Alt Left: Transgender People Are Obviously Mentally Ill, But Some Are More Mentally Ill Than Others

In 90% of the cases, MtF transgenderism is just a paraphilia. They are crossdressers, transvestites, and autogynephiles. In many cases, the transgenderism simply goes away. If it vanishes regularly like that, then there cannot be anything wrong with their brains and of course it’s just a mental disorder. In the several areas in which male and female brains differ, autogynephilic transgender people’s brains look exactly like male brains. However, in four or five areas that are the same in both males and females, autogynephiles’ brains are different from both sexes. These brain changes may be the source of the mental disorder.
There is an incel on an incel board who identified as transgender in adolescence and went on hormones. He lost 3-4 inches in height and there is something wrong with his face as a result of the hormones. He now describes his transgenderism as a delusion, which it was of course.
Of course it’s a delusion if a man insists he is really a woman. How could it not be a delusion?
10% of transgender people are the real transsexuals. These are all gay men. These are biological transsexuals with a very early onset, sometimes as early as age two. Their brains are different. There are several parts of the brain that are quite different in men and women. In these brain areas early onset transsexuals have brains that are in between male brains and female brains. That is, their brains are female-shifted.
Now that does not mean that they have women’s brains in men’s bodies, but their brains are somewhat feminized. And yes, it does seem to be related to hormonal aberrations in the womb. This transgenderism is more valid because it involves actual changes in brain structures. Nevertheless, if these men insist that they are really women, that is a delusion in my opinion because it’s just not true.
I know little about FtM transsexuals except that 99% of them are lesbians. I am not aware of any good work on FtM transgender people’s brains.
There is a new phenomenon called Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria which is hitting teenage girls in an epidemic form. It spreads like anorexia as a social contagion in emotionally susceptible teenage girls. This is simply a mental illness like Anorexia and in fact, it may be closely related to Anorexia because it resembles Anorexia in many ways and it also involves distorted body image.

Meth-induced Voices in Your Head Start with Pareidolia

Interesting article on meth-induced voices in the head deriving from long-term use of methamphetamine.

Eventually, and note that this happened with everyday use of crystal meth for a couple of years, there didn’t have to be any white noise to trigger the voices. Eventually I heard voices all the time, and they took on a different nature. They would sound just like real voices, coming from different directions and distance, so the sensation was enough to trick my brain into believing that I really heard the voices with my ears.
They became voices that mocked me, voices that ridiculed me, voices of imaginary observers to a mind that became increasingly paranoid and deluded. So it became much like a persecution complex, or paranoid schizophrenia.
At one stage I heard people talking about me at work, saying terrible things about me. I heard them through the walls. I heard them even when I was alone.

That sounds almost exactly like paranoid schizophrenia. I have heard that long-term meth use can lead to a permanent paranoid schizophrenia-type illness. Most of this data has come out of Japan where people have been injecting shabu or meth for many years. The cases involved subjects who had been injecting shabu every day for 10+ years. The illness was incurable.

Meth-induced voices in your head take you to a bad place, a real living hell on Earth. And many who go there don’t return. They end up permanently psychotic…
…I find this very interesting, in that it could mean that hearing voices is simply an expected side-effect of prolonged drug use. Further, I noticed many meth addicts who tended to believe in black magic and possession. Even when I was in rehab years ago, some residents there became convinced that a schizophrenic resident (who talked to himself and spoke in gibberish that they thought were “demonic tongues”) was possessed. No amount of attempting to reason with them would convince them otherwise.
So beware, voices in the head and apophenia leading to an irrational belief in the paranormal (as well as possibly in God in recovery) may well just be a side-effect of the high levels of dopamine as a result of frequent prolonged drug use. And it may be permanent.

This is interesting, implying that in some cases, the delusions never really go away. 
It’s interesting how the voices start up faster the longer they have been going on. For instance, if they have been going on a long time and you quit for a while, they will start up again full-blown after only a few days of meth use. This is a kindling effect and it is well known in cocaine use and bipolar disorder, especially manic episodes.
A heavy cocaine user will quit and then smoke cocaine one time. After only using it once, they are running around shutting all the drapes and talking about how the police outside can hear everyone so people need to quiet down.
In Bipolar Disorder, the more episodes you experience, the worse the illness until you get to the point where you are a somewhat manic all the time. Episodes come more often and healthy periods between episodes shorten. The episodes themselves become worse and last longer.

Meth-induced Voices in Your Head Start with Pareidolia

By Jerome

I’ve never written about this topic on this blog, although it was a frequent subject on my old blog. Maybe it’s time…
This subject is fascinating to me now, though it wasn’t always that way. In active addiction it was scary. It was something that I lived with for a few years, but what I find most interesting is how it started.
Firstly, you need to know what pareidoloia is. It’s defined as seeing patterns where none exist, and while that explains it technically, it doesn’t really make it clear what the psychological phenomenon actually is. Visual pareidolia is when we think we see shapes like faces in inanimate objects, like Jesus on a piece of toast, or a face on Mars.
But pareidolia is also when we think we hear voices or recognizable sounds through white noise. An example of the less well known auditory pareidolia is when you’re taking a shower or hear really loud rain falling on your roof, and you think you hear voices or your phone ringing through the noise. That was how my meth voices started. At first it was just ordinary pareidolia, where there was loud rain or wind and I thought I heard voices, but would realize immediately that it was my imagination.
But then something seemed to go wrong in my brain. Fragments of sound that sounded like voices evolved into much more. As months went by, it would happen more frequently, and any background noise, even noises that were not noticeable to most people, would trigger it. So what started out sounding vaguely like voices, after a few months became voices of people that I knew speaking unintelligible words. So it was like hearing a conversation from another room, one just out of earshot and not heard clearly. Then as time went by, it became actual words and sentences that I could make out.
Eventually, and note that this happened with everyday use of crystal meth for a couple of years, there didn’t have to be any white noise to trigger the voices. Eventually I heard voices all the time, and they took on a different nature. They would sound just like real voices, coming from different directions and distance, so the sensation was enough to trick my brain into believing that I really heard the voices with my ears.
They became voices that mocked me, voices that ridiculed me, voices of imaginary observers to a mind that became increasingly paranoid and deluded. So it became much like a persecution complex, or paranoid schizophrenia.
At one stage I heard people talking about me at work, saying terrible things about me. I heard them through the walls. I heard them even when I was alone. Eventually I isolated myself from the outside world and everything in my life was affected as I retreated into my own delusional world of suffering and pain.
Meth-induced voices in your head take you to a bad place, a real living hell on Earth. And many who go there don’t return. They end up permanently psychotic. I’ll probably revisit this topic and write about how it felt to live with those voices and the inevitable delusion, but today’s post is mostly about how they start.
I find it interesting to know that those voices do start with auditory pareidolia, which is something we all experience. Of course, if you’re a meth addict and you start to experience voices, it’s probably a great time to stop using. But you won’t, I know. Yet you need to recognize that when this happens, you can no longer try to convince yourself that you aren’t an addict.
When it reaches this point, you’re a long way past crossing a line from user to addict. You need to recognize that you have a serious problem, one that is affecting not only your life but those of all involved in it. Once the voices progress to the point where you hear them all the time, they don’t stop as long as you continue using. Even if you are clean for a long time and then relapse, the voices return in a few days, and then stick around as long as you use. At least that’s how it was for me.


Update: This article about apophenia (the spontaneous perception of connections and meaningfulness of unrelated phenomena), which is of course closely related to pareidolia, lists high levels of dopamine as a possible cause. Of course drugs like meth, and to a lesser extent cocaine and crack cocaine, cause tremendously high levels of dopamine, considerably higher than the levels that occur naturally. And all of those drugs cause voices in the heads of long-term users. Apparently high levels of dopamine might also cause belief in the paranormal, and EVP, among other things. (I’d considered mentioning EVP here anyway.)
I find this very interesting, in that it could mean that hearing voices is simply an expected side-effect of prolonged drug use. Further, I noticed many meth addicts who tended to believe in black magic and possession. Even when I was in rehab years ago, some residents there became convinced that a schizophrenic resident (who talked to himself and spoke in gibberish that they thought were “demonic tongues”) was possessed. No amount of attempting to reason with them would convince them otherwise.
So beware, voices in the head and apophenia leading to an irrational belief in the paranormal (as well as possibly in God in recovery) may well just be a side-effect of the high levels of dopamine as a result of frequent prolonged drug use. And it may be permanent.
Some of my most annoying Facebook “friends” are people I became acquainted with in rehab, who share Christian nonsense followed by “type Amen” all the time. I can’t bring myself to unfriend them somehow. The most annoying proponent of the sharing Jesus movement is a girl I remember from rehab who believed that she needed to eat sand. There was even a patch of sand set aside especially for her in the garden. (My greatest challenge in rehab was to refrain from pissing in her sand patch.) So ironically, some who hang on so desperately to Jesus in recovery may in my opinion do so simply because their brains are fried from all the drugs. Fortunately I’m not one of them. I guess I’m just lucky.

A Look at Cluster A Personality Disorders

Cluster A are the odd personality disorders. They’re not so much awful people as they are simply so odd and strange that you can’t have much of a human relationship with them. Their general theme is to drive people away from them in some way or another.
Schizoids are ok, but they are very annoying. It’s generally impossible to have any decent human relationship with someone like this because…well…they don’t do human relationships. I’ve talked to Schizoids but I have never really known one in real life. You are unlikely to run across a Schizoid in life because they are such extreme loners that they simply don’t get involved with other humans at all.
Schizotypals simply have a mild form of schizophrenia and are more or less impossible to deal with in ways that are similar to how schizophrenics can’t be dealt with but on a lesser scale. They are also quite suspicious and paranoid. They have awful social skills and conversations with them degenerate and start getting tangential and strange pretty quickly. They will give off a feeling of alienation and weirdness that would probably make you want to get away from them.
I had a girlfriend who had Schizotypal traits, but she was mostly just a Borderline. When she was off into her schizotypal strangeness, it was like talking to someone from another planet. She would be saying weird and odd things that didn’t make a lot of sense and the conversation had the creepy feel of someone who is way out there and is not really with the rest of us at all. I eventually broke up with her on the grounds that she was too crazy for me. It was like dating a Martian.
I’ve never met or talked to an actual full-blown Schizotypal, so I don’t know much about them. I don’t see how you can have a decent relationship with someone like this. They’re too crazy for that. You usually won’t meet schizotypals because they are extreme loners who don’t do human relationships. They are suspicious, withdrawn and don’t talk much. They give off vibes of trying to drive you away. When at home, they often get quite shut-in and don’t want to go outside.
Paranoids I do not understand very well, but I hear they are hard to deal with too. They can also often be angry. Their constant suspicion drives you crazy and relationships with these people must be hard to deal with. You often won’t meet Paranoids either because, well, they’re too paranoid! They shy away from most relationships too and even if you work with them, they probably won’t reveal much of their disorder. They also give off serious “get away from me” vibes.
None of these people are easy to get along with. It’s going to be hard to have a decent human relationship with any of these people.
Of course Cluster B’s are awful human beings. I’ve gone into them before on this site.
 
 

A Look at Dependent and Avoidant Personality Disorders

Avoidants differ a lot, but you can’t have a relationship with someone like that either. I knew an Avoidant once for two weeks. I lived with him and some other people. Everyone in the house regarded him as a complete asshole. His APD took the form of actually avoiding people to the point of seeming mean. This is how he drove people away from him. They often literally shove people away from them and they can seem hostile or aggressive when they do this.
You are also likely to not run into Avoidants in your life because, well, they avoid other people! Even if you meet one, it will be hard for you or others to figure out that they are Avoidants. There were three other people living in the house I was staying at, and none of them believed that he was APD. They didn’t even know what APD was. The woman who lived there, a girlfriend of mine, actually liked him but realized how screwed up he was. The two men who lived there hated him and described him as an “asshole.” This is because their extreme avoidance can appear mean and sometimes they flat out are mean when they are trying to shove you away.
People with Dependent Personality Disorder are complete wimps and they are often incompetent. The best way to describe is that they are grownup babies. These are adults that never really grew up. Their wimpiness and pathetic dependency drive everyone around them nuts. They are often very nice, kind, decent people. Some DPD are very nice and have a lot of a good relationships with women, including a lot of friendships. Why grown women put up with these wimpy men, I have no idea, but a lot of people like a friendly person. I’ve never met an actual DPD person, nor have I spoken to one.

A Look at Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder

Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder is just horrible. They’re awful people too but it’s hidden most of the time, and you can’t see it. The clue is the word aggression in the name of the disorder. They’re displaying out and out aggression a good part of the time. However, they do so passively, so it is not obvious.
The aggression is not always passive though, and if you get on their case about the car they were supposed to fix in two days but it’s now been three weeks, they blow an Old Faithful geyser through the ceiling.
You are the evil person for “pressuring” them. Their wild, towering rages are a sight to behold. They try to make you feel guilty for pressuring them to, for instance, complete a basic task reasonably on time? But that’s too much to ask. You don’t understand all the pressures they are under except they don’t have any pressures except things they made up. Don’t you realize they didn’t have time to do because they had so many other things to do? Well, they didn’t but this is the lie they tell to themselves. The endless putting off of jobs they are tasked to do is their way of secretly giving you the finger.
They stew in resentment all the time. Life’s not fair. Everybody picks on them. They’re misunderstood. People won’t stop “pressuring” them and “hassling” them, for instance about that car that they said would be done in two days that they now stretched out to three weeks.
They “forget” to do all sorts of things. They’re were going to call you? Whoops! They “forgot.” They were supposed to go to your Dad’s funeral? Whoops! They “forgot” again. They’re not forgetting anything. Their memories are fine. “Forgetting” is another way that they resentfully give you the finger for wronging them in some way or another. They’re getting back at you.
A lot of their passive-aggressive behavior is resent-fueled paybacks and revenge for something you supposedly did to them somehow. Or maybe they’re not mad at you at all. Maybe they’re mad at the world. Who knows? You will never get an answer out of them because they all have zero insight and if you bring up their passive-aggressive behaviors, they blow a 50 amp fuse because you hit too close to home.
Some of them get lost in grandiose fantasies that never come to fruition. You know, that silver mine they were going to open up that would bring in $500,000/year? Or was it millions? Oh yes, that. They were going on about that ten years ago. Nothing ever came of it and nothing ever comes of any of their grandiose schemes. If you bring it up the scheme that never happened you get a fog bank of obfuscation blown your way. What silver mine? There was no silver mine. Anyway, let’s change the subject. They never get much of anything done and are behind on everything all the time. They’re not achievers. They’re anti-achievers. On some level they know this, so this may be why they retreat into grandiose fantasy as a defense against their general failure to get much of anything done in life.
On the surface, they often appear so passive that they seem disgusting. Straight OCPD men can seem so passive that they are often feminine and during times of stress, they can become out and out effeminate to where you would be sure that they are gay. They don’t take initiative. They don’t do well with women for this reason and they tend to hook up with bossy, bitchy women who wear the pants and beat them up and push them around all day. Of course, this just reinforces their general resentment against the world at large. They’re often always right. You can’t correct them or tell them they are wrong. They blow a frustrated fuse that looks like a spouting oil well that struck oil. Their rages have a sense of self-righteousness and frustration about them.
PAPD’s differ a lot. I have only known one PAPD in my life and unfortunately, yes, he’s a monster. You have to walk on eggshells around him all the time. And he’s such a big pussy that it’s disgusting. I knew someone else, now dead, who was also very passive aggressive, but I am not sure he had PAPD. He was a lot nicer, but his wife kicked his ass 24-7 and he could never get anything done. He would still have Christmas cards from several years back that he never opened. He had huge piles of stuff everywhere that “he was going to get around to deal with” except he “never found the time.” He was passive-aggressive, but I am not sure if he was PAPD. I suspect that true PAPD’s are pretty awful people and are quite abrasive, like most personality-disordered people.

A Look at Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder

Obsessive-compulsive PD’s are truly awful people, I am sorry. They just are. I knew my father for over 50 years of my life. They’re not ok.
The problem is because of their extreme conformity, workaholism, and morality, a lot of people who know them they are “fine upstanding people.” Only the people who live with them know what monsters they really are. That’s why no one believed my siblings and I when we talked about what a lousy father my Dad was. All the other adults of his generation thought he was the star of the neighborhood – a classic, fine, upstanding, good, hard-working, moral family man. That’s the face they put on to everyone else. They know exactly what they are doing, and they can control themselves most of the time. They just choose not to control themselves around their loved ones because they can get away with treating loved ones like crap.
OCPD often takes the form of hostility, constant criticism, and rages.
They project all the time and go around pointing out everybody else’s faults. Everyone else is lazy, messy, immoral, and incompetent.
They’re prigs. They’re always calling you evil in some way or another because you are probably inherently immoral.
You’re always a slob, no matter what. They love to go through other people’s stuff and clean it up. They often go through other people’s stuff and throw a lot of the other person’s possessions away.
They work constantly and they never have fun. They try to force everyone around them to do this too and if you don’t, you’re evil or sinful.
Having fun is evil or sinful and you need to be ashamed of yourself. They hate parties. You go on vacations with them, and they spend the whole time working, being uptight, and yelling at people. They are like martyr-saints who believe that life is crap, and life is nothing but suffering. Hence, suffering and constant deliberate deprivation are noble things.
They are frustrated all the time.
They are tightwads. They hate spending money except on necessities and paying off debt. Spending money for fun is literally sinful, and you should be ashamed of yourself. They’re stingy with money. If you need money as a college student, they might grudgingly give you five bucks.
They have no insight whatsoever and they have a defensive structure that is so elaborate that it is like an Escher + Goya painting combined with a Rube Goldberg device. The defenses literally have layers upon layers, trap doors, fake entrances, and the craziest fortifications you have ever seen. If you try to point out their OCPD nonsense, they fly into wild rages because it really hits home.
They can’t delegate any responsibility for any job because everyone else is incompetent, so they have to fix everything themselves. Except they don’t know how to fix anything. They try to get you to help them and then scream at everything you do because everything you do is wrong because you are inherently incompetent.
They are masochistic and are always taking on thankless tasks that other “incompetent” people won’t do. They stay late at work fixing the work of the “incompetents.”
They’re never wrong and they’re always right. Everyone else is always wrong and never right. They’re perfect and everyone else isn’t and needs to be constantly criticized for being such screw-ups.
They are always making long lists of things to do, but then they hardly do any of them. They get lost in the endless planning of the project such that the project itself never really gets going. They can’t see the forest for the trees. They can’t see the big picture.
They put everything off to the last minute, and then they run around frantically, hollering in frustration all the time, doing all the tasks that they put off to the end because now they are in a terrible time bind.
They’re control freaks in a covert way that is not obvious.
They hate change. They are some of the most rigid people you will ever meet. They hate anything new.
They are perfectionists and a lot of their own work is never good enough and needs endless revisions.
They’re always tense and uptight and rarely relax.

A Brief Look at Histrionic Personality Disorder

Rahul: Have you ever been acquainted with someone with Histrionic Personality Disorder. Is so, can you describe your experience?

I never known one of this particular variety of human monster, thank God for that.
Very, very bad. HPD is the personality of “the whore.” Pornstars, prostitutes, strippers, sexworkers of all types. One reason not to date or get involved with prostitute-type women is because this is the personality that most of them have. Get involved with a prostitute and you get involved with a monster, female version.
Mata Hari was the original HPD. The HPD woman is the “femme fatale.” She’s a black widow. She will draw you into her web and kill you one way or another. A lot of people think that HPD is how psychopathy manifests in the female or feminine character. Men become psychopaths; women (and effeminate men) become HPD’s. ~75% of male HPD’s are gay or bisexual. It’s basically a female disorder.
Basically, they’re monsters. Just another group of Cluster B psychos that will ruin your life like the Borderlines, Narcissists, Psychopaths, and the rest of the motley crew.
Similar to other Cluster B personality disorders, Histrionic Personality Disorder forums are often tumultuous and frequently have to be either policed or shut down due to HPD’s coming in, starting fights and making huge scenes.
And also similar to other Cluster B forums, HPD forums usually have few to no HPD’s (because they don’t think there is anything wrong with themselves) and instead are full of the victims of HPD’s, sort of like how Borderline and Narcissistic PD forums are mostly full of the victims of these particular type of monsters. Antisocial PD forums instead are full of psychopaths because psychopaths love being psychopaths and like to run around on stage shouting to the world how cool it is to be a psychopath. Psychopaths literally think being a psychopath is fun. Antisocial behavior is actually their idea of a good time, believe it or not.

Dysgenic Breeding Has Been around Since Antiquity

Greg Rambo:
“The current dysgenic behavior of the African-American community is a complete and absolute result of the government subsidizing pregnancy and desertion.*
* Professor Thomas Sowell.
Agree or disagree?

Sowell is a conservative, so I don’t like him as I am a Leftist. However, he is right on it regarding a number of issues. I don’t mind his theories. I just dislike his politics. You see here he makes an argument about dysgenic breeding and high illegitimacy rates, he turns into a damned anti-welfare argument because he’s a conservative ideologue first and a sociologist second.
Breeding is dysgenic anyway.
It’s dysgenic among Whites and Hispanics too.
For Chrissake, even the Romans wrung their hands and wrote about dysgenic breeding in Ancient Rome. So dysgenic breeding has gone on forever. I doubt if it seriously harms the gene pool since it’s been around since Antiquity.
Scumbags, especially psychopaths, have lots of kids. Which is probably why sociopathy stayed in the gene pool. The women keep breeding with the bad boys, and they either became tribal leaders, or they managed to make a few babies before the other tribal members murdered them or cast them out, which was actually the fate of many psychopaths in primitive society.

The Fate of Psychopaths in Primitive Society

Robert Hare is one of the world’s leading experts on psychopathy.
At one point, he was up in Alaska for some reason, and he was talking to Inuit about psychopaths. They all nodded their heads after a bit, saying they were familiar with the concept, as these men existed in Inuit society. They lied, cheated, and stole, and when the rest of the men left to go hunting, these men would run around having sex with all the other men’s wives.
Hare asked what was done with these men, and the Inuit said they put up with their antics after a bit, and then all the men would grab them, tie them up, and walk them out to the sea, where they would put them tied up on an ice floe.

"Race and Psychopathic Personality," by Richard Lynn

I am getting rather tired about having this argument about whether Blacks, or Black males in particular, are more antisocial than men of other races. People are pushing back against this in the comments section. This really ought to be the final word on the subject.
Original here.
For as long as official statistics have been kept, blacks in white societies have been overrepresented in all indices of social pathology: crime, illegitimacy, poverty, school failure, and long-term unemployment. The conventional liberal explanation for this is white “racism,” past and present, which has forced blacks into self-destructive choices.
More clear-headed observers, however, have sought a partial explanation in the low average IQ of blacks. Low IQ can lead to crime because less intelligent children do poorly at school and fail to learn the skills needed to get well-paid jobs or even any job. Unemployment is therefore two to three times higher among blacks than whites. People without jobs need money, have relatively little to lose by robbery or burglary, and may therefore commit property crimes. The association between low intelligence and crime holds for whites as well, among whom the average IQ of criminals is about 84.
Nevertheless, as Charles Murray and the late Richard Herrnstein showed in their book The Bell Curve, low IQ cannot entirely explain a black crime rate that is six-and-a-half times the white rate. When blacks and whites are matched for IQ, blacks still commit crimes at two-and-a-half times the white rate. This shows that blacks must have some other characteristic besides low intelligence that explains their high levels of criminality.
Prof. Herrnstein and Dr. Murray found the same race and IQ relationship for social problems other than crime: unemployment, illegitimacy, poverty, and living on welfare. All of these are more frequent among blacks and are related to low IQ, and low IQ goes some way towards explaining them, but these social problems remain greater among blacks than among whites with the same IQ’s. Low intelligence is therefore not the whole explanation.
Prof. Herrnstein and Dr. Murray did not offer any suggestions as to what the additional factors responsible for the greater prevalence of these social problems among blacks might be. They concluded only that “some ethnic differences are not washed away by controlling for either intelligence or for any other variables that we examined. We leave those remaining differences unexplained and look forward to learning from our colleagues where the explanations lie” (p. 340).

Psychopathic Personality

I propose that the variable that explains these differences is that blacks are more psychopathic than whites. Just as racial groups differ in average IQ, they can also differ in average levels of other psychological traits, and racial differences in the tendency towards psychopathic personality would explain virtually all the differences in black and white behavior left unexplained by differences in IQ.
Psychopathic personality is a personality disorder of which the central feature is lack of a moral sense. The condition was first identified in the early Nineteenth Century by the British physician John Pritchard, who proposed the term “moral imbecility” for those deficient in moral sense but of normal intelligence.
The term psychopathic personality was first used in 1915 by the German psychiatrist Emile Kraepelin and has been employed as a diagnostic label throughout the Twentieth Century.
In 1941 the condition was described by Hervey Cleckley in what has become a classic book, The Mask of Sanity. He described the condition as general poverty of emotional feelings, lack of remorse or shame, superficial charm, pathological lying, egocentricity, a lack of insight, absence of nervousness, an inability to love, impulsive antisocial acts, failure to learn from experience, reckless behavior under the influence of alcohol, and a lack of long-term goals.
In 1984 the American Psychiatric Association dropped the term psychopathic personality and replaced it with Antisocial Personality Disorder. This is an expression of the increasing sentimentality of the second half of the twentieth century in which terms that had acquired negative associations were replaced by euphemisms.
There are other examples. Mentally retarded children are now called “slow learners” or even “exceptional children;” aggressive children now have “externalizing behaviors;” prostitutes are “sex workers;” tramps are now “the homeless,” as if their houses were destroyed by earthquake; and people on welfare are “clients” of social workers. However, the term psychopathic personality remains useful.
While psychopathic personality is a psychiatric disorder, it has long been regarded as the extreme expression of a personality trait that is continuously distributed throughout the population. In this respect it is like other psychiatric disorders. For instance, severe depression is a psychiatric disorder, but everyone feels depressed sometimes, and some normal people are depressed more often and more severely than others. It is the same with psychopathic personality. There are degrees of moral sense throughout the population, and psychopaths are the extreme group.
There is a difference between blacks and whites—analogous to the difference in intelligence—in psychopathic personality considered as a personality trait. Both psychopathic personality and intelligence are bell curves with different means and distributions among blacks and whites. For intelligence, the mean and distribution are both lower among blacks. For psychopathic personality, the mean and distribution are higher among blacks. The effect of this is that there are more black psychopaths and more psychopathic behavior among blacks.
In 1994 the American Psychiatric Association issued a revised Diagnostic Manual listing 11 features of Antisocial Personality Disorder:
(1) inability to sustain consistent work behavior;
(2) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behavior [this is a euphemism for being a criminal];
(3) irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by frequent physical fights and assaults;
(4) repeated failure to honor financial obligations;
(5) failure to plan ahead or impulsivity;
(6) no regard for truth, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or “conning” others;
(7) recklessness regarding one’s own or others’ personal safety, as indicated by driving while intoxicated or recurrent speeding;
(8) inability to function as a responsible parent;
(9) failure to sustain a monogamous relationship for more than one year;
(10) lacking remorse;
(11) the presence of conduct disorder in childhood.
This is a useful list. Curiously, however, it fails to include the deficiency of moral sense that is the core of the condition, although this is implicit in virtually every feature of the disorder. All of these behaviors are more prevalent among blacks than among whites and suggest that blacks have a higher average tendency towards psychopathic personality.
Questionnaires can be used to measure psychopathic personality in normal populations. The first to be constructed was the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), which was devised in the 1930’s. This instrument consists of a series of scales for the measurement of a variety of psychiatric conditions regarded as continuously distributed in the population, such as hysteria, mania and depression, and includes the Psychopathic Deviate Scale for the measurement of psychopathic personality.
During the 65 or so years following its publication, the MMPI has been administered to a great many groups. Mean scores have been published by different investigators for a number of samples of blacks, whites, Asian-Americans, Hispanics, and American Indians. All of these studies show a consistent pattern: Blacks and Indians have the highest psychopathic scores. Hispanics come next followed by whites. Ethnic Japanese and Chinese have the lowest scores. The same rank order of racial groups is found for all the expressions of psychopathic personality listed by the American Psychiatric Association, and these differences are found in both children and adults.

Conduct Disorder

The terms psychopathic personality and Anti-social Personality Disorder, however, are not used for children or young adolescents up to the age of 15 years. They are instead said to have conduct disorders. The principal criteria set out by the American Psychiatric Association (1994) for a diagnosis of Conduct Disorder are persistent stealing, lying, truancy, running away from home, fighting, arson, burglary, vandalism, sexual precocity, and cruelty. Childhood Conduct Disorder is therefore an analogue of psychopathic personality in older adolescents and adults. A number of studies have shown that Conduct Disorder in children is a frequent precursor of psychopathic behavior.
Studies have found that the prevalence of conduct disorders is about twice as high among blacks as among whites. This is the case not only in the United States but also in Britain and the Netherlands. Other racial groups also differ in the prevalence of conduct disorders among children. As with all the other expressions of psychopathic personality, conduct disorders are frequent among American Indians.
Children with conduct disorders are sometimes suspended or expelled from school because of constant misbehavior, particularly aggression. In both the United States and Britain, black children are disciplined in this way three or four times as frequently as white children, while East Asians have low discipline rates. In misbehavior in schools as in so much else, East Asians are the “model minority.” In the United States, Indians have a high discipline rate.
Lack of honesty is one of the core features of the psychopathic personality, and one measure of this characteristic is the default rates on student loans. About half of American college students take out loans, but not all graduates repay them. The 1987 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study consisting of 6,338 cases reports default rates as follows: whites—5 percent, Hispanics—20 percent, American Indians—45 percent, blacks—55 percent.
Bad credit ratings also reflect a failure to honor financial obligations. A report by Freddie Mac of 12,000 households in 1999 found the highest percentage of poor credit ratings was among blacks (48 percent). The next highest was among Hispanics (34 percent), while whites had the lowest at 27 percent.
Psychopathic personality is the extreme expression of a personality trait that is continuously distributed throughout the population.
A prominent feature of psychopathic personality is a high level of aggression, which is expressed in a number of ways including homicide, robbery, assault, and rape. All of these are crimes, so racial and ethnic differences appear in crime rates. High black crime rates have been documented by Jared Taylor and the late Glayde Whitney in The Color of Crime. For homicide, rates for black males are about six times the white rate, and for black females they are about four times higher. The homicide rate for East Asians is about half that of whites. The high homicide rate of blacks is also found in South Africa, and homicide is generally higher in black countries than in white and East Asian countries.
As regards other crimes, the robbery rate for blacks is about twelve times the white rate, while the assault rate is about five times higher. The high black rates for these crimes are followed in descending order by Hispanics, American Indians, whites and East Asians. The rate for rape is about five-and-a-half times greater for blacks than whites, and two to three times greater among Hispanics and Indians as compared to whites, while East Asians commit rape at about half the white rate.
Domestic violence shows the same race differences. Severe violence by husbands against wives is about four times more common among blacks as whites. Black wives assault their husbands at about twice the white rate. American Indians assault their spouses even more often than blacks do. High crime rates among blacks have been found not only in the United States but also in Britain, France, Canada and Sweden.
A prominent feature of psychopathic personality is an inability to form stable long-term loving relationships. David Lykken, a leading expert on psychopathic personalities, writes of the psychopath’s “undeveloped ability to love or affiliate with others,” and Robert Hare, another leading expert, writes that “psychopaths view people as little more than objects to be used for their own gratification” and “equate love with sexual arousal.”
Marriage is the most explicit expression of long-term love, and a number of studies have shown that blacks attach less value to marriage than whites. Questionnaire surveys have found that blacks are less likely than whites to agree that “marriage is for life.” Two American sociologists, R. Staples and L. B. Johnson, write that “Blacks do not rank marriage as highly as whites” and that “Black Americans’ acceptance of this form of relationship is inconsistent with their African heritage.”
In a study of an American sample of 2,059 married people, C. L. Broman found that “blacks are significantly less likely to feel that their marriages are harmonious and are significantly less likely to be satisfied with their marriages.” Other studies of racial and ethnic differences in attitudes have found that whites think about marriage more often than blacks and have a stronger desire than blacks to find the right marriage partner. There are also racial differences in rates of cohabitation, which also reflects a commitment to a long-term relationship. A survey of 24-to 29-year-olds in Britain found that 68 percent of whites had cohabited but only 38 percent of blacks.
Blacks in the United States, Britain, France and the Caribbean are less likely than whites to marry or enter into stable relationships. In an American survey of 18-to 64-year-olds carried out from 1990 to 1996, 61 percent of whites were married but only 35 percent of blacks. The most likely to be married were East Asians (66 percent).
Fifty-five percent of Hispanics and 48 percent of American Indians were married. The same race differences are found in Britain. In a survey carried out in 1991, among 30-to 34-year-olds 68 percent of whites were married but only 34 percent of blacks. Studies of marriage rates for France in the 1990’s have also found that blacks are less likely to be married than whites. These differences are also found for cohabitation, with fewer blacks living in unmarried cohabitation relationships than whites.
Differences in marriage rates are reflected in differences in illegitimacy rates. In the United States, black illegitimacy rates are down slightly from their high in 1994, when 70.4 percent of black women who gave birth were unmarried. The 2000 figure of 68.7 is still the highest for any racial group and is followed by American Indians at 58.4 percent, Hispanics 42.7 percent, whites 22.1 percent, and Asians 14.8 percent. The Asian figure includes populations with greatly differing illegitimacy rates, with native Hawaiians for example at 50 percent, Japanese at 9.5 percent, and Chinese at 7.6 percent.
Low rates of stable relationships are found among blacks in the Caribbean islands. In a review of the literature the sociologists B. Ram and G. E. Ebanks write that “In the Caribbean in general . . . there is a substantial amount of movement from one sex partner to another and also a very high percentage of reproduction outside marriage.”
When they do marry, blacks are less tolerant than whites of monogamous constraints. An extreme form of intolerance is murder of one’s spouse. In Detroit in 1982-3, 63 percent of the population was black, but 90.5 percent of those who killed their spouses were black.
Less extreme forms of aversion to monogamy are adultery and divorce. The Kinsey data on college graduates collected in the 1940’s and 1950’s found that 51 percent of blacks were unfaithful to their spouses during the first two years of marriage compared with 23 percent of whites. Several other studies have confirmed that the incidence of marital infidelity is greater among blacks than among whites. Blacks cite infidelity more frequently than whites as a cause of divorce.
Blacks also have more sexual partners than whites. The Kinsey survey found that about twice as many black college graduates had had six or more partners before marriage than whites. Many later studies have confirmed this. A survey of 2,026 15-to-18-year-olds in Los Angeles in the mid-199’0s found that 38 percent of blacks had had five or more sexual partners, 26 percent of whites, 21 percent of Hispanics and eight percent of East Asians.
The same differences are found in Britain. In a study of a nationally representative sample of approximately 20,000 16-to 59-year-olds carried out in 1990, 36 percent of blacks had had two or more sexual partners during the previous five years, compared with 29 percent of whites and 18 percent of Asians.

Delay of Gratification

The impulsiveness component of psychopathic personality includes an inability or unwillingness to delay immediate gratification in the expectation of long-term advantage.
The first study to demonstrate differences between blacks and whites in the delay of gratification was carried out by W. Mischel in Trinidad in the late 1950’s. He offered black and white children the choice between a small candy bar now or a larger one in a week. He found black children were much more likely to ask for the small candy bar now, and this difference has been confirmed in three subsequent American studies.
This racial difference has been noted but given different names by different writers. In The Unheavenly City Revisited, Edward Banfield writes of the “extreme present-orientation” of blacks, and Michael Levin writes of “high time preference,” an economist’s term for preferring cash now rather than a greater sum in the future.
The APA Diagnostic Manual refers to the psychopathic personality’s “inability to sustain consistent work behavior,” and a number of studies have shown that blacks are less motivated to work than whites and Asians, while Hispanics are intermediate. For example, black students do fewer hours of homework than whites and Asians. Among college students with the same Scholastic Aptitude Test scores, blacks get poorer grades than whites, probably because they don’t work as hard.
This helps explain black unemployment. Several American ethnographic studies of inner city blacks have concluded that many are unwilling to work. Thus, E. Anderson writes that “there are many unemployed black youth who are unmotivated and uninterested in working for a living, particularly in the dead-end jobs they are likely to get.” The sociologist S. M. Petterson writes that “it is commonly contended that young black men experience more joblessness than their white counterparts because they are less willing to seek out low paying jobs.”
American Asians are the opposite of blacks in this respect. They have low rates of unemployment, and it has been shown by James Flynn that they achieve higher educational qualifications and earnings than would be predicted from their intelligence, suggesting they have strong work motivation.
In the United States, unemployment rates are highest among Indians followed in descending order by blacks, Hispanics, whites and ethnic Chinese and Japanese. These differences are frequently attributed to white racism, but it is difficult to reconcile this explanation with the lower rate of unemployment among East Asians as compared with whites and also with the higher rate of unemployment among Indians as compared to blacks.
Blacks in Britain, Canada, and France are frequently unemployed. In Britain, the 1991 census found that 26 percent of black men were unemployed compared with 11 percent of whites and ethnic Chinese. In Canada in 1991, 13 percent of black men were unemployed compared with seven percent of whites. In France in 1994, 11 percent of black men were unemployed compared with eight percent of whites.

Recklessness

Psychopaths appear to enjoy taking risks because it stimulates them, and there are several ways in which blacks show greater recklessness and risk taking than whites or Asians.
In the 1989-93 American Teenage Attitudes and Practices Survey, 9,135 youths aged 12 to 18 were asked to consider the question: “I get a kick out of doing things every now and then that are a little risky or dangerous.” Fifty-six point nine percent of blacks agreed, as compared with 38.6 percent of whites. Driving habits are an index of risk taking and recklessness. A number of studies have shown that blacks run red lights more often than whites and have more frequent accidents. Five studies have shown that blacks do not use seat belts as often as whites. Hispanics and Native Americans likewise have more accidents caused by recklessness and risk-taking than whites and East Asians.
Sexual behavior can be reckless. Among those who do not wish to have children, blacks are less likely to use contraception than whites, and this has been found in both the United States and Britain. One result is that black women have more unplanned babies than whites. In the United States in the 1990’s blacks had about twice the proportion of unplanned babies as whites and Asians. In Britain, a survey of teenage births carried out in 1994 found that these were three-and-a-half times more common among blacks than among whites and Asians.
The behavior of reckless men also causes unplanned pregnancies. Surveys have asked adolescent males if they would feel “very pleased” or whether they would care if they were responsible for an unplanned pregnancy. Twice as many blacks as whites say they would be very pleased or that they would not care. To be very pleased or not care about saddling a teenage girl with an unplanned pregnancy expresses a great degree of reckless regard for the well-being of others. In the United States, the percentage of teenage blacks who have fathered an illegitimate child is approximately three times greater than that of whites, with Hispanics intermediate.
Another consequence of reckless avoidance of contraceptives is that blacks are more likely to get sexually transmitted diseases—including HIV and AIDS—all of which are more prevalent among blacks than among whites and Asians. At the present time, about 80 percent of the word’s HIV carriers are blacks in sub-Saharan Africa.
A common expression of Conduct Disorder in children and young adolescents is sexual precocity. Many studies have shown that blacks are more sexually precocious than whites and Asians. Surveys in the United States in the 1990’s have found that 33 percent of black 13-year-olds have had sexual intercourse compared with 14 percent of whites and Hispanics and four percent of East Asians. Similarly, a survey in Britain in 1990 found that by the age of 16, 18 percent of blacks had had intercourse compared with 13 percent of whites and five percent of Asians.
We consider finally the psychopathic characteristic described by the American Psychiatric Association as “inability to function as a responsible parent.” One of the most straightforward measures of this is abuse and neglect.
The American Association for Protecting Children has found that black children constitute approximately 15 percent of the child population and about 22 percent of cases of child abuse and neglect. The First (1975) and Second (1985) National Family Violence Surveys carried out in America examined the use of violence towards children, defined as hitting them with the fist or with some object, and kicking, biting, and beating them up. It does not include slapping or spanking. It found that 1.2 percent of white parents and 2.1 percent of blacks inflict this kind of severe violence on their children.
Data published by the United States Department of Health and Human Services for 1996 showed that maltreatment was about three times more common among blacks and about one-and-a-half times more common among Hispanics than among whites.
The most extreme expression of the inability to function as a responsible parent consists of killing a child. Racial differences in the homicide of infants in their first year of life were examined for approximately 35 million babies born in the United States between 1983-91. This study found that 2,776 of these had been murdered, the great majority by mothers or the mothers’ husbands or partners. The rate of infant homicides for blacks and Native Americans was 2 per 10,000, compared with 0.6 per 10,000 for whites and 0.4 per 10,000 for East Asians. In the early 1990’s the racial differences became even greater, with blacks having four-and-a-half times the infant homicide rate of whites and Hispanics.

Complete Consistency

There is almost complete consistency in the racial differences in outcomes that can be considered measures of psychopathic personality. In everything from child behavior to sexual precocity to adult crime rates, we find Asians at one extreme, blacks and American Indians at the other, and whites Hispanics in between. These differences are not only consistent through time but are found in countries such as France, Britain, Canada, and the United States, which have very different histories of what could be called “racism.” Indices of high psychopathic personality in blacks are likewise found in the virtually all-black societies of Africa and the Caribbean.
Racial differences in psychopathic behavior persist even when IQ is held constant, and the same racial differences are found in essentially every kind of measurable behavior that reflects psychopathic personality. The most plausible explanation for these differences is that just as there are racial differences in average IQ, there are racial differences in what could be called “average personality,” with blacks showing greater psychopathic tendencies. The argument that white “racism” is responsible for black social pathology is increasingly unconvincing.

Alt Left: "Sleazy Gay Men Who Just Want Boys"

Great article from a gay man who has now gone religious and is opposed to homosexuality. The problem with these guys is that they say homosexuality is a sin against God according to Christians. Regardless of whether that is true or not, it’s not a scientific argument and most us, even Christians like me, are most interested in the science than the doctrine when it comes to that. Anyway, I don’t think homosexual behavior is sinful.
There are other problems with these guys.
They all adopt an anti-essentialist point of view on homosexuality. Of course, we on the Alt Left are essentialists or we are nothing. The best available evidence that is the homosexuals somehow get wired up that way by the time they hit puberty. The best theory is that homosexuality is a developmental disorder akin to left-handedness. These people seem to argue that gays choose to be that way, when that does not seem to be the truth.
They all argue that homosexuals can be cured, while there is no evidence that they can be.
They are also against gay marriage of course, which I support.
Other than that, a lot of these men offer an immaculate critique of modern gay culture that cannot be found anywhere else because PC/SJW Culture means that gay men are a protected class above all critique. Apparently it’s illegal to even look at them wrong. It’s long been known that homosexuals have high levels of mental pathology along with a long list of medical problems. The way homosexuals live shaves a full 20 years off their lifespans. A lot of gay men are are flaky and sleazy. Crime is high in the gay community as is a general debasement of morality and culture itself as everything of value is subsumed to the supreme value of sex above all else.
That gay male culture has very high rates of pederasty and that pederasty has been elevated as the ultimate gay male relationship above all others has been true since Antiquity. Older gay men have very high rates of sex with young teenage boys than older straight men do with young teenage girls. Yet no one says a word about this because gay male culture is silent on the older gay man – teenage boy question.
These relationships, many of them illegal, are ubiquitous across the gay community. They are regarded with an accepting or amnesic shrug, and these older men are almost never turned in. Gay organizations deal with these relationships constantly and they never turn the man in even one time. Yet we hear no end of screeching from the Puritan/feminists about how all of us straight men are pedophiles for turning our heads when a hot 17 year old girl walks by.

This article contains graphic true language of the sinfulness of homosexual sin.
I have to thank Michelangelo Signorile and other gay writers who have come forward in the Huffington Post and elsewhere in response to the discussion of Dustin Lance Black’s relationship with a nineteen-year-old boy. After decades of false pretenses, they have at last come clean with the American public and admitted that the gay movement cannot succeed unless taboos against man-boy sex are at last knocked down.
I had tiptoed around the issue until this week. I had been attacked as “anti-equality” and “anti-gay” for over a year, even without bringing up what I knew about the rampant pederasty (sex between men and teenagers, as opposed to pedophilia, which is sex between men and children.) Even as my defense of children’s rights made me vulnerable to charges of conspiring with evil homophobic rubes, I was holding back an even more difficult dimension of my opposition to same-sex parenting.
I had known that beneath the appeals to gay “normalcy,” there was an underbelly in the gay male world of men sleeping with boys.
I avoided mentioning this when I testified in St. Paul, Paris, and Brussels. Nonetheless I had engaged in the debate about same-sex parenting with the unspoken suspicion that many gay male couples, if given the chance to be foster parents or adoptive fathers, would end up having sex with boys in their care or exposing their charges (both boys and girls) to a gay male culture that trampled on the generally understood prohibition against old people sleeping with vulnerable young people.
The result, I feared, would mirror many of the negative impacts on gay boys that have occurred as a result of “It Gets Better,” the Gay-Straight Alliances in high schools, sexualized curriculum, online gay sites like Chatroulette and TrevorSpace (not to mention the creeps on Craigslist), and gay mentorship programs. These public policy projects have blossomed over the last twenty-five years in the United States with the best of intentions — to keep gay boys from killing themselves out of despair.
As it turns out, gay boys don’t usually kill themselves simply because people reject them for being gay. The vast majority of people really don’t care what anybody does in their private sex life, which is why Dayna Morales, the tragic lesbian waitress in New Jersey, had to fabricate the tale of homophobic patrons stiffing her on a tip.
Homophobia is far less powerful than the reigning callousness and indifference of society to what’s going on with other people, really. So gay boys are far more likely to kill themselves not because people care about their gayness and hate them for it, but rather because most people don’t care about their gayness at all other than horny gay men who are much older than they and fuck them up the ass when they aren’t ready to deal with the emotional minefield of homosexuality.
All these naive programs placed boys in contact with adult gay men based on the assumption that the gay adults wouldn’t end up using such arrangements to corner boys and sodomize them. That assumption was criminally negligent.
I speak crudely because, as the statistics from the Department of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control reveal, the end result of many such gay mentor programs has been many adults inserting their penises into boys’ anuses. Hence there has been a spike in the HIV infection rate of boys aged 13-19, of which 95% result from unprotected anal sex.
Studies into HIV infection rates among black gay men reveal that blacks are infected with HIV at an exorbitant rate because they of all the races are most likely to be engaged in relationships with males much older or much younger than they are. Black gays do not engage in higher rates of unprotected sex, nor do they have unusually high or risky numbers of sex partners. Rather, their Achilles’ heel is their greater penchant for what Mr. Signorile lovingly calls “intergenerational” sex.
One of the top indicators of HIV infection risk is a tendency to date much older or much younger than oneself, and this makes sense for a basic reason: the kind of men who disregard the taboo against men fucking boys will usually also disregard other ethical limitations to their gratification, seeing limits as unfair or prejudiced. Condoms disappear somewhere in the confusion — and no, making people feel less guilty about doing something doesn’t make what they do safer, as the recent statistics shockingly tell us.
Let’s forget HIV for an instant however and the overall issues of sexually transmitted diseases. What if there were no STD’s at all to be spread from older men to boys through anal and oral sex?
There is still tremendous emotional vulnerability in a boy who is considering gay sex which isn’t there with girls or boys who are 100% straight.
A boy who starts getting fucked by men finds his whole future rewritten — it is not only an event dealing with one particular partner, but rather a foundational shift in his imagined future.
He will be in the gay community, living by its rules. Once an old man’s penis finds its way into the boy’s anus, the boy has to redefine his life goals, envision a future without women, without children, without access to the cultural mainstays enjoyed by the 99% of the world that isn’t gay and male. He must picture spending his time in the constricted, tiny circle of gay bars, gay associations, and gay cliques, looking for love in a tiny, somewhat incestuous pool of familiar local characters; gay men who will flit in and out of his life, vanishing without a morning call-back after a year and then popping up two years later on the arm of his best friend.
There is also the sheer physical change that happens when you are a boy and you first start letting men fuck you. It’s painful. You are being taught how to mix pain and pleasure, which increases the likelihood that you’re going to develop masochistic behaviors. You feel like a different person. As someone who got fucked by a lot of men in their forties and fifties when I was a teenage boy, I speak from real, extensive experience.
So when you as a grown man fuck a boy, you are inflicting a host of potential anxieties on him. You are throwing his masculinity and sexual identity in doubt. You are forcing him to picture himself growing old and dying without having a wife and children, without giving his parents a daughter-in-law and grandchildren — being stuck in a claustrophobic world full of flaky and sleazy men.
The recent statistics from many sources all seem to confirm that man-boy sex is a rampant problem in the gay community, and it’s destroying people’s lives.
The Department of Justice found that gay teens are much more likely to be in physically abusive relationships not to mention emotionally abusive relationships, with one of the key factors the fact that they are involved so often in unstable sexual liaisons with men much older than they are. While the report included a statement about the lack of “role models” for gay teens, we must extrapolate a deeper problem that straight researchers might not be able to piece together. Gay teens have role models, but the role models are fucking them. That messes up their heads.
Many of the recent cases involving gay foster dads or gay mentors who sexually abused boys do not reflect a sinister, evil psychology in the adult gay male, but rather a frighteningly innocent belief on the part of the adult that the youth wanted to get fucked and somehow fucking him was part of helping him.
Walter L. Williams, the founder of USC’s Gay and Lesbian Archives, got caught in sex traffic with underage boys in the Philippines and elsewhere, after decades of writing in favor of more open attitudes toward sexuality. He most likely thought that he was doing something benevolent by fucking boys. He had been after all a veritable father figure to gay college students for years.
Mark Newton, who manufactured a baby with an illegal Russian surrogate and then used the child he bought as an international sex slave, said it was an “honor” to have been a gay father as he was sentenced and sent off to prison. He was profiled by Australia’s ABC in 2010 as the idyllic example of same-sex parenting, beneath a headline, Two Dads Are Better than One. He and his husband, Peter Truong, probably felt that the toddler was experiencing pleasure with penises in his mouth, since the experience was pleasant for the adult getting a blow job.
There is a failure of ego differentiation in many of these cases (of which these are only a sliver.) The gay male adult, fed a steady diet of LGBT narratives about people being born gay and deserving sexual gratification as a civil right, cannot comprehend that what they believe and feel isn’t exactly the same as what the child is believing and feeling.
Since so much argumentation about gay parenting has hinged on the notion of “gay couples providing a loving home,” many gay adults charged with youths get lost in the nebulous meaning of “loving.” They have been prompted to believe that if what they do to young people comes from affectionate motives, it’s good. Which is a very convenient way to talk oneself into fucking a boy, unfortunately.
I am sure that Dan Savage felt that he was helping young boys with “It Gets Better,” though it seems that the tens of thousands of testimonials from adult gays merely encouraged boys to go out and get fucked up the ass by older men, with the result that now a lot of them are going to die from AIDS.
And then think of Caleb Laieski, the teen activist honored by President Obama, who helped a fortysomething gay policeman score with a fourteen-year-old boy who was questioning his sexuality. As Caleb and his adult conspirator prepare to go off to prison as well, I cannot say that they were ill intended. He and the gay policemen were leaders in the gay community and thought they were helping the fourteen-year-old by breaking him in. Unfortunately for them, the boy got suicidal and exposed the entire activist game as a terrible exploitative ruse.
While neither Michael Jackson nor Jerry Sandusky identified as gay, it is worth noting that they both also viewed their suspicious congress with boys as part of nurturing and affection.
These abhorrent data result from the gay movement’s uncritical celebration of the penis and its supposed liberating power. Your penis is not an instrument of charity, gentlemen. Your penis is a loaded weapon. You must understand that.
Mr. Signorile speaks of intergenerational sex as “nurturing” and educational. His views on this reveal that the modern gay male has little to no concept of nurturing and educational relationships except when such connections involve inserting their penises into people and ejaculating into them.
It’s bad enough that relationships between gay male adults have to be hypersexualized. When your beginning mindset is, “I can help and coddle this young boy, and fuck him too,” and you see nothing wrong with this, in fact believing that any resistance to it is based on homophobia (as Mr. Signorile has written in stark terms), you may be qualified to lead the gay community in developing its imagination, its fantasies, and its sense of self-actualization.
But you should not have custody of children, teenagers, or young adults. You should not be asking the American people to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and then place millions of future 18-year-olds in basic combat training under gay NCO’s who think this way. You should not be asking the American people to allow gay leaders in the Boy Scouts. You definitely should not be listed as a potential foster care home, let alone candidates for adoption.
The response from Mr. Signorile that the 19-year-old in the Dustin Lance Black case was a “consenting adult” makes it all the more urgent that the American people reject the ligbitist push to change laws about adoption, employment non-discrimination, and the like. Mr. Signorile, like most in the movement, believes that anything legal is okay. It shouldn’t be surprising that they are therefore so interested in changing laws to make more of the sleazy things they do legal.
I didn’t arrive at these harsh declarations because I hated gay people or because I am part of the gay community and have a deep abiding love for my gay brothers; I got here because I love young people and understand that it’s better that gay men don’t try to fuck them, which they will, if given the chance. That scares me.
As a professor, I live and operate with the understanding that people in a seasoned, mature, mentor-like role must express love toward those who are in the learning, young, and undeveloped role, without unzipping our pants and getting our penises involved.
As a father, I live and operate with the understanding that my daughter should go forth in the world and be mentored by adults who can differentiate between teaching her about professional life, etc., and involving her in the fraught act of sexual intercourse.
As a veteran of the US Army Reserves (as undistinguished as my service admittedly was), I live and operate with the understanding that training and discipline do not mix well with orgasms and erections and ejaculation.
These are all understandings — norms, if you will — that an adult entrusted with children has to walk around with. It has to be second nature. It must be something beyond question, beyond editorial review, beyond negotiation. While women face this issue, it is even more acutely an issue for men, who have a long history and perhaps biological predisposition, to inject their penis into situations and confuse their own quest for pleasure with their obligation to teach, mentor, and guide young people.
Heterosexual men who defy these rules with girls are subject to swift recrimination, even if they get away with it because it’s supposedly “legal.”
Colleagues of mine who have violated the sacred sexual barrier between teacher and student and made love to their pupils have lost tremendous respect from me and especially from females in the profession.
Non-commissioned officers or officers who sleep with female subordinates are subject to severe penalties in the military.
Think of what happened to Bill Clinton and David Petraeus as a result of their inability to manage their penises properly in the presence of younger forbidden fruit.
Dustin Lance Black is thirty-nine years old and almost the same age as his boyfriend’s father when the latter passed away recently. Judging from what the boy said in the video and what others have reported as information gleaned from people close to him, he looked up to Dustin Lance Black and wanted to learn from him, be mentored, be held and fathered by him.
It’s entirely possible that the boy broached the topic of sex and wanted the older man to teach him about homosexual intercourse–as a professor, trust me, I am familiar with how 19-year-olds can be sexually aggressive, even demanding that a relationship that should be based on mentorship turn into sex.
When I say that our penises are loaded weapons, I do not mean to say that the “victims” of gay penises aren’t sometimes eager to have access to them. But the adult in the room has to be able to say “no,” tell the college freshman to calm down, and keep his zipper up and his penis under lock and key. That’s part of being a grown-up. If you can’t say “no” to a young person who wants to take a look at your penis, you have no business trying to pass the Every Child Deserves a Family Act.
Related articles
Why I Cannot Blame Russia and India for Taking on the Gays (americanthinker.com)
Michelangelo Signorile: Tom Daley Is 20 Years Younger than Dustin Lance Black… So What? (huffingtonpost.com)
Michelangelo Signorile: No, Pope Francis Is Not the LGBT Person of the Year (huffingtonpost.com)
Poor Black and Hispanic Men Are the Face of H.I.V. (thelib2013.wordpress.com)
Man-Boy Sex and Its Long Tradition among Gay Men (robertlindsay.wordpress.com)
Michelangelo Signorile at Odds With HRC over Positive ‘Duck Dynasty’ Message (towleroad.com)
Gay Teens Are At Higher Risk for HPV, Study Shows (thegayclassifieds.wordpress.com)
Study Finds HPV Common in Young Sexually Active Gay Men (counselheal.com)

Alt Left: The Real Reasons for Many Murders of Transwomen and Gay Bashings of Gay Men

Much has been written about how many transwomen are murdered. Many transwomen are indeed murdered. Whether these are the true transsexuals (homosexuals) or the transtrenders (transvestites, crossdressers, and autogynephiles) is not known. Many transwomen (men who think they are women) work as prostitutes. Many are not able to work in ordinary jobs, they often have very poor mental health that prevents them from working at regular jobs.
Transwomen have the highest rates of mental disorder of any group seen clinically. 90% of transwomen are significantly mentally ill, and they have everything under the book, from mood disorders such as depression and bipolar disorder to anxiety disorders of different kinds to personality disorders. They also have very high rates of paraphilias and sexual disorders and have rates of being convicted for sex crimes (these are the transtrenders). The transwomen working on the street are often homeless and many have drug and alcohol problems. Very high HIV rates have been found for transwomen prostitutes – up to 42%.
Although the murders of transwomen are tragic, it is helpful to note the circumstances under which these are occurring.
A lot of these murders occur when they are prostituting themselves, and their label doesn’t always say what’s in the bottle. In other words, they are out on the streets advertising themselves as female prostitutes. They get picked up by male clients thinking they are picking up a woman.
At some point, they are shocked to find that it is actually a man as many transwomen are pre-ops, that is, they take the hormones but they have not taken the surgery, so they look like women, have women’s breasts, and yet they still have penises. When the client finds out that this is a “woman with a penis” sometimes they fly into a rage and kill the transwoman in a blind rage murder of the type that men are susceptible.
A friend of mine picked up a “woman” in a cab and went home with “her” only find out halfway through the blowjob that it wasn’t a woman at all. He didn’t get violent but he was pretty freaked out and upset.
It’s pretty abusive for TIM’s to tell us other men that they are women, and we men get into dating/sexual stuff with them and suddenly find out they’re a guy. They’re men pretending to be women and worse they are not even telling everyone!
No one wants to hear this, but a lot of gay bashing is actually done to gay men who are openly propositioning straight men (like, say, grabbing their cocks?). I am not supporting bashing of course, and I have been gay-bashed three times myself, once with a baseball bat! So I’m not wild about gay men, but homophobes are 100X worse. Also, how come no one talks about straight men getting gay-bashed? It’s epidemic.
But it is actually true. Many gay bashings occur not just when gay men hit on straight men, which they do constantly, but when they won’t take no for an answer, which is all the time. You women think straight men are bad about not taking no for answer, well, gay men are 50X worse.
And no one talks about this either, but gay men are far worse than straight men as sexual harassers, in fact they wrote the book on sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is the unspoken norm in gay male society.
I do dislike gay men but I support them politically and even work on their campaigns. I dislike them because they have been hitting on me for decades, and they won’t take no for an answer. My reaction is similar to that of women mad at men over sexual harassment.
Yes, gay men sexually harass straight men. You cannot talk about this either because it is “homophobic.” When I lived in LA, I lived in a gay community for a while. Supposedly I was good-looking back and then had some male modeling offers. I had a couple of friends who were straight models who started out pro-gay but became almost violently homophobic over time due to constant harassment by gay men. Male models are not all gay. Actually 2/3 are straight.
Anyway, the place was swarming with gay men, and I would walk down the street, and all of them would be rubbernecking me in their cars driving by. I had one who waited outside my workplace every night right before work. I would go to the window and look out, and there he would be, staring right up at my window. I almost had a panic attack every time. And he would watch me like a hawk as I walked to my car.
When I would go to parties, etc. they would creepily stare at me for long periods of time.
I related this on my site and got called homophobe of course, but some of my female readers commented and said, “Ok, now you know what it feels like to be a woman!” And she was right. I didn’t like those gay men treating me like a piece of meat. Now if women want to, ok, maybe.
The generally feeling would best be described as unnerving, which may be how women feel with constant male sexual attention?
I also disagree that sexual harassment is driven by misogyny. As you can see, men harass other gay men worse than they harass women and gay men harass straight men like crazy.
Men sexually harass women because they are men, and that is what men, do – they sexually harass other humans?
It’s a more science-based theory.

Why Stay with a Psychobitch?

You had many girlfriends? I’ve had more than I can count. Well, first of all, all women are bitches to one degree or another. What you want is a woman who is less bitchy, not one who is not a bitch at all because there’s no such thing.
The one I can think of was crazy in love with me, more in love with me than any woman has ever been, like Hollywood movie romance of the century stuff. She acted like she would give her life for me. So mixed in with the psychobitch stuff and the insane fighting was the most passionate love for me that I have ever experienced. And the good times were truly wonderful.  She adored me. I figured that the price of the good was the bad, which is the way it is life. In life, you pay for the good things in life with the bad things. If you don’t want the bad things, you will never get the good things.
Also I did not sit there and take it. I fought back against her in a lot of ways. I cussed her out all the time and called her every name in the book.
But tied in with wild love that was a lot of crazy hate because you know, hate and love are very close, and the woman who really loves you may just really hate you to when she gets mad. It’s a matter of intensity.
It was one of those nutso love affairs where they adore each other as much as Romeo and Juliet, but they also fight like wildcats a lot of the time.
Also she was a knockout (former model), brilliant, funny as Hell, and she was ravenous and seriously kinky in bed. She wanted to fuck all the time, day, night, whenever. We would go at it for hours a day. She was almost 50 years old too. Anyone who says older women don’t want to fuck is crazy. Those are some of the horniest women of all!
I honestly think she was a Borderline. But sometimes I think all women are Borderlines. It’s like there’s a Borderline scale of 1-100 and few women are 1’s or 100’s, but a lot are in between. “Borderline” just seems to be a name who the style that the Female Character uses when it goes crazy. It’s their “crazy style.” The Male Character tends towards sociopathy and narcissism when it gets nutty. Cluster B’s are just the prominent crazy styles that each gender or character utilizes. All Cluster B’s are Hell though – Borderlines, narcissists, sociopaths, all of them. Dig a hole, throw them all in it, and cover it up. Seriously, Cluster B’s are literally the worst humans on Earth. Their toxicity is almost sensual. You feel it in your bones.

Alt Left: The Transgender and Transtrender War

Recently the 12% of trans people who are actually pure transsexuals with severe gender dysphoria from an early age have weighed in on the TERF versus Transgender debate. This group takes a very different stance from the 88% of transgender people who are autogynephiles, crossdressers, and transvestites. It is this larger group of most heterosexual male transgender or transwomen who are driving this debate. They also seem to be the ones making the most noise and threatening and assaulting the TERF’s.
The 12%, however, take a very different stance towards TERF’s. These are the real transsexuals, assuming there is such a thing. The transsexuals are much more sympathetic to the concerns of the TERF’s and many of them argue that they, the transsexuals, possibly should stay out of women’s spaces.
The transsexuals realize that they do indeed have a medical/psychological condition, which is a fact. They tend to be much more science-minded than the other group, which is just another Cultural Left Identity Politics that plays fast and loose with facts and truth like they all do. These transsexuals often have very early onset of gender dysphoria, sometimes as early as age two.
And transsexual brains are in fact different. Transsexuals are not women in men’s bodies, but their brains are female- shifted, that is, their brains are more feminine than the typical male brain. Transsexual brains are about halfway between a male brain and a female brain. The autogynephiles on the other hand have brains that look like a normal man’s brain in the areas in which men’s and women’s brains differ. In other words, the autogynephiles are not men in women’s bodies either, and they do not even have female-shifted brains. Instead they have a normal male brain with some differences. Their brains are different in 4-5 areas that are the same in men and women. So there are two types of transgender people that can even be differentiated on brain scan.
There is a war brewing between people who consider themselves real transsexuals or transgender people and others who this former group derides as fakes or pretenders.
This war is being called Transgenders versus Transtrenders. The autogynephiles are seen as faddists by the transsexuals, and the transtrenders often don’t even have gender dysphoria, although for decades they have been lying and saying that they did, driving clinicians crazy in the process.
The transtrenders also hate the word transsexual, apparently because it implies a medical condition, and they say they are fine. The transtrenders are much more anti-scientific than the transsexuals. In fact, the word transsexual is now apparently a transphobic slur! You might see a lot more psychopathology in the transtrenders too, as they are basically faking it. I have heard people say that 95% of transgender people are transtrenders, and only 5% of them are the real deal. I’m not sure how accurate that is. It’s interesting that the real transgenders are a lot more sympathetic to women than the fakers who are often called misogynists by feminists, but then feminists call 95% of men misogynists, so that might not mean anything.

Voyeurism, Exhibitionism, and Escalation to More Serious Crimes

It is a common myth, especially among feminists, that some people with paraphilias such as voyeurs and exhibitionists (peepers and flashers) commonly escalate to more serious offenses such as burglary, sexual assault, rape or homicide.
As with so many things in life, this is a half-truth.
Some or a certain number of flashers, peepers, etc. do escalate more or less as described above, yes. I am not sure I would call it shifting of boundaries, although that’s what is going on. Instead of shifting it is more like an escalation of boundary violations to more extreme violations. I also don’t know if it’s about respecting boundaries. I’ve read a lot about these paraphilias because I do work in this area as part of one of my jobs, and I’ve never heard people describe paraphilic escalation as a shifting of boundaries, even if that’s what it is.
To the flasher or peeper, their problem is more of a compulsion or an addiction than anything else. They feel a build-up of pressure in the period before the act which builds to a very uncomfortable level, and they feel that the only way to reduce the pressure is to do the act. They commit the act in a rush of fear and excitement, and the act is very sexually stimulating to them. After they do the act, there is a catharsis, and the pressure is relieved. Sometimes they feel guilty afterwards.
In therapy with these people, many of them are actually decent men with good jobs,  good fathers and husbands. They simply have a paraphilia – a sexual disorder – that takes the form of an addictive-like behavior or a compulsion. It is common in therapy for these men for them to break down and cry, saying that they can’t control themselves. The behavior can go on for decades if it is not checked. The paraphilia is apparently learned. I believe it is hard to treat.
But yes, some voyeurs and exhibitionists do escalate, and these are the boundary pushers. You get away with flashing or peeping, and now you realize that you can get away with serious violations of people’s boundaries.
Although I believe Ted Bundy killed first at age 14 (a 9 year old girl neighbor), he would never confess to that crime, and they could never formally pin it on him. I also think he killed some women back East
when he stayed at a family home there over the summer. The record says he started killing in college. Anyway, the record is clear that in his teens, Ted used to roam neighborhoods at night, peeping on women. He also started breaking into homes around this time, often the homes of the women he was peeping on. Later on he went on some serious murder sprees.

How Criminal Escalation Works

In crime, when you get away with a crime for a while, there is tendency to think “If I got away with X, I can get away with X+1.” The people who think this way are not necessarily bad people per se. If they had never gotten away with X crime, they might have lived perfectly decent lives. But they got away with X crime, with caused them to escalate beyond X further and further, and at some point, they might commit homicide. And it is typically a male criminal who escalates like this.
 
 

Alt Left: TERF Theory on Transgenderism: Is It Rational?

Radical feminist theory poses a serious challenge to to transgender ideology. It is for their critical stance on transgenderism that the Trans Community has taken to calling these women TERF’s or Trans Exclusive Radical Feminists. There has been a long-term war, now escalating very rapidly, pitting the Trans Lobby and their SJW Third Wave Intersectional Sex-Positive Feminist allies and Second Wave Radical Feminist TERF’s. This has now escalated into threats and assaults against TERF’s by transwomen. It is an interesting debate but as it is taking place on the fringes of the Cultural Left, most folks have never heard of it.
It actually takes the side of reason, rationality, and common sense, which is strange feminist theories are almost never based on truth or facts. However, I would argue that it does not challenge transgender ideology on very good grounds. In other words, they come up with the right answer to the question, but my beef is in the theory they used to arrive at the right answer and not the answer itself.
Radical feminist theory says that transgender people are simply mentally ill people with gender dysphoria for some variety of reasons. Transwomen are just men in drag or men who think they are women. Transwomen are not women and they should not be allowed in women’s spaces.
This is all more or less correct, but as I said, my beef is how they arrived at the answer and not the answer itself.
What theory did radfems use to arrive at this answer? Simple. Radical feminists absolutely hate men.
Anyway, TERF dislike of transgender men or transwomen who they insist on calling TIM’s (Transsexual-Identified Males) is based simply on radfem hatred of men. Transwomen are simply the hated men now dressing in drag and pretending to be or insisting that they are women and demanding access to women’s spaces.
TERF’s hate the idea that men are claiming to be women, as TERF’s quite logically say that only they and and other born females are real women. A real woman is born with and has an XX chromosome, female genitalia and female reproductive organs. Any human born with an XY chromosome and male genitalia is a male, plain and simple. And a male can’t turn into a female or vice versa, at least with present technology.
An incredibly high percentage of radical feminists are lesbians, usually lesbian feminists, which means that they are straight women who chose to be lesbians out of extreme hatred for men as a feminist political act. Most lesbians hate men quite a bit as it is, but when you combine a lesbian with a radical feminist, you get quite a potent mix of shrill man hatred.
The problem is that the nonheterosexual coalition which started out as gays and lesbians, then included bisexuals to be GLB’s,  has now expanded to included transsexuals, so the coalition is now called GLBT.
Recently queers (a term which has no meaning whatsoever other than nonheterosexual) has been idiotically added to this alphabet soup.
Some add an I for Intersex people, once again mixing gender expression (Intersex and Transsexuals) with sexual orientation (GLBQ).
There is also a movement now to add on an A for Asexuals.
God knows what they will come up with next. Pretty soon this acronym is going to be harder to pronounce than an Icelandic placename. A lot of people are exasperated by this ever-expanding list of nonheterosexual and non-cisgender orientation and identity soup and often add on ABC or WTF, so you end up with things like GLBTIQABCWTF.
Now there is quite a bit of friction between a lot of lesbians, many of whom are also radical feminists, and the transgender folks. Lesbians have been denied the right to march is Gay Pride parades and fights have broken out between lesbians and transgender people at these events. Quite a few leftwing outlets are banning TERF speakers from speaking at their venues or removing TERF books from their bookshelves. Many lesbians have been attacking the whole idea of
TERF’s logically argue that since transwomen are really men, they should not be allowed in women’s bathrooms, homeless and abused shelter’s, and prisons. Indeed, transwomen have already committed crimes against women in women’s prisons and bathrooms, so the fear is not unfounded.
In addition, many transwomen, especially the autogynophiliacs, were heterosexual men before they transitioned. They were attracted to women when they were men and now that they are transwomen, they are still attracted to women. So transwomen go from being heterosexual men to being female lesbians in a sense. A lot of these lesbian transwomen are doing a lot of yelling because most lesbians won’t give them the time of day, much less have sex with them.
This is especially true since many transwomen are pre-ops who have not had the operation to remove their genitals, so they still have male genitalia. What lesbian wants to have sex with a man with a penis and testicles who dresses up like a woman? Lesbians like women, not men in dresses. These lesbian transwomen have been calling real lesbians “transphobic” for refusing to date them. This predictably has a lot of lesbians, especially the radical feminist ones, up in arms.
As you can see, TERF’s both lesbian and straight have a lot of quite good reasons to be anywhere from dubious to outraged by transwomen.
Further, 88% of transwomen are not even real transsexuals. The real transsexuals with early onset gender dysphoria and different brains are a mere 12% of transwomen. I have a lot of compassion for these “real” transsexuals.
The rest, I am sorry, are just sexual perverts of one sort or another. 88% of transwomen are crossdressers, transvestites, and autogynophiliacs. These are also a lot of the ones that are committing sex crimes because they have paraphilias. Most don’t realize that paraphiliacs typically have more than one paraphilia; in fact, they can have several. It seems there are perverts and non-perverts, you are either one or the other,  and if you are a pervert, you tend to be polymorphously perverse instead of limiting yourself to one perversion..
People with paraphilias can definitely commit sex crimes ranging from harmless but annoying flashers all the way to serial killers and necrophiliacs. Most serial killers are sexual sadists, and sexual sadism is a paraphilia. I doubt if the real transsexuals are the ones who are committing these sex crimes or threatening the TERF’s. The real transsexuals seem calmer and more rational and believe it or not, they actually believe deeply in science and science is on their side somewhat.
The problem is that radical feminist theory on transgenderism completely collapses when it comes to transmen or female transsexuals. The reason it falls apart is because the theory has a poor basis – it is based simply on a hatred of men per se and does not try to make a coherent argument against transsexualism as a whole.
Radfem theory on transsexuals absolutely collapses with the complete and utter silence about transmen or female transsexuals. These are women who think they are men. There are quite a bit fewer transmen than transwomen for some reason. If transwomen are irrational and crazy, so are transmen, but radfem trans theory does not critique the rationality or mental fitness of transmen. In addition, the focus on violent and criminal transwomen, while good in theory, collapses once again as transmen are ignored. But transmen can be violent too, just like transwomen. Women who transition to men are more likely to become criminals than if they had stayed women, possibly a hormonal effect of testosterone.
I get all the radfem venom and rage against transwomen. It’s not hard to figure out. But why let transmen off the hook?
Why do radfems let transmen off the hook? Because they’re women! Well, that’s a logical theory! So radfems let transmen off the hook because they are women and women cannot be criticized by they bash transwomen to Kingdom Come because they’re men! Look, I am quite sure that radfem transsexual theory suits the emotion needs of radical feminists, but where’s the science? Where’s the science for the radfem theory that transmen are a-ok and transwomen are Satan’s children?
Oh wait. I forget. We are talking about feminists here, and feminists simply don’t do science. In fact, feminists now openly state that truth, logic, and science – (The very Enlightenment itself!) are permanently tainted because they are derived from men’s thinking and are the product of patriarchy. Anything that comes from men is junk and needs to be tossed. Feminists have a new epistemology: There is a “women’s way of knowledge” which apparently transcends science, facts, and truth, rendering all of them unreliable. They’ve taken the postmodern ball and the length of the field with it. In fact they didn’t even stop in the endzone. They kept running after the touchdown and now they are halfway across town.
The funny thing is that transmen are not really the friends of radical feminists or of women in general for that matter. I mean these are women who have decided that being a woman is so disgusting and horrible that they want to turn into men. That’s some powerful self-hatred they have going on there. Transmen call their vaginas “front holes.” Are radical feminists on board with vaginas being called “front holes?” Transmen also say that men can now have vaginas, ovaries, uteruses, etc. In fact, transmen even insist that men can now get pregnant! Are radfems cool with the notion that their hated dudes can have vaginas too just like ladies?
Radical feminist theory on transgenderism is just fine as long as it sticks to transwomen. It is based on facts, truth, and science. Of course radfems only choose facts, truth, and science when it allies well with their ideology, but I do commend them for using Enlightenment tools of knowledge at all.
But when it gets to transmen, radfem transgender theory shipwrecks on the shore. According to radical feminists, trannies are groovy and cool as long as they are lady trannies, but dude trannies are incarnations of the Devil Himself.
And this is…a scientific doctrine?

The "Indian Personality" and Indian Society in a Nutshell

LH: Interesting post. I’ve recently noticed some things that have painted Indians in a bad light for me. (Of course, at this point I’m not sophisticated enough to differentiate between different groups/castes, so I don’t know to which subset this applies.)
Is pettiness, jealousy and envy, mixed with frankly bad judgment a common set of traits? I’ve seen this in more than one person and was wondering whether I was seeing a pattern based on a too-small sample.
RL: LOL! This is an essential aspect of the Indian character! Not sure about the bad judgement part, but the other three, of course. That is the “Indian personality.”
dumbo: I think that’s true. They act catty like the ugly friend does when you talk to the pretty one – except all the time. All they do is cock-block each other in everything and act petty and jealous – crabs in a bucket. If you try to treat one like a normal person with trust and respect, they think there must be something wrong with you. It’s repeated prisoners’ dilemma with low trust – everyone gets zapped every time.
Hence the shitting on the streets and corruption. And all the tall claims about how Indians figured out everything thousands of years ago. They don’t expect anyone to believe them, much less take them seriously- the purpose of talking is to bullshit, not to communicate a point or have a proper discussion.

Dumbo’s comment is perfect. That’s why I love this site. Only eight sentences and the last seven of them are perfect. Read each sentence carefully and try to picture what’s going on. Also try to piece it together into a coherent whole and you will see how most of these things sort of latch onto and tie into each other in a common syndrome.
I never cared anything about Indian people until I started meeting some on the Web. I talked to them for a while, and after a bit, I became appalled at these amoral scoundrels. And soon I realized that about everyone over there was a scoundrel. Being a scoundrel is normal in India. That’s actually how you are supposed to be. I tried to talk to some of them about this and I ran into a brick wall.
One guy was cooking up endless schemes to get money. None of them were well thought out and some were rather scammy. Also in the US we don’t really like people who every time you talk to them are always talking about some money making scheme they are trying to get you in on. It’s considered sleazy to be like that all the time, at least in my White middle class upbringing crowd.
Indians go on and on about how it’s racism that people don’t like them. We don’t get a damn about how you look. If someone has a crap personality and you dislike them, are you an evil bigot? Of course not. Well, when an entire nation has an appalling personality and you dislike the people who come there because they all seem to have this same crap personality, how is that racism? Were they born being lousy people? Do Indians have a Crappy People gene? Well of course not.
If they’d get rid of their crap personality, we’d like them just fine. As it is, I don’t really want anymore of these lousy people in my country. We already have enough narcissistic sociopaths running about. Hell, our own president is one and his followers love the fact that he is a sick as a death ward malignant narcissist. They think being a malignant narcissist is good. Trumpsters would be right at home in India. Is the Trumpster personality like the Indian personality or is it different. Would Indians be offensive to Trumpsters in their personalities?
The weird thing about Indians is that they act dumbfounded if you are appalled at their awful personalities and worldviews. To them this disgusting way of thinking is completely normal. They can’t understand why everyone isn’t a selfish fuck only out for himself like they are. “You mean there are people who actually try to be good? That’s so weird?” the Indian says, baffled.
Americans regard their own people who have typical Indian personality as pretty much lousy people. People who act that way are targets of a lot of negative comments about how disgusting they are. Sure, a lot of society like capitalist fanboys think this is just groovy and everyone should be a greedy little shit like them. But a lot of us still cringe at the used car salesman mindset and personality. Get out of here!
This racist accusation is getting abused. If you don’t like some ethnic group because their culture is crap, that’s not racism. The early Soviets and Maoists attacked the cultures of a lot of ethnic groups in their countries, calling them backwards and barbaric. Were they racists for saying that? I am tired of this word racist being used by barbarians, backwards, uncivilized people towards those who criticize their primitive behavior. The word racist was not meant to be an umbrella protecting all reactionary peoples and cultures from criticism. Death to the Cultural Left! They’re the ones promoting this insane definition of racism.
India is where the Human Soul goes to die. India is like a place where everything good about the human soul has died or been cruelly murdered and all that’s left is the lousy, mercenary parts of being human. It’s a testament to our remaining humanity that Americans still say two thumbs down on this stuff.

Alt Left: Transsexuals and Transtrenders

Real transsexual people are the truly committed, perhaps with early onset of serious gender delusions.
Transtrenders are just masculine women and effeminate men who have jumped on the trans bandwagon to be cool. Transtrender is actually a widely used insult in and around the trans community.
I guess there are real men and fake men (transmen) and real women and fake women (transwomen). That’s four genders.
In addition, I guess there are real transwomen and fake transwomen and real transmen and fake transmen. That gives us a good six gender species right there.
Someone call a taxonomist.

Schiz OCD Versus Psychosis: Differences and Interactions

Hassan Herrera: By saying “Anxiety processes can at times escalate all the way to psychosis.” You mean, for example a OCD’er getting through the fear of going psychotic can start experiencing psychotic symptoms coming out of the anxiety process? I catch sight of a post of you setting apart core process and where the symptoms come from. I hope i got myself across.

Never seen a case of Schiz OCD going all the way to psychosis, although I know a woman with schizophrenia and Schiz OCD in which the two sort of go together but not completely. She still has delusions that she does not doubt. She also hides symptoms a lot, which is very hard to figure out, though I can sometimes do it.
I don’t think the Schiz OCD went into the Schizophrenia, but the Schizophrenia dx obviously played into the Schiz OCD. It’s an extremely complex case. Never seen a case of Schiz OCD going all the way to psychosis, although I know a woman with schizophrenia and Schiz OCD in which the two sort of went together but not completely. She still has delusions that she does not doubt. She also hides symptoms a lot, which is very hard to figure out, though I can sometimes do it. I don’t think the Schiz OCD went into the Schizophrenia, but the Schizophrenia dx obviously played into the Schiz OCD. It’s an extremely complex case.
There is a Psychotic OCD but I have never seen a single case of it, and I have seen more OCD’ers than 95% of clinicians will ever see. I have seen cases that I worried were Psychotic OCD, but when you got it all untangled, they still had reality testing intact more or less, at least in terms of overvalued ideas. There is a sub-diagnosis of OCD with Overvalued Ideas.
The OCD symptoms in this case were extremely bizarre, and phenomenologically, they looked a lot like the sort of thing you see in Psychotic OCD. His symptoms appeared so psychotic that when I mentioned them to a retired clinician, she insisted that this person was psychotic and would not accept that they were not. Unfortunately I am not allowed to share the very interesting symptoms on here.
Psychotic OCD has a sort of a “look” to it along with typical delusions that are present in a lot of cases – it is a syndrome, in other words.
A classic case of Psychotic OCD would be a case where the obsessions have escalated into delusions. The people are typically not dangerous, as fear is a freezing agent, and OCD’ers tend to be shy or very shy, passive, introverted, and remarkably nonviolent. A classic case is a man sitting in a chair all day shaking like a leaf and going on about his obsessions, which have now reached delusional intensity. The old view was that Psychotic OCD’ers never got too far gone psychosis-wise, and it was quite easy to pull them out of the psychosis. A typical case might last three weeks.
However, we now have recent cases of Psychotic OCD going on for years that did not respond to treatment. Some responded to ERP oddly enough. Some of these people are so ill that they have become the homeless mentally ill like a lot of schizophrenics, carting their belongings around in a suitcase.
The main thing to note is that Psychotic OCD is rarely seen. However, when OCD is very bad, they can appear psychotic. Hence, OCD’ers are often misdiagnosed with psychosis of one form or another and put on antipsychotic drugs, which generally do not help them. I get clients all the time coming to me with a diagnosis of some form of psychosis. Once I figure out they are not psychotic and are usually instead Schiz OCD’ers with what I call fake delusions and fake hallucinations, I tell them to fire their psychiatrist and go doctor shopping until you find an MD who understands that you have OCD and not psychosis.
A lot of psychiatrists continue to misdiagnose OCD’ers with psychosis. The phenomenology of OCD is not understood well by many clinicians, and the fact that OCD when severe looks like psychosis but is not results in  a lot of misdiagnosis.
I think a Schiz OCD’er would be the last person to go psychotic, as the condition is predicated on continuous worry and doubt that they are going psychotic. If you have spent any time around psychotic people, that’s clearly not what’s going on. In psychosis the person never worries whether they are psychotic, nor are they are aware they are psychotic.
If you are worried about or are aware of being psychotic, then you cannot possibly be psychotic. That’s a rule out for psychosis right there. This is exactly what is going on in Schiz OCD, hence Schiz OCD is never psychotic by definition.

Alt Left: Identity Politics People and Groups Are Both Mentally Ill

Zamfir: And why is IP supposed to be bad?

I just gave you a lot of reasons. It’s insane. All the IP’s can’t possibly be true. Only one of the conflicting IP’s can be true and the other must be false, or they must both be wrong. It can’t be true that Blacks are bad and Whites are good and also that Blacks are good and Whites are bad, etc. It’s crazy. Same thing with all of the others.
Basically these are all positions that are various forms of nonsense.
In particular,  they are much too quite to call anyone who says boo about them a hater, to demonize their enemies du jour, and frankly to be paranoid.
Most people who criticize various races, ethnic groups or nationalities are not racists. Most men who criticize women are not misogynists. Most women who criticize men are not misandrists. Most people who criticize Jews are not anti-Semites. Most people who criticize Islam are not Muslim haters. Most people who criticize gays are not homophobes. Most people who criticize transsexuals are not transphobes.
So it’s just a bunch of thin-skinned paranoid haters who can’t take any criticism, all with different glorious identities and demonized enemies. I agree with gays hating homophobes, transsexuals hating transphobes, Jews hating anti-Semites, etc., but all of these people are paranoid crazies who think everyone is an evil enemy out to get them, they all have a huge chip on their shoulders, who can’t take any criticism, who think all critics are deadly enemies, and are frankly very narcissistic with inflated self-esteem.
When these qualities are present in a person, we generally say they are unhealthy or mentally ill. Generally they have a personality disorder. If these mentally ill people have the same qualities as these groups, then we say that these groups themselves are paranoid crazies who think everyone is an evil enemy out to get them, all have a huge chip on their shoulders, can’t take any criticism, think all critics are deadly enemies, and are frankly very narcissistic with inflated self-esteem are either groups of mentally ill people or perhaps the groups themselves are mentally ill.
Actual societal structures can become mentally disordered just as a person can. So all of these groups are more or less mentally ill groups full of mentally ill people. The people in the groups have personality disorders and the groups themselves actually have personality disorders!
IP people are crazy. IP groups, being full of crazy people, are crazy groups.
Period.

How Trump Stole the 2016 Elections: The Blatant Evidence

Zamfir: You say Trump “stole the election with computers”. Really? What are you talking about here? I’ve looked into these bizarre claims and never found any proper evidence of anything.

 
They’re not bizarre. Republicans been doing it since 2000 because the public doesn’t really support them anymore, so like all capitalist, ruling class, and oligarchic political parties, they have to lie, cheat, and steal to stay in power. See the Latin American Right for example. The Republicans been stealing them with computers, especially since 2004. Bush out and out stole the 2004 election.
We can tell they were stolen by how the exit polls went radically off compared to the actual vote. Exit polls are the gold standard of politics for over 50 years now. They always reliably track with results. Out of 50 states, polls will be off in maybe two states, no more. They’ve been going off, often by a lot and almost always in a Republican direction, since 2000. This is when the Republicans started stealing them with the computers. That’s why the Republicans put the computers in in the first place – to steal elections.
In Michigan, all polls for weeks before the election – hundreds of them – were all off, including the exit polls. That can’t possibly happen. So Michigan was stolen. They refused to count 70,000 votes in Detroit for no reason except that they are nigger votes I guess. And many fraudulent votes for Republicans were found even before the recount. A recount was never done because all Michigan politicians opposed it. Why did they oppose a recount?
Wisconsin was also stolen. Exit polls were off but always in Republican districts. There was no real recount in Wisconsin. There was only a fake recount, and some precincts were incredibly shady to where it appeared to witnesses that they were seeing actual fraud taking place.
Also 30,000 fraudulent votes for Republicans were found before the recount even started. The vote in Milwaukee was not possible, and I think they never even recounted it. Write-in’s supported Clinton and those lean rightwing. All exit polls showed Clinton winning. Exit polls were perfect in all precincts that had hand counted ballots but went off in all precincts that had computer counted ballots.
50,000 fraudulent votes were found in Pennsylvania before the recount even started. Write in votes supported Clinton and those tend to lean conservative. There was no recount in Pennsylvania because the DNC governor fought it in court! All exit polls showed Clinton winning.
The vote in Florida was not possible. 70% of votes were write-in’s and they supported Clinton by a decent margin. For Trump to win, a huge number of voters on election day would have had to support Trump. That number was so large as to be statistically impossible. Republican turnout was not elevated on election day anyway. As many Democrats came out as Republicans.
Trump started saying the election was going to be stolen because he was going to steal it himself. He always accuses his opponents of doing what he does or is going to do. This is called projection but it is particularly prominent in this man. It is considered to be a primitive and immature defense that kids use a lot. Yes, adults use it a lot, but people who project all the time are notably unhealthy. It is particularly prominent in personality disorders.
Also Trump, Conaway, and Guiliani became unusually calm about Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania a few days before the election. All polls were pro-Clinton. Manafort said he had just talked to the Russians, and they said not to worry about Michigan. I assume the Russians may have been in on the vote-hacking. Vote-hacking in this last election was never investigated by the FBI or by anyone.
I will add that sleazy Democrats do this too. Hillary had to have stolen a number of primaries. There is no way for the exit polls to go off like that, and the DNC laid down the law that Sanders could not win. Democrats don’t seem to want to fix these machines either I guess because they use them to steal elections themselves.
Republicans are fanatically opposed to all recounts of elections and to fixing the damned voting machines. They must know that the way they are set up now, they are hackable.
Really we need to get rid of them altogether and go back to hand counted ballots. States that hand count ballots never see their exit polls go off.

Why Trump Is a Disaster: Donald Trump Is Not Mentally or Emotionally Fit to Be President

Zamfir: I’m surprised you have a strong preference for Democrats over Republicans. To me it seems like a hopeless choice. If you vote Republican you’re voting for one set of evil elite interests, but not explicitly against your biology and cultural heritage; if you vote Republican you’re voting for another set of evil elite interests, and explicitly against your biology and cultural heritage.
Hard to pick between those two! What is the real advantage in voting Democrat in your opinion? (I guess I’d vote for Bernie, but then again I’d vote for Trump for similar reasons… Not that I expect either one would ever do much on anything I care about.)

Trump’s incompetent. Trump might be senile and he’s obviously dangerously mentally ill.
Trump suffers from Malignant Narcissism, the same disorder that Ted Bundy and other serial killers had. That’s right. Our President has the same mental illness that serial killers do! Original theoreticians on this disorder said that it was the closest thing to pure evil in the mental illnesses. And that’s correct. The best description for Trump is that he is evil. Trump’s a bad person, a jerk, an ass, a prick, a lousy human being, an idiot, a fool, a moron, and worst of all, he’s dangerous. Trump’s obviously too mentally ill and otherwise impaired with dementia to be President.

Game/PUA: The Latest Insult: "You're an Incel!"

The latest idiotic Internet insult is “You’re an incel!” Even I am getting called an incel lately. That’s laughable because I am about as far from being an incel as a man gets.
There’s nothing new here. This bullshit has been going on forever now, and feminists have always specialized in the insult, “Obviously you can’t get laid!” It also takes other forms. “Neckbeard” means much the same thing. For some reason, it is always feminists and Cultural Left types who wield the “Obviously you can’t get laid”, neckbeard, and incel insults.
For some reason, rightwingers never say this. I suppose that’s because rightwingers don’t care whether some man gets women or not because after all, it’s not that important.
The stupid thing about this insult is that Cultural Left boneheads call every man they hate a neckbeard, incel, or insist, “Obviously you can’t get laid!” Of all the retarded things to say about a human being you don’t even know! Furthermore, this is always done on the Internet, when the Cultural Left types have never met the person and know nothing about him. They read his prose and decide he can’t get laid with God’s help!
I have been reading prose on the Internet for many years now. For the life of me, I have never run across male prose that indicates to me whether a man is successful with women or not. There is no “can’t get laid” style of writing. There’s no such thing! Unless the person is discussing sex, you have no idea if he’s a 50 year old incel or if he’s closing in on Wilt Chamberlain’s record.
Similarly, you can’t diagnose mental illness much less Asperger’s Syndrome on the Internet. I work in mental health. How the Hell can I look at someone’s prose or journalism on the Net and give them a DSM diagnosis? Yet every Cultural Left idiot on Earth can diagnose mental illness better than the finest clinicians – by merely reading a simple gleaning of someone’s prose! Such geniuses!
Of course Asperger’s Syndrome (the most overdiagnosed condition in history) cannot be diagnosed on the Net. Everybody thinks they can, and everyone is always diagnosing everyone else as an “Aspie.” It’s mostly Cultural Left types calling everyone they hate an Aspie. To say this isn’t very nice to Aspies is an understatement. But no clinician can possibly diagnose AS from a snippet of prose. How the Hell can Cultural Left scum outdiagnose the world’s finest diagnosticians?
This insult “Obviously you can’t get laid!” arises from the completely false feminist belief that all men who feminists consider to be misogynists (most of us) cannot possibly get laid. In other words, if you’re a misogynist, obviously you can’t get laid to save your life.
Now I have been observing the dating scene for decades, and one thing that is clear to me is that a lot of misogynistic men get tons of sex. Even the stereotypical bad boys who treat women like crap are well known to be drowning in pussy. Many though not all womanizers are definitely misogynists. The standard male advice about women, particularly from womanizers, is, “You gotta treat women like shit.” This is all pretty awful for those of us who want to be decent men because it seems like a requirement for a successful relationship with women is abusing them.
This goes along with the typical problem of nice guys, which feminists get all wrong.

The Definitions 99% of the Population Gets Wrong: Pedophilia and Hebephilia

Jynxi: Pedophilia has to prepubescent children. I don’t think these girls qualify as ten year olds. However, the correct term might be hebephilia, a attraction to pubescent young adolescent children. I think the public school teachers union has all the information you need.

I am making fun of all the dangerous idiots out there, almost all of whom are women, who insist that any man who is attracted to any teenage girl is a pedophile. Yeah, these dumb bitches actually believe this!
Women in power won’t rule based on logic because females are simply not logical creatures. It’s men who are logical ones. Women in power will rule based on their feels, which is a bad idea in general and especially for men, at whom most of these women’s persecution will be aimed. Women can help us men run things. I do not object to that. I just don’t want them running things. It’s not a problem. Each gender has its roles. Women can’t do everything.
Hebephilia is not appropriate here either, and the definition is incorrect. Hebephilia is not attraction to pubescent females, otherwise all men would be hebephiles because all men are attracted to pubescent girls. Instead it is a preference for pubescent girls to the point of fixation to where they are simply not attracted at all to mature females. They are not a lot different from pedophiles, but they think they are superior to the pedos.
I have lurked on one of their 8chan boards, and hebephiles are weird. For instance, people would post a photo of a 16 year old girl, and they would all start screaming, “Ew gross! No grandmas!” Yeah, they actually believe that. 16 year old girls are disgusting Grandmas to these guys. That’s almost as bad as the pedos who think even pubescent females are too old.
I happen to think hebephilia is a disorder, but there was a big debate around Hebephilia in the latest DSM-5, and the consensus was that Hebephilia not only was not a mental illness, it wasn’t even abnormal! Also they were worried that making it a mental illness would allow the authorities to lock up some guy who screws a 14 year old forever on preventive detention bullshit, which I think is unconstitutional.
 

Against Preventive Detention: It's Not Against the Law to Be Dangerous

You cannot lock people up for “Dangerousness.” It’s not a crime to be dangerous. People can be as dangerous as they want to within certain limits. It’s a free country and you are free to be as dangerous as you want to be. People aren’t criminals until the commit a crime. If we want to lock someone up, we have to wait until they commit a crime first. It’s seems awful, but it’s only fair, don’t you think? Why not lock me up because I might rob a bank some day. After all, I have thought about it before.
There are many men now locked up on the charge of Dangerousness because of new laws that allow sex offenders, and sex offenders only mind you, to be imprisoned on preventive detention forever all because they have a mental disorder that supposedly makes them dangerous.
This is a grotesque misuse of the laws locking up the Criminally Insane. Those people need to be legitimately crazy, generally speaking psychotic, and they generally need to have a chronic psychotic disorder that won’t get better, to be locked away as Dangerous Due to Insanity. I have no qualms with locking up completely insane people who have also committed serious crimes and have an untreatable mental illness that makes them an out and out menace to society. They don’t have the faintest idea what they are doing most of the time, and that combined with a propensity for violent crime means that people like that have to be locked up at least until they are stabilized.
So because we were locking up the psychotically violent criminals in preventive detention (which is rational), the authorities opened up the damned DSM and noted that the DSM had made the error of labeling certain paraphilias as mental disorders, which they probably are not.
How does merely having a paraphilia make you nuts? Some guy has foot fetish. No one knows about it other than some woman who might sleep with him. Otherwise he’s completely normal. Show me how this man is crazy. I can’t see it.
So they started diagnosing a number of sex offenders with paraphilias as a way to keep them locked up forever even after they had served their full term in prison and had paid their debt to society!
These “Mentally Disordered Sex Offenders” being locked away forever because they might maybe commit a crime if they are released are what boils down to thought criminals being prosecuted for thought crimes.
People allow it because they hate pedos so much, but now that people have said it’s OK to lock people away forever on preventive detention on the basis of dangerousness, what’s preventing the authorities from coming out and arresting you for “Dangerousness?” What’s preventive the expansion of these crazy Dangerousness laws? Nothing. People are idiots. They allowed their hatred for pedos to cloud their judgement, and now they have set themselves up for some very nasty preventive detention nonsense. That 5-4 Supreme Court case that legalized this preventive detention nonsense was one of the worst cases ever. Scalia wrote the final opinion, so that ought to tell you something.

Paranoia, Aggression, Victimhood, and Assimilation: The Dilemma of the Jews

If you want to find out if someone is an anti-Semite, the last person you should ask is a Jew. This is because Jews see probably 10X more antisemites than actually exist. In other words, they’re paranoid.
One wonders why one would want to think that people who like you actually hate you or go about worrying all the time that many people in your day to day life surreptitiously hate you. If you go to a therapist with symptoms like that, you get diagnosed with a mental disorder. It’s called paranoia. When it gets very bad, it becomes Paranoid Personality Disorder and it gets even worse in a lot of psychoses, especially Paranoid Schizophrenia, Manic Psychosis, and Delusional Disorder.
If paranoia is a mental illness, does that mean that most Jews are nuts? Maybe. I’d much rather call Jews crazy than evil. Besides, it’s a lot more accurate.
But one wonders why the need for the paranoia? It’s simple. The Jews are a tribe, a human tribe. Judaism and Jewishness is simple a manifestation of human ethnocentrism found in every tribe. All tribes are paranoid about all the other tribes and have an extremely elevated view of themselves that implies that they are either the best people on Earth, the only people on Earth, or the first people on Earth. Paranoia tends to go hand in hand with grandiosity. After all, if you are a measly nothing of a man, why would all of these powerful entities be plotting against you all the time. The only way you could have all these people out to get you is if you were pretty damned important!
People with low self-esteem are not usually paranoid. They assume people don’t like them, often correctly. At any rate “people don’t like me” is an anxiety process related to low self-self esteem, anxiety, guilt and high inhibition. The classic process is Social Phobia. Social phobics often feel that people don’t like them because they are inferior. But that’s not paranoia!
Paranoids, instead, go far beyond the notion that people don’t like them. It’s so much worse than that. Paranoids believe that the people who don’t like you are actual enemies and they are plotting against you! And it’s associated with high self-esteem, not low self-esteem, and low levels of anxiety as opposed to high levels. Instead of anxiety and depression, the paranoid feels grandiosity and anger.
Now here we tie into the Jews.
Look a the description I just wrote of how paranoids act and feel and tell me that doesn’t sound exactly like some of the negative stereotypes of Jews.
Why be paranoid?
The Jews are paranoid because paranoia is the only thing that keeps them going. In the Middle Ages, they actually built some of those ghettos themselves in order to keep their people away from the Gentiles. In 1800, a proper Orthodox Jew would not only not dine with a Gentile. He would not even take tea with one! The Yemeni Jews are like this to this very day.
For centuries in the ghetto, the rabbis preached how the Gentiles hated them and how the Jews had to keep away from the Gentiles. In Medieval Spain, if a Jewish woman had sex with a Gentile, her community would punish her by cutting off her nose!
The Jews are remarkably inbred. They have existed for 2,000 years in the Diaspora and they are still remarkably pure. A good way to keep your tribe pure is to preach that all of the outsiders are evil people who hate you. Of course you don’t want to mingle with them, much less have sex with them.
So the Jews actually owe their very existence to centuries of paranoia along with all the attendant emotions that go along with it – grandiosity towards themselves, anger and hostility (not anxiety) towards non- Jews and basically aggressive, belligerent, chip on the shoulder mindset, which clinical paranoids also have.
All paranoids are victims. Not only that, but they are innocent victims. Innocent victimhood is a necessary state for the paranoia to develop in the first place. The Jews also are perennial victims. They are supposedly victims of centuries of oppression everywhere they  have gone and the future only holds the same if not worse. And of course the Jews are always innocent. They got thrown out of all those countries through no fault of their own. They dindu nuffin. Those Gentiles were just being irrational or insane and downright evil. Pure evil. Pure evil for no reason at all, the worst sort of evil of them all.
Hence it follows that Jews have a need to be victims. Hang around Jews long enough and it will become apparent that they actually desire and cherish their victimhood. In fact, in my opinion, victimhood is the most precious thing a Jew has. One thing you don’t do is take away a Jews sense of victimhood. It seems they will almost kill to keep that.
So what happens if you take away the paranoia and sense of victimhood from the Jews? Simple. The Jews go extinct. The only reason they persisted all this time was due to their hatred for non-Jews. The day the Jews stop hating non-Jews and seeing themselves as victims of all-encompassing anti-Semitism is the day the Jews start going out. Because once that happens, the Jews will have no reason not to assimilate and marry non-Jews.
And this is the Catch-22 of Jewish assimilation. And in fact some of these very arguments have been used by Jews themselves in the centuries-old debate about assimilation.

Are Schizophrenic People Smart?

Although of course schizophrenics vary in IQ, the research shows that lower IQ is associated with schizophrenia. Typically the lower IQ was present before the schizophrenia hit. Whether these people already had pre-schizophrenia and the low IQ was a signal of that or whether lower IQ is an independent risk factor is not known. I suggest the former.
I am not sure if schizophrenia itself, once it hits, causes an IQ decline, but it would not surprise me. The process of developing schizophrenia involves considerable damage to the brain. It makes sense that this brain damage, in addition to causing the disorder, also lowered your IQ.
In summary, people with schizophrenia tend to have lower IQ’s than normals on average, but the difference may not be large. I think it was only ~3 points.

What Percentage of Homosexual People Is Acceptable To You in a Given Population?

Answered on Queera.
Believe it or not, all of the answers said that if a country’s population was 100% gay, that would be absolutely wonderful! I’m sure having all the population of your country gay would be the greatest thing since sliced bread! What the Hell’s the matter with people? It would be catastrophic for any country to be 100% gay, though we’re probably headed that way in the US at the rate we’re going here.
How could having 100% of the population of your country gay possibly be a good thing!? Color me mystified.
A given population as in for a country? 3%. That’s the percentage in the US, and it’s just fine by me.
Understand that homosexuality is bad for society in the sense that it causes a lot of costly problems for society. Furthermore, taxes paid by gays do not make up for the costs that society incurs from homosexuals.

  • Homosexuals live 20 years less than heterosexuals. This is horribly sad for gay people that they miss out on so many years of wonderful life, but it seems to me that reduced lifespan is costly to society.
  • Gays have higher rates of mood and anxiety disorders. While this causes a lot of suffering to gay people, and this is sad, at the same time, mental illness is costly to society.
  • Gays have much higher rates of drinking, smoking, and drug abuse than straights. The gay male party and play, scene revolving heavily around methamphetamine and club drugs is particularly alarming. Lesbians in particular smoke a lot. The costs of drinking, smoking, and drug abuse to gays themselves are no doubt significant in terms of disease, mortality, and the suffering that can come from excessive substance abuse, nevertheless, this incurs a lot of costs to society.
  • Gay men obviously have a very high STD rate. At 20% infection rate, the HIV rate is especially alarming. Most of these diseases remain confined to the gay community and have not broken out significantly to the straight community, with the exception of the Black community with all the down low men. But the great heterosexual HIV epidemic spreading from gays to straights never occurred mostly because HIV goes from men to women and then it stops, as spokesmen from the New York Department of Public Health said as early as the 1980’s. That’s not completely true, but it is very hard to get HIV from a woman. Hepatitis A, B, and C are or were very common in the gay community, vastly more common than among heterosexuals, most of whom only acquire B and C from IV drug use. Parasitical diseases such as shigella, ameobiasis and giardiasis are also extremely common among gay men, whereas they are quite rare among straights. In recent syphilis epidemics, up to 85% of cases are among gay men. Syphilis is quite uncommon among straights. Gay men have elevated rates of anal cancer, and the rate is rising. The rate is vastly higher than the rate among straights.I would like to point out that it is gay men themselves who suffer most from these diseases, and this suffering, although self-imposed, is often tragic, horrifying and heartbreaking in particularly in the heart-wrenching case of HIV. Lesbians have very low rates of STD’s but higher rates of breast cancer. I doubt if lesbians impose a disease burden on society. The very high gay male STD rate, in particular the HIV rate, obviously imposes considerable costs to society.
  • Tragically, gay men have a suicide rate 3X higher than straight men, even in San Francisco, the most gay-friendly place in the US. The attempted suicide rate is also very high. Gay male teenagers have a tragically very high attempted suicide rate at 8X the normal rate. Suicidal behavior causes unfathomable and heartbreaking suffering on gay men. However, attempted and completed suicides impose considerable cost on society.
  • Domestic violence rates are very high in gay and lesbian couples, especially the latter. A gay man is much more likely to beat his partner than a straight man is. A woman is much less likely to be beaten by a male partner than by a female partner. This causes immense suffering to the partners of gay and lesbian batterers. In addition, domestic violence is costly to society.
  • In gay areas, gay men typically take over all of the public restrooms and turn them into miniature sex clubs. This renders most public restrooms unusable by the rest of us. Most gay men typically vociferously support the use of public restrooms as sex dens for gays. I don’t have much sympathy here. Gay men are simply being very irresponsible with this depraved mindset. Further, this is a cost to society.

It is first of all most important to point out that gay men themselves suffer worst from most from these largely self-imposed conditions, a suffering so profound that it almost moves you to tears. Compassion is essential. Nevertheless, there is a cost to society. Some of these issues may be caused by discrimination (see the high teenage gay male attempted suicide rate), but there is a cost to society no matter what causes it. Some of these problems would lessen with increased acceptance of gays, but others would linger or possibly even worsen.
The question comes up whether gays pay for the costs they bring to society. Many gays seem to have above average intelligence for some reason, especially gay men. Gays seem more artistically talented than straights. More gays than straights seem to get college degrees, in particular gay men.
Gay men seem to earn higher than average wages and are disproportionately employed in high paying and prestigious professions. I am always hearing about a homosexual, often a gay man, who is contributing something noteworthy and exemplary to our society such that it mentions a media notice. Obviously, gay men contribute more to the tax base per capita than straights. So gays, especially gay men, offer considerable benefits to society, not flowing from their homosexuality but from other aspects of their lives.
I have not discussed lesbians here because I know little about them, but I doubt that they impose serious costs on society other than reduced lifespan.
However the question rises whether gays pay for themselves. Despite their excellent contributions to society and their higher than normal tax contributions, I still do not think that homosexuals pay for themselves.
The question then arises about whether the rest of us should be willing to carry a small burden for our gay brothers.
Personally I feel that at 3%, I am willing to shoulder the costs of homosexuals to society, as the numbers are so small that it is something we can cope with. I would be willing to tolerate up to 6% gay men in society. I think we could deal at that rate.
However, if the rate of male homosexuality went higher than that, all of these problems above would increase in scope with attendant costs.
Honestly, even when you get to 10% gay men in any country, your problems are going to go up a lot. The % of gay men in New York and San Francisco is quite high, and they definitely impose considerable costs on these cities.
Once you start heading up to 15–20% of any country’s population being gay, I think it would be unsustainable for many reasons (see above).
Homosexuality in society seems to be one of those things, like many things in life, that is best in small doses.

What Makes an OCD Thought More Rooted in the Mind and Makes It Even More Difficult to be Removed?

I understand exactly what you are talking about. OCD thoughts or obsessions have some peculiar power to them. Something “sticks” about them. I call them Super-thoughts and believe that they are much more powerful than regular thoughts. They seem to have some odd “pull” to them that seems to almost force you to think about them.
I have had clients who have told me that they feel that they have to think these thoughts. Unfortunately, I felt that way somewhat myself at one point. Keep in mind that OCD’ers often feel that they “have” to do all sorts of things. This is the compulsive nature of the illness, but the broken record nature of the obsessions also looks compulsive or habitual. If OCD is a disease of doubting, as the French say, it is also a disease of repetition.
To determine if something is an obsession or not, the great psychiatrist George Winokur told his med school students, “Look at how hard the patient resists the thought. The harder they resist and fight the thought, the more likely it is to be an obsession.”
I will take it even further. “If you try to stop it, it’s an obsession.” That’s not literally true, but it’s pretty much true.
The thoughts also become your friend in a sense because they are with you most of the time. In counseling, I sometimes tell my clients to think of the thoughts as your best friend. After all, they are always with you, and they will never leave you, right? Just like your best friend.
The thoughts also seem to be “alive” in a sense, and it seems like they do not want to die.
Before I realized I had OCD, I just thought I was going insane in my head. For some reason, this was projected out at the world, and everyone seemed to think there was something wrong with me.
The OCD had set up bizarre rules that I had to live my life by, mostly designed to make my life as miserable as possible. I was terrified to break the rules. Finally I had had it with these stupid and frankly masochistic rules, that I started to stand up and fight them. I remember every time I did that, the OCD would stand up and fight and “try to stay alive.” Finally, I would beat the OCD and the the OCD would back down, cower, and say, “Ok, you win.” But then it would come up with a new rule that was often not quite as bad as the previous rule.
In my opinion, it is almost as if these thoughts are living beings. Living beings do not wish to die, so neither do these thoughts.
This ties in with the bizarre nature of the illness where the sufferer himself thinks the thoughts are stupid or absurd, but they still can’t stop thinking them.
Many times I have heard, “Why in the Hell am I even thinking about this?…This is something I would like to think of as infrequently as possible, or never if I could…Of all the thoughts I could think, this is the worst one of them all…Please give me a new thought to think, OCD!”
So the person feels that the thoughts are preposterous, idiotic, and senseless, nevertheless the thoughts have this bizarre pull or stickiness to them as if they are almost demanding that you think about them.
People get so used to their obsessions because they think them all the time that some OCD’ers say, “There is a part of me that wants to stay ill for some reason…I’m afraid to kill the thoughts for some reason…as much as I hate them, the thoughts seem like my friend, and it feels sad to kill them.”
Now why obsessions have this bizarre stickiness, power, or pull to them, I still have no idea. I can’t even come up with a theory. But it’s definitely a part of this very strange illness.

How Can I Tell If I Have Paranoid Schizophrenia or Schizotypal Personality Disorder?

Answered on Quora.
Simple. If you had either one, you would probably not be asking this question right now.
If you had paranoid schizophrenia, you would not be asking this question because people with this illness do not recognize that they are ill, typically refuse to seek help, and also refuse to take medication. If you tell them they are ill, they will not agree.
If you had Schizotypal Personality Disorder (really mild schizophrenia) you would probably not be asking this either. These people probably do not believe there is anything wrong with themselves either, and they are typically too paranoid to go in for treatment. There is a forum for Schizotypals on the Net, and many of them are on there saying that they are too paranoid and distrustful to go to therapy.