Seri, and Tequistlatecan. Later scholars, especially Edward Sapir, proposed various additions to Hokan. Many ‘Hokan’ specialists doubt the validity of the hypothesis.
It is not true that many Hokan specialists “doubt the validity of the hypothesis.” I can’t remember the last time I saw an anti-Hokan paper. Yes, Campbell, Mixco, and Mithun say Hokan does not exist, but they are not specialists. The consensus among specialists such as Mikhail Zhikov, Terence Kaufman, and Marcelo Jokelsy is that Hokan exists. I have only found one specialist who disagrees with the Hokan hypothesis, and she merely doubts the existence of Ch’imáriko.
I believe that a Hokan family consisting of Karuk, Shasta-Palaihnihan, Ch’imáriko, Yana, Salinan, Pomoan, Yuman, Seri, and Tequistlatecan exists, although I would leave out Chumashan, Washo, and Jicaquean or Tolan. Chumashan is an isolate, and while Washo and Tolan may be Hokan at a very deep time depth, the few possible cognates are not enough to provide evidence of this. I am agnostic on Esselen, which is only known from a 350 word list collected by friars at a California mission.
I have not seen any evidence that Coahuiltecan is Hokan. There is some evidence, though not probative enough for me, that Lencan and Misumalpan may be Hokan. Nevertheless, Lencan and Misumalpan form a language family that has even been accepted by Campbell himself. This is the only long-range family proposal he has supported since the publication of LIA.
Although Campbell’s opinion on many hypotheses may be waved away as he is not an expert on that family or language, Lencan and Misumalpan are right up his alley as he is an expert in languages in Central America. He has focused mostly on Mayan, but he also knows the other languages of the region well.
Campbell and Mixco:
Cochimí–Yuman: A family of languages from Arizona, California and Baja California, with two branches, extinct Cochimí (of Baja California) and the Yuman subfamily (members of which are Kiliwa, Diegueño, Cocopa, Mojave, Maricopa, Paipai, and Walapai–Havasupai–Yavapai, among others). Cochimí–Yuman is often associated with the controversial Hokan hypothesis, though evidence is insufficient to embrace the proposed relationship.
The consensus among experts in the Cochimí–Yuman family, including Mikhail Zhikov and Terence Kaufman, is that it is part of the Hokan family. Campbell disbelieves in the association but he is not an expert. However, Mixco opposes the Hokan affinity of Cochimi-Yuman, and granted, he is actually a specialist on these languages. So among specialists, we have two who support the Hokan association and one who opposes it. The specialist consensus then would be that they are this association is a promising hypothesis, but it is not yet proven. This is different from Campbell and Mixco’s wording, which is more negative.
Campbell and Mixco:
Coahuiltecan: A hypothesis of distant genetic relationship that proposed to group some languages of south Texas and northern Mexico: Coahuilteco, Comecrudo and Cotoname, and sometimes also Tonkawa, Karankawa, Atakapa and Maratino (with Aranama and Solano assumed to be varieties of Coahuilteco).
Sapir proposed a broader classification of Hokan–Coahuiltecan, joining the Coahuiltecan proposal with the broader Hokan hypothesis, and placed this in his even larger Hokan–Siouan super-stock. None of these proposals has proven sufficiently robust to be accepted generally.
I am not aware of any specialists who have recently argued against the existence of Coahuiltecan. Yes, Campbell and Mixco do not accept it, but they are not specialists. A recent paper by Alexander Manaster-Ramer proved the existence of Coahuiltecan to my satisfaction. I believe that a Coahuiltecan family consisting of Comecrudo, Cotoname, Aranama, Solano,Mamulique, Garza, and Coahuilteco absolutely exists. Karankawa is probably a part of this family. I am not aware that any specialist is arguing against the existence of this family at the moment.
I do not think there is good evidence for other postulated languages such as Atakapa and Tonkowa. First of all, Tonkawa is probably Na-Dene as per another paper by Manaster-Ramer. Atakapa is part of the Gulf family. However, I am not yet convinced that Coahuiltecan is as member of the Hokan language family.
Campbell and Mixco:
Gulf: Hypothesis of a distant genetic relationship proposed by Mary R. Haas that would group Muskogean, Natchez, Tunica, Atakapa and Chitimacha, no longer supported by most linguists.
The notion that Gulf is no longer supported by most linguists is simply incorrect. There have only been four linguists who studied this family.
The first was Mary Haas, who also proposed a relationship with Yuki as Yuki-Gulf. Haas was always dubious about Chitimacha’s addition to Gulf.
Greenberg resurrected Yuki-Gulf in LIA.
Pam Munro is an expert on these languages. A while back she published a paper on Yuki-Gulf. I read that paper. The resemblances are so stunning between Muskogean, Natchez, Tunica, Atakapa and Chitimacha that I was shocked that anyone doubted the relationship. Furthermore, the relationship with Yuki and Wappo, a full 2,500 miles away in Northern California, was shocking.
The fourth was Geoffrey Kimball, who concluded that Gulf was probably a family but that this could not be proven.
There evidence for Gulf in Munro’s paper was good, and there even appeared to be sound correspondences running through the relationship. What was shocking about it was that Yuki and Wappo could not possibly have borrowed from Gulf because Gulf is in Louisiana 2,500 miles away. So how did all these resemblances come in? Chance is ruled out. Borrowing could not have happened. Therefore a relationship at least between Yuki and the Gulf languages is obvious.
Munro’s paper took the position that Greenberg’s Yuki-Gulf hypothesis was correct. However, there are some problems. First, Atakapa as part of Gulf has been controversial, in part because it has also been tied in with Coahuiltecan. Indeed there are resemblances between the two, and they were not spoken next to each other so borrowing can be ruled out.
Perhaps a way of solving the matter is to posit not only Yuki-Gulf but a larger family that includes Coahuiltecan as Greenberg does in LIA. I have no idea how justified this is, but there are certainly surprising resemblances between Atakapa and the Coahuiltecan languages.
Furthermore, whether or not Chitimacha is part of Gulf has been up in the air from the beginning when Haas published her paper. Recent papers have made the case that Chitimacha is related to Mesoamerican language families of Mexico such as Mixe-Zoque and Totonacan. These papers used the comparative method. Campbell has rejected this hypothesis.
That Tunica at the very least shows a close relationship with Muskogean is not even controversial. The idea has a long pedigree and is presently supported by all experts in this family.
Geoffrey Kimball examined the data recently and concluded that from the evidence, it appears that Gulf exists, but we will never be able to prove it, as he puts it. However, he stated that Tunica is almost certainly related to Muskogean. At this point, I would think that Tunica-Muskogean at the very least should be considered consensus among specialists.
Kimball’s paper had a number of problems, mostly that he was operating with a negative stance towards the existence of the family. Further, there were issues with his notions of sound symbolism and borrowing in the paper where his explanations made no sense at all.
Let’s evaluate Campbell and Mixco’s statement that Gulf is no longer supported by most linguists.
We have four specialists on record about whether or not a Gulf family exists.
Mary Haas: Positive, minus Chitimacha
Joseph Greenberg: Positive
Pamela Munro: Positive
Geoffrey Kimball: Probably exists but it’s not possible to prove it.
Brown et al: Chitimacha is a part of the Totonozoquean family, not the Gulf family. The other members of Gulf are not members of this family.
Three out of the four specialists on the Gulf family say that the Gulf family is a reality. The other feels it exists but cannot be proven. And there is uncertainty about whether Chitimacha is probably not part of Gulf. The consensus among experts is that Gulf is a real language family.
Campbell and Mixco’s statement that Gulf is no longer supported by most linguists is simply false.
Furthermore, I would like to point out that a good case can be made for the existence of a Totonozoquean family consisting of the Mixe-Zoque and Totonacan languages. Whether this is consensus among experts is somewhat up in the air.
Campbell and Mixco:
Macro-Gê: A proposed distant genetic relationship composed of several language families and isolates, many now extinct, along the Atlantic coast (primarily of Brazil). These include Chiquitano, Bororoan, Botocudoan, Rikbaktsa, the Gê family proper, Jeikó, Kamakanan, Maxakalían, Purian, Fulnío, Ofayé and Guató. Many are sympathetic to the hypothesis and several of these languages will very probably be demonstrated to be related to one another eventually, though others will probably need to be separated out.
This is much too pessimistic. Macro-Gê is not a proposed long range family -it is a large language family in South America accepted by consensus. It is not true that many are sympathetic to it; instead, the consensus is that it is correct. Nor is it correct to say that it will probably be demonstrated eventually. In fact, it is already an accepted reality.
Campbell and Mixco:
Quechumaran: Proposed distant genetic relationship that would join Quechuan and Aymaran. While considerable evidence has been gathered in support of the hypothesis, it is extremely difficult in this case to distinguish what may be inherited (and therefore evidence of a genetic relationship) from what may be diffused (and therefore not reliable evidence of a genetic connection).
It is true that there is no consensus on the existence of Quechumaran. The consensus seems to be as above that it is not yet proven. Those opposed to the idea throw out the usual borrowing scenario, but they have had to push the large number of borrowings in core vocabulary all the way back to Proto-Aymara and Proto-Quechua. In my opinion, “massive borrowing of core vocabulary at the proto-language level” is simply another word for genetics.
Gerald Clauson, the famous Turkologist opponent of Altaic, had to keep pushing his massive borrowings of core vocabulary further and further back until he eventually had the scenario taking place at the Proto-Turkic, Proto-Tungusic, and Proto-Mongolic levels. See above for my analysis on why these three proto-languages could not possibly have borrowed from each other as they were in different places in different times.
A similar problem exists with opponents of the Uralo-Yukaghir theory, in which they are also forced to deal with a large amount of core vocabulary dating back a long time. Hakkinen tried to solve this problem by pushing the borrowing all the way back to not just Proto-Uralic but Pre-Proto-Uralic. Pre-Proto-Uralic at 8,000 years to me means nothing less than Uralo-Yukaghir. What else could it mean? He has heavy borrowing of core vocabulary between Pre-Proto-Uralic and Proto-Yukaghir. That’s another way of saying genetics.
Campbell and Mixco:
Macro-Guaicuruan (also spelled Macro-Waykuruan, Macro-Waikuruan): A proposed distant genetic relationship that would join the Guaicuruan and Matacoan families of the Gran Chaco in South America in a larger-scale genetic classification. Grammatical similarities, for example in the pronominal systems, have suggested the relationship to some scholars, but the extremely limited lexical evidence raises doubts for others. Some would also add Charruan and Mascoyan to these in an even larger ‘Macro-Waikuruan cluster.’
It is not true that this is a proposed long-range family suggested by some by doubted by others. In fact, Macro-Guaicuruan is accepted by consensus and is as uncontroversial as Macro-Gê, Pama-Nyungan, and other such families. There is however debate about which families are members outside of the Guaicuruan and Mataguayo language families that make up the essence of the family. There have been suggestions to add Lule-Vilela and the Zamucoan, Charruan, and Mascoyan families to this family. I do not feel that these additions are yet warranted.
Campbell and Mixco:
Pama-Nyungan: A very large, widely spread language family of Australia, some 175 languages. The name comes from Kenneth Hale, based on the words pama ‘man’ in the far northeast and nyunga ‘man’ in the southwest. Languages assigned to Pama-Nyungan extend over four-fifths of Australia, most of the continent except northern areas.
Pama-Nyungan is accepted by most Australianists as a legitimate language family, but not uncritically and not universally. It is rejected by Dixon; it is held by others to be plausible but inconclusive based on current evidence. Some Pama-Nyungan languages are Lardil, Kayardilt, Yukulta, Yidiny, Dyirbal, Pitta-Pitta, Arrente, Warlpiri, Western Desert language(s), and there are many more.
Actually, consensus now is that this family of Australian languages does indeed exist. True, Dixon challenged the existence of Pama-Nyungan recently, but his opposition was so outrageous and it prompted a quick surge of papers from Australianists defending the existence of Pama-Nyungan. The notion that other Australianists feel that Pama-Nyungan is possible but presently inconclusive is not correct. I am not aware of a single Australianist other than Dixon who feels this way. Instead, Pama-Nyungan is about as uncontroversial as Macro-Gê, Afroasiatic, or Austroasiatic.
Campbell and Mixco:
‘Papuan’ languages: A term of convenience used to refer to the languages of the western Pacific, most in New Guinea (Papua New Guinea and the Indonesian provinces of Papua and West Irian Jaya), that are neither Austronesian nor Australian. Papuan definitely does not refer to a genetic relationship among these languages for no such relationship can at present be shown.
That is, the term is defined negatively and does not imply a linguistic relationship. While most are spoken on the island of New Guinea, some are found in the Bismark Archipelago, Bougainville Island and the Solomon Islands to the east, and in Halmahera, Timor and the Alor Archipelago to the west.
There are some 800 Papuan languages divided in the a large number of mostly small language families and isolates not demonstrably related to one another.
For what it’s worth, this statement by Campbell and Mixco is correct.
Campbell and Mixco:
One large genetic grouping that has been posited for a number of Papuan languages is the Trans-New Guinea phylum, which is promising but not yet confirmed.
Trans-New Guinea is not “promising but not yet confirmed.” Instead it is an uncontroversial language family accepted by the consensus of all specialists.
Beck, David (1997). Mosan III: A Problem of Remote Common Proximity. International Conference on Salish (and Neighbo(u)ring) Languages.
Benedict, Paul K. (1942). “Thai, Kadai, and Indonesian: A New Alignment in Southeastern Asia.” American Anthropologist 44, 4: 576–601.
Benedict, Paul K. (1975). Austro-Thai Language and Culture, with a Glossary of Roots. New Haven: HRAF Press.
Blench, Roger (2008). The Prehistory of the Daic (Tai-Kadai) Speaking Peoples. Presented at the 12th EURASEAA Meeting in Leiden, the Netherlands, 1-5 September 2008.
Blench, Roger (2018). Tai-Kadai and Austronesian Are Related at Multiple Levels and Their Archaeological Interpretation (draft).
Blust, Robert (2014). “The Higher Phylogeny of Austronesian and the Position of Tai-Kadai: Another Look,” in The 14th International Symposium on Chinese Languages and Linguistics (IsCLL-14).
Campbell, Lyle and Marianne Mithun (Eds.) (1979). The Languages of Native America: An Historical and Comparative Assessment.
Campbell, Lyle and Mauricio J. Mixco (2007). A Glossary of Historical Linguistics. Edinburgh University Press.
Campbell, Lyle and William J. Poser (2008). Language Classification: History and Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Fortescue, M. (1998). Language Relations across Bering Strait: Reappraising the Archaeological and Linguistic Evidence. (Nivkhi is Mosan.)
Fortescue, Michael (2011). “The Relationship of Nivkh to Chukotko-Kamchatkan Revisited.” Lingua 121, 8: 1359-1376. (Nivkhi is Chukoto-Kamchatkan.)
Gell-Mann, Murray; Ilia Peiros, and George Starostin (2009). “Distant Language Relationship: The Current Perspective.” Journal of Language Relationship.
Greenberg, Joseph H. (2000). Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives: The Eurasiatic Language Family. Volume 1, Grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Greenberg, Joseph H. (2002). Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives: The Eurasiatic Language Family. Volume 2, Lexicon. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Heine, Bernd (1992). African Languages. International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, ed. by William Bright, Vol. 1, pp. 31-36. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (No such thing as Nilo-Saharan.)
Krauss, Michael E. (1979). Na-Dene and Eskimo-Aleut. The Languages of Native America: Historical and comparative assessment, ed. by Lyle Campbell and Marianne Mithun, pp. 803-901. Austin: University of Texas Press. (Haida not part of Na-Dene.)
Levine, Robert D. (1979). Haida and Na-Dene: A New Look at the evidence. IJAL 45: 157-70. (Haida not part of Na-Dene.)
Mixco, Mauricio J. (1976). “Kiliwa Texts.” International Journal of American Linguistics Native American Text Series 1: 92-101
Mixco, Mauricio J. (1977). “The Linguistic Affiliation of the Ñakipa and Yakakwal of Lower California”. International Journal of American Linguistics 43: 189-200.
Nicola¨i, Robert (1990). Parent´es Linguistiques (`A Propos du Songhay). Paris: CNRS. (Dimmendaal says Songhay is Nilo-Saharan.)
Nikolaev, S. (2015). Toward the Reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan. Part 1: Proof of the Algonquian-Wakashan Relationship.
Nikolaev, S. (2016). Toward the Reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan. Part 2: Algonquian-Wakashan Sound Correspondences.
Ostapirat, Weera (2005). “Kra-Dai and Austronesian: Notes on Phonological Correspondences and Vocabulary Distribution,” in Laurent Sagart, Roger Blench and Alicia Sanchez-Mazas, eds. The Peopling of East Asia: Putting Together Archaeology, Linguistics, and Genetics, pp. 107-131. London: Routledge Curzon.
Ostapirat, Weera (2013). Austro-Tai Revisited. Paper Presented at the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, 29-31 May 2013, Chulalongkorn University.
Reid, Lawrence A. (2006). “Austro-Tai Hypotheses.” In Keith Brown (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd Edition, pp. 609–610.
Sagart, Laurent (2005b). “Tai-Kadai as a Subgroup of Austronesian,” in L. Sagart, R. Blench, and A. Sanchez-Mazas (Eds.), The Peopling of East Asia: Putting Together Archaeology, Linguistics, and Genetics, pp. 177-181.
Sagart, Laurent (2019). “A Model of the Origin of Kra-Dai Tones.” Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale. 48, 1: 1–29.
Thurgood, Graham (1994). “Tai-Kadai and Austronesian: The Nature of the Relationship.” Oceanic Linguistics 33: 345-368.
Anxiety disorders are considered minor mental illnesses because for the most part, they’re not crazy at all. Also it’s pretty much run of the mill stuff that a lot of totally functional people have, and many of these people appear quite normal if you meet them.
Also they are quite harmless due to fear being omnipresent in all of these and the disorders striking at introverted, guilty, etc. types. I would also argue that fear is a “freezing agent” for action. It seems to propel you backwards and make you stay in place, causing inertia. It stops you from moving forwards. There are times when I feel frozen in my chair with a huge weight-like a force forcing me back into it so hard, it’s hard to get out of the chair.
Energy either goes forwards or backwards, into the self or out at others.
With all that fear energy going backwards inside the self, along with the fact that anger’s not usually combined with it, it simply freezes the person in place, and there’s no more energy left to project outwards towards other persons as aggression and violence. I suppose you could argue that fear is aggression directed inwards and aggression is fear projected outwards. This is why people with anxiety disorders and introverts have such low rates of violence. The extreme energy propelling the life forces backwards into the person leaves no energy left over to propel outwards at others as violence.
In other words, they couldn’t commit an act of violence if they tried! Something would stop them and they would say, “I don’t have this in me.”
Like the guest writer, I also have a very strong, mostly unconscious, dislike, and disgust for any male homosexual behavior. It’s very common among straight men. I doubt if there is anything we like less than that.
A recent study found that straight men were more disgusted by gay pornography than by literal trays full of live maggots! Gay sex is worse than maggots! That’s pretty bad. One can argue where this revulsion comes from, whether it is genetic or cultural. It’s certainly cultural and whether it it inborn is up for dispute. At any rate, it exists. Gay men usually refuse to believe that this revulsion even exists at all. We also very much do not like people thinking we are gay, especially if they think that way because they think we act gay.
There’s probably no worse insult to a straight man than saying he acts like a homosexual, and straight women hate it just as much as straight men, if not more. That said, straight men are terribly ignorant about male homosexuality to the point of utter absurdity. They are always accusing other straight men of being gay. In fact, I think more straight men are gay-bashed that gay men.
Despite our disgust for male homosexuality, a lot of us hate homophobes even worse. I used to be mistaken for being gay a lot when I was younger and it’s still said from time to time, though now it’s not as much of an insult because it is “I’m a straight man who acts gay” which is not nearly as insulting to me as saying that I am gay! At least they acknowledge that I am straight!
This shows that it is not so much the accusation that we act like homosexuals that bother us but that that observation leads to the accusation that we are gay. So what we really do not like to be accused of is being gay, not so much acting gay. If all people ever said to be was that I was a straight guy who acted gay, I would not be so angry.
This is especially true because you do not have to be effeminate to be accused of acting gay. I don’t think I’m an effeminate man, and I’ve never seen myself that way. I really dislike that behavior and I think it’s contemptible. So saying I act that way is a particular insult.
I’m just a soft guy. On the other hand, most soft men I’ve known got called gay constantly. They were also often very handsome in a female or pretty sense – they were pretty boys. That seems to add to the gay accusation, though I’m not sure if looks alone is enough to get you accused of that though that’s happened a few times in our lives.
It is interesting, once again, that the insult that we are gay is what really bothers us, not so much that we act gay. That implies that this is the true insult – that one’s heterosexuality is not acknowledged. However, this much isn’t really the whole of it either because many people, especially women, thought I was bisexual because any women who can’t figure out a man likes women is too stupid to live. But this was almost as insulting. Just recognizing that I liked women was not enough, and in some ways it was almost worse because it was half of an apology, which is almost worse than no apology.
So looking at this anew, I think what makes us mad is not the suggestion that we don’t like women because that’s not often heard. It’s more the very suggestion that we have sex with men. That right there is the supreme insult – that we would dare to do these things at least on a regular basis.
However, there were quite a few times when even women accused me of being gay in the sense of not wanting to being attracted to women at all. This was particularly insulting.
So the insult is threefold.
That we are effeminate. Not so much that we “act gay” because no one knows what that means. But saying we act like a stereotypical homosexual man is very harmful and hurts us a lot. It’s a horrendous insult.
That we are not attracted to women and therefore have no interest in having sex with them. This almost worse than saying we are effeminate. There is something horrendously insulting to a straight man about someone saying that to him. We want our heterosexual component or our attraction to women acknowledged. You are taking a huge aspect of our lives and saying it doesn’t exist and then hating us on that basis.
That we have sex with men. Of course this is insulting but what is more insulting is other straight men acting uncomfortable around us because they think we screw guys. The idea that this guy won’t talk to me because he thinks I want to fuck him is unbelievably insulting. Furthermore, it’s completely untrue. It’s like being falsely accused of a crime. There is also a huge sense of disappointment there. In the neighborhood I live in, those are fighting words. You say that to a man around here and you are likely to get hit. You will first be asked to take it back and then if you don’t, you are probably going to get hit, at least once, in the face. And you will deserve it. 90% of the men around here will say you deserved it and no one will call the cops. It’s even worse than that. You can be killed for saying that to a man around here. I have wondered why these are fighting words around here and the conclusion I arrived at is that those are fighting words not because you say he acts gay or because you say he has no interest in women but because you are implying he has sex with men. It is for that reason that you might get hit or even killed. That’s the ultimate insult right there.
All three of these are extremely insulting and it’s hard to say that one is worse than the other. I’ve had people who thought I was gay change their minds and say I was bisexual and like me 10X more on that basis, and it didn’t feel 1% better. It almost made me even more mad.
I guess what it boils down to is people really do not want to be misjudged on the essential basis of what they are.
I’m not sure if I care if someone thinks I had sex with guys a few times experimentally. Not that I would ever say such a thing. Such behavior is epidemic among straight men. I’ve known 5-10 men who told me they had sex with men a few times experimentally but then they decided they didn’t like it and never did it again. And the number of women who say this about sex with women is epidemic too. I keep running into women my age who told me they had sex with a woman once or twice (usually once), apparently experimentally.
A number of times they concluded that they didn’t really like it and they were basically straight, so it was a sort of testing the waters sort of thing. Interestingly, all of the men who admitted this to me were outrageous playboys. I think every one of them had a 3-figure laycount. This implies that this sort of behavior is simply a byproduct of an extremely high sex drive. These men are “sex maniacs.” A former female commenter on this site said that a lot of such men were bisexual or had had sex with men before. A very high sex drive may include a tendency towards experimentation.
Many people used to think I was gay, but it was never everyone. Especially most people who grew up with me somehow knew it could not possibly be true. It was always the new people thinking that.
As such, I’ve been on the receiving end of a lot of homophobia. I must tell you that homophobia feels pretty terrible. There is something awful about it, and it is some sort of hate on one level or another. And you get it from women as much as from men. I’m not sure if it is worse to be accused of being gay if you are straight because you are being misunderstood on an essential level than it is if you are actually, gay and they are telling the truth about you.
But there is something awful about being misunderstood on a basic level like that.
When you meet a new person, you assume that they figure out certain things about you – your age, your dress style, your level of politeness, perhaps your intelligence or education, perhaps your moral level, whether you are white or blue collar, your level of masculinity or femininity, your ethnicity or race, obviously your sex or gender (same thing), your level of attractiveness, whether you are a pleasant or unpleasant person, your cultural level, your subculture (often based on hairstyle or clothing), your income, your hygiene and general level of cleanliness, your income (often based on your clothing), your relationship status (as in if you are married or if you have a SO), and last but not least, your sexual orientation!
So when I meet a new person, especially a man, I assume that he thinks I am a straight man. If he doesn’t think that, it’s a rude shock, and it seems like there’s no way I can talk to him. By the way, men make this assumption about other men all the time – we always try to guess the sexual orientation of every man we meet. Usually it just defaults to “this guy is (more or less but please don’t tell me the details) straight,” but in a few cases, it doesn’t.
The only distinction is something like “Basically Straight and I don’t want to hear anymore details about that please” versus “Gay and that means gay with a capital G.” We don’t try to negotiate the ins and outs of all the men who fall along the bisexual continuum or have sex with men at least sometimes but are not gay. It’s a black and white thing. Any man who tries to break it down past that very basic assumption is paranoid about male homosexuality – but the percentage of straight men who are absurdly paranoid about male homosexuality is extremely high.
There is even a certain way of conversing – I call it “straight man to straight man.” It’s a real style and almost all straight men will mimic this towards you. One thing about it is there an utter and absolute absence of any sense of sexual attraction about these interactions. Further, there is no mention of male homosexuality in any way. Or even sex if the friendship is new. Talking about sex too soon is seen as gay.
I remember my mother and her relatives though my cousin’s new husband was gay due to his behavior. But I never thought he acted gay. I told my Mom there was no way he was gay because when I talked to him for 15 minutes, there was a straight guy to straight guy vibe about it, a holistic one that cannot be put into words. Based on that, I told her there is no way he was gay.
The thing is that most gay men, even deeply closeted ones, cannot do this “straight guy to straight guy” vibe thing. They might be able to do it for a few minutes, but if you are one on one with them, their homosexuality almost always reveals itself. They just can’t keep it out of their presentation.
This is also interesting because it implies that in any significant interaction between men, men are not able to keep from revealing their sexual orientation. Our sexuality is such a huge part of us that it seeps into every interaction we have – even a basic conversation about the weather.
This is a strong argument against the Sex-Hating Left as seen in #metoo bullshit, which seems to want to ban any expression of sexuality, at least by men, overt or convert, from all public space (apparently sexual expression by women is fine and dandy).
We just can’t do that, or at least we men can’t. Our sex drive is so strong that it’s seeping out of all our pores all the time. Asking us to shut down such an overwhelming drive is not only ridiculous but unhuman and even downright anti-human. That’s why feminism is not only deeply man-hating but it is also at its core anti-human by seeking to suppress the very essential human aspects of males. The feminists are literally asking us to stop being ourselves. Not only is such a folly impossible but there is something terribly cruel about such a demand.
Also, gay men can’t help but reveal their homosexuality to you in any extended conversation. They usually act like they are attracted to you. Also, it is very hard to get close to these men.
One part of this straight man to straight man vibe is an extreme casualness and very much a lack of intimacy. Say we are hanging out for an evening. This right there raises a strong question of homosexuality – you are alone together, no one else around, other people will often see this behavior as homosexual, there is a possibility of some vague homosexual feelings leaking out, etc. Hence there is a strong need to defend against not these feelings but more their very potential. This what I could call the “gay tension” in these encounters. It’s not a resistance against something that is there but more against something that might be there. It’s a huge wall against a very possibility.
There is a distance or a lack of intimacy there expressed by an extreme “I don’t care” attitude and a lot of joking. Perhaps seriousness seems gay on some level. We also don’t even look at each other all that much. You aren’t supposed to. If you do, it’s seen as gay. You don’t talk about deep things. That might be seen as gay. You are supposed to talk about women at some point or another. If you don’t, it is suspicious. It also relieves a lot of the gay tension. This is sort of a test to make sure the other guy is not gay, but it’s also just a way of being straight.
I often feel that a lot of straight male intimacy or closeness is constructed around a lot of barriers against homosexuality. That’s why we do a lot of the things we do above – why we don’t look at each other all that much, why we joke and act frivolous, why we avoid deep discussions, especially about feelings. Perhaps this is all a defense against having any homosexual expression. We don’t feel this way anyway, but we still need to defend against the possibility that we might. Once again, it’s hard to explain.
We do feel very close to each to other. I have even been “in love” with some of my straight male friends before, but I would never do anything sexual with them. If you want to call me gay for making that statement, go right ahead. I’m not worried.
It was more of the platonic love one feels between oneself and a parent, sibling, or relative, something like that.
I once thought, “You know, if I was gay, I would fuck this guy.”
Once again, if you feel that makes me gay, go right ahead. I’m not worried. That’s how much I loved him. But since I wasn’t gay, I wouldn’t dare even touch him. I often feel that the platonic love between two straight male friends is one of the deepest relationships a straight man can feel. I often wonder if we feel deeper love towards our straight male friends than towards our girlfriends or wives. It’s hard to explain how deeply we feel for each other. Yet this love has an utter prohibition on any physical sexual expression similar to your love for your father or brother does.
LOL just got banned from another Facebook group! Yay! First thing you need to know is I get banned from almost all Facebook groups. When I come to a Facebook group, if I hate it, I usually think, “How can I get banned from here as quickly as possible?” And then I proceed to do just that. And I’m usually banned in less than an hour. Half those Facebook groups? Why do they even exist? I figure they exist for guys like me to troll them and see how fast I can get banned, right? What other reason could they possibly have for their pathetic existence?!
The group is called This Is Why Conservatives Call Us Snowflakes. I figured the group is Alt Left, but it’s really not. It’s just the usual SJW idiots, except that they are slightly less crazy than the ordinary SJW idiots. There are a lot of these “lesser brands” about nowadays. I’m not real happy with this trend. It’s still the same poison, just more diluted this time. If you’re going to make a break with the Cultural Left, it has to be total.
Here’s the problem right here:
Hate speech of any kind is not allowed. No racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc allowed. Respect people’s pronouns & identities. No slurs of any kind are allowed. Mayo, Karen, etc are allowed tho
Ok, that’s not Alt Left at all. No Alt Left group would ever put anything that stupid on there. Of course, I think Alt Left groups should ban people for using certain slurs or possibly for severe bigoted language. Emphasis on severe. Every time I see one of these No Hate Speech signs, I want to bang my head on the desk. Because anyone who puts up a sign like that thinks “hate speech” is, just about, anything. And everything. And the kitchen sink.
There’s no attempt at nuance, and if you’re not doing nuance, you’re nowhere near being a self-actualized humans. Because one of the only things separating us elevated types for the usual fucktard rabble is…nuance, a sense of proportion, taking things case by case, the spirit of the law and not the letter, take each case separately and evaluate, things like tone, intent, humor, basically, a sense of scale. All of which is always missing in any idiot tard who puts up a NO HATE SPEECH sign.
Notice that the only slurs they allow are mayo and Karen. Karen is just a slur for a certain type of nosey and annoying suburban White woman. More globally, it is a slur against White women period. Mayo is a shitty slur against White people. So these are just standard SJWtards. The only people it’s ok to hate are White people and White women. Everything else is bigotry, including calling trannies trannies, which, by the way, is one of my favorite pastimes.
I probably got banned for transphobia. That’s what I usually get banned for nowadays. I love to misgender these people because to me, it’s misgendering when you refer to a man who thinks he’s a woman as a woman. He’s not a woman. He’s a man who thinks he’s a woman. Likewise, it’s misgendering to refer to a woman who thinks she’s a man as a man. Of course she’s not a man. She’s a woman who thinks she’s a man.
And I just love to call those people trannies. How can you not love that word? Listen to it. Swirl it around on your tongue like a fine wine. Savor it. Smack your lips a few times. Doesn’t that word tranny just have the greatest mouthfeel?
I also love to call trannies mentally ill because that’s exactly what they are. If you are a man who thinks you’re a woman, 90% of the time, I would say you’re nuts. If you are a woman who thinks she’s a man, 95% of the time, I would say you’re nuts. Except for a few early onset cases which I am willing to make amends for (though they’re still not the opposite sex), a man can never be a woman and a woman can never be a man.
No one even knows what any of that shit above means. What’s hate speech? Define it. Give me a good, concise definition that everyone can agree on. I don’t usually use other racial slurs when I write, but boy is it tempting! I so wanted to call a Japanese guy a Jap the other day! Why? I dunno. Because these shitwad SJW’s told me I can’t, that’s why! If you tell me there’s words I am banned from saying because they are offensive, those are probably the first words I am going to use in my next sentence to you.
Come on. We came out of the punk rock movement, Goddamn it. You have any idea what the punk rock movement was like? Like, nothing is sacred. Like, giving the finger to everything. Like, breaking all the rules. Like, saying all the words you’re not supposed to say. Why? For the living fuck of it, that’s why. Which is to say, no reason at all!
We came out of the Goddamned punk rock movement, and you think we’re going to listen to SJW Miss Manners telling us to watch our language? LOL. Get out. Half of our songs had slurs in them. That was the whole idea. Not to hurt people’s feelings, but just to piss all over everything, the whole system. Tell us we can’t say something, and we’d say it. Tell us we couldn’t wear something, we’d wear it. Tell us not to say, do, or wear something because it’s mean, Hell, that’s even more reason to break the rules! It was all about pissing people off? Who? Everyone! Why? For no damned reason at all!
I won’t say those words for any particular reason and certainly not to hurt people. I’ll only say them because you, an authoritarian shitwad, ordered me not to! Hey, I’m still a rebellious teenager in a 63 year old body, sorry.
I do use words like this in my personal life. But not commonly and even then, only a few special words for certain folks who’ve really got it coming to them!
Growing up, I lived through true systemic racism. Trust me when I tell you it is real. The problem is, it is not coming from White people. Systemic racism in the US is Black racism against Whites! American Black culture was born out of rebellion and resistance towards an unfair system at that time. Yet it has failed to change with the times in society.
Black African Culture is not one that can mix with other cultures because it is by design rebellious and resistant. Everything from language to appearance is almost the direct opposite of “White culture,” for lack of a better term. Asking White people to accept or adapt to the Black culture that has formed in America is not practical or even possible because it is in direct conflict with and geared to rebel against White people and to destroy all of White civilization, replacing it with the violent, primitive anti-civilization which characterizes nearly all of Africa.
This really isn’t hard to understand. In American Black culture, all White people are “the enemy” from the start. Whites built the civilization that Blacks aspire to but which they aren’t capable of creating among or by themselves. The core mentality – that White people and what White people have created are “the enemy” which must be destroyed – has to change before anything else can.
Black American culture, which is inherently rebellious and based on resentment or hatred of others, is not sustainable, even for it’s own people. Once the rest of society distances itself from that culture, the same rebellious, resentful mentality will cause the people to turn inward against each other because that is all those people know. We see it in every place Blacks live: murder, rape, and other violent crime spirals out of control among Blacks.
They are right about systemic race problems, but they are looking to make changes in all the wrong places.
Everyone’s going to scream that this is racism or even ultra-racism. The automatic assumption is he’s a White nationalist, except he’s just some Black guy who got to know his people a little too well.
The truly disturbing thing about this post is: Just how much of it is really true?
For starters, I don’t think Blacks are out to destroy White civilization. The ones here seem like they are, but they’re just idiots. Blacks in general in most of the world do not have destruction of White civilization on their agenda. Further, Blacks are only 13% of the population. 13% of the people will never destroy the civilization of the majority. They just can’t, and most of them don’t even think about it anyway. They’re too busy fucking, getting high, and Holocausting each other to think about us very much, if you ask me.
I agree that Black culture doesn’t mix well with other cultures, but Arab and Islamic societies seem to have figured out a way to work them in. In Latin America, everyone is so mixed that there is no Black culture, for all intents and purposes.
It is basically rebellious and resentful here in the West, but is that true in the Caribbean? Dubious. In Africa? Not really. Only in South Africa.
I agree that here in the US, the rebellion and resentfulness have turned inward onto themselves. That’s clear to me.
I agree that Whites are the enemy, yet nevertheless, many Blacks (a majority?) all want the society that the White Man Built. Except left to their own devices with such a society handed to them on a silver platter, indeed they cannot maintain it. Look at any majority Black large city.
Black people need to live with others. Gathering together masses of Black people unmixed with others just doesn’t seem to work out well.
In a lot of ways, Black Culture is the polar opposite of White Culture, but when you get towards more middle class and/or educated Blacks, the differences between them and us are not severe. Sure, there are differences all right, and I don’t necessarily want a Black girlfriend who hangs mostly with Blacks unless they act pretty White. I’m just not into that culture of theirs, not that it’s terrible in modified form, but it’s just not my culture, and it’s not for me. They can have it.
It is true that asking Whites to adopt Black culture will never work, though many wiggers are trying their darndest. Still, most Whites find this culture abhorrent and want nothing to do with it. It’s like a negation or a polar opposite of everything we believe and value. In addition, this culture is opposed to us, so why would we join a culture that hates us?
to destroy all of White civilization, replacing it with the violent, primitive anti-civilization which characterizes nearly all of Africa.
Well, yeah, but in North Africa and the Sahel, the Islamic Black Culture is not really so bad. Sub-Saharan Africa has been the Dark Continent forever, probably from the start and certainly before Livingston. This only happens in a place like South Africa, where Whites are 9%, and non-Whites, most of whom are Black, are 91%. Also those Blacks are very unintelligent. US Blacks are much more intelligent than South African Blacks, with an IQ that is ~20 points higher. That’s almost 1.5 standard deviations and this explains much of why US Blacks act so much better in so many ways than African Blacks.
And no, White nationalists, the future of the US is not South Africa! The future of the US is a 91% Black America? Get real.
We see it in every place Blacks live: murder, rape, and other violent crime spirals out of control among Blacks.
I agree that we see it in every case where large numbers of Blacks are crowded together, such as in larger cities, typically where they form a majority.
He’s also probably right that there is far more systemic or institutional racism among Blacks towards Whites than the other way around. I’m not really buying the systemic or institutional racism thing. I think it’s mostly a bunch of crap.