Game/PUA: SJWism Is Based on Female Thinking

Really all SJWism is based on female thinking. I believe I read this somewhere else but I’m not sure how well it clicked with me at the time. But now that I understand women so much better, I finally get it. Of course SJWism is female thinking. Of course Identity Politics is female thinking.

Hence, all IP and of course all SJWism is pussy, and real men should not indulge in this pussy crap. That goes for Men’s Rights too. Men’s Rights is often based on female thinking, so it’s a pussy movement. The best Men’s Rights Movement would employ cold, hard logic and scientific thinking to promote the cause of men. This is no problem because logic is in our favor.

We are just too afraid to use it because once you go logical, you don’t get to play black and white, good and bad, good versus evil, the same splitting game that all IP movements play. In other words you have to play fair.

Ever tried to argue fairly with a typical fucktard human?

It’s based on emotional logic and it has the contempt for science and logic as tools the strong use against the weak, which is precisely how women see science and logic, neither of which they have much use for. SJW’s see themselves are completely weak and their enemies as completely strong. This is just the way female thinking works. According to female thinking, women are weak and men are strong and therefore, women get to break all the rules or follow no rules at all simply on account of being weak.

They are correct that the only way a weak party has a chance in a fight is if they fight dirty. Only the strong can afford to fight by the rules, which is why they always insist on rule-based fights. In a rule-based fight, the strong party always wins. Weak parties are smart enough to realize that if they play by the rules, they lose, so they all tend to fight dirty.

Women are weak and men are strong. Women realize that on a fair playing field, we will kick their asses in no time. So women don’t fall for the “let’s play by the rules” game that men set up for fights. And women believe that since they are weak, they have a right to fight dirty because all parties to a fight must appear to be on equal grounds. In  fact, according to women, men demanding rules for fighting is profoundly unfair itself because it will result in men always winning and women always losing.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Being Dumb Isn’t the Problem; Being Dangerous Dumb or Dangerously Ignorant Is

I don’t hate lower IQ people. A lot of the people I hate have high IQ’s too. I hate stupid people. Stupid people who don’t think properly. It’s more like ignorance and what I call a “dangerously stupid” attitude. By ignorant I mean it is completely opposed to science and driven more my mass hysteria and emotional societal panics.

Being stupid is one thing. If you are just stupid but you are not dangerously stupid so you might harm me, I don’t hate you 1%. You could have an 85 IQ but if you are smart enough to not get taken in by societal bullshit and intelligent enough to think for yourself and come up with your own answers instead of being a sheep, I love you to death.

An 85 IQ  person need not be an ignorant moron with repulsive and dangerous views. He’s a lot more likely to but that’s not guaranteed. On the other hand, it’s perfectly possible for someone to be high or very high IQ and be dangerously ignorant to where they have attitudes that are dangerous to me and others. A lot of these types are wrapped up in fanatical movements like feminism and SJWism that tend towards wild irrationality or no rationality at all, and contempt for science and logic in favor of emotional reasoning.

It might be hard to connect with you, but IQ’s no reason to hate a man. I guess I should say that what I hate is dangerous ignorance, but ignorance and dangerous, emotion-driven ignorance does tend to be more common as you go down the IQ scale. As you go up the scale, people can shut off their emotions more and see issues in the clear light of pure logic, in which case, they usually arrive at an answer that’s compatible with science and reasonable policy-wise.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Bipolar Disorder: Manics Are Literally the Worst People on Earth

Bipolar Disorder is a mental illness formerly called Manic Depression. Bipolar people alternate between episodes of mania, characterized by high energy, little sleep, elation, excessive or frantic activity, wild spending, promiscuity, heavy alcohol and drug use along with aggression, rage, hostility, menacing behavior, extreme irritability, wild rages and temper tantrums, and even crimes, at times even violent crimes, as we shall see below.

The other periods are the down periods characterized by Depression. You all know what that entails so I won’t go into details.

In between, the manic is typically fine or at least goes back to their premorbid personality,  whatever that was like. It’s as if the illness has vanished altogether.

The episodes can may occur within a day or be up to three years apart.

If untreated, there is a tendency to worsen over time. This is because untreated mania actually causes physical damage to your brain. Every time you have a manic episode, your brain gets damaged. Then when you have another one, it’s gets more damaged, and on and on, accumulating over time.

Then the illness worsens. The manic episodes last longer and seem to worsen in quality. The time between episodes shortens. Finally, they reach the point where they are no longer normal between episodes and instead they are mildly manic or hypomanic between episodes.

In my family’s case, the person went from 5 to 3 to 1 1/2 to now where they come only 6 months apart. 9-10 months of mania, 6 months of hypomania, and then another 9-10 months of mania. So they are literally spending  a majority of their existence now in major manic episodes.

The drugs used are mood stabilizers between episodes, which seem to calm them down and prevent new major episodes, and antipsychotics for a Major Manic Episode because they’re so nuts that that’s the only thing that will bring them down.

The Angry, Aggressive, Irritable, and Violent Manic

Although the stereotype is of the happy manic on top of the world, that may not be typical. I heard a psychiatrist speak once and she said that among her male Bipolar patients, there were about 10 angry, irritable,  etc. manics for every happy one. The women may be more of the happy manics.

I’m living with one of these monsters right now, and it’s pure Hell. When he goes manic he’s basically Charles Manson. Pure evil. It’s like paranoid schizophrenia in the sense that they’re not just nuts, but they’re also aggressive and dangerous. They’re angry, hostile, hateful, abusive, aggressive, menacing, destructive, and even violent assholes from Hell.

And of course when they go manic, they lose all insight. If you confront them and tell them they’re having an episode, they flip out, scream and yell like a maniac, throw things, and get very menacing like they’re going to hit you. And they may indeed hit you.

In addition, because of stigma, there is often a lot of resistance to accepting the fact that they are ill. Our family member denied that he was ill for 38 years, from age 17 to age 55. Even now, in the midst of an episode, I guarantee he will deny being ill. That’s just how the illness works and also this person has one of the most extreme Denial defenses I’ve ever seen built up.

We have a family member with this illness and he has had many manic episodes over the years. Every time he has an episode, I’ve always been around. And every time, we got into at least one fist fight. Plus I usually get into a fistfight a year or so even when he’s not manic, except he’s never not manic.

When he’s not having an episode, he’s hypomanic, or a little bit manic. He’s literally been manic all the time, either hypomanic or manic, for ~15 years now. This is not a pleasant person to be around.

If you criticize, correct, or attempt to enforce any rules on them, you get met with a wild, screaming, violent tantrum and possible violence of some sort.

Angry, irritable manics are the literally worst human beings on Earth. When they go manic they turn into narcissistic psychopaths.

Of course in our case, his worthless therapist and psychiatrist won’t listen to me to up his meds. I contacted them and told them that he’d gone into a major manic episode, and they blew me off, said I was incapable of diagnosing mental illness, called me paranoid, denied that he was ill, and made me out to be the bad guy.

They’re so stupid and incompetent they can’t even figure out he’s nuts, and they refuse to believe me.

This is a typical scenario. The therapist has little or no understanding of the illness –  I know the disorder far better than he does (very common) – which is typical. The psychiatrist does worthless telemedicine, so I guarantee she won’t be able to diagnose him. Plus I’m not allowed to talk to her due to some crazy misinterpretation of the HIPAA law that was passed  recently.

If you have this diabolical illness, for God’s sake, accept your illness, and get on meds right now. And listen to your loved ones when we tell you you’re going nuts because you won’t be able to tell. The worst thing about these satanic illnesses is not just that they make people dangerously insane, but they blind the sufferer to that fact.

Manics are dangerous as Hell. They often commit crimes in episodes, and they are commonly arrested and jailed, often many times, typically at least once per episode.

They are also extremely aggressive and, yes, violent.

They have a very high rate of being arrested for violent crimes, like 22%. I’m surprised it’s that low. And they have a very high homicide rate, vastly above average.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Statement on White Supremacy and the Superiority/Inferiority of Different Races

Just for the record, I don’t think Whites are superior to all other races. I’m not a White Supremacist. I don’t care how many objective scientific arguments you can string together  showing how Whites are better than all the others. I simply don’t buy it. Anyway, you will never prove scientifically that Whites are superior to everyone else. Science is not going to buy it, folks.

Because at the end of the day, superiority and inferiority is subjective, like beauty and a million other things. If you think you’re better, then you are in a way. If you think you’re worse, then you are too in a sense. At least you will act superior or inferior if you feel this way.

Don’t get me wrong. I love White people, White culture, White everything, you name it. After all, I am the Great White Man!

But that’s just a personal preference for my own kind and what I was raised around. I’ve met Blacks and South Asians who also preferred to be around their own kind for similar reasons. That’s not racist at all and it’s your choice as a human with free agency.

On the other hand, I do think that Asians are the superior race. But I still don’t want to be an Asian. I like being White!

I also think that the new NE Asian/White hybrid race we are creating now may truly be a superior race, better than either race alone. I have hopes for this race. I also high good hopes for a lot of these odd new hybrid races coming out these days. I think the human future in a genetic and racial sense is promising.

Beyond that, I’m not going to discuss superiority or inferiority with regard to Whites and South Indians, Arabs, Blacks, Pacific Islanders, Amerindians, and Inuit, or even any of the latter groups with each other.

I’m willing to admit that within races there are superior and inferior stocks.

On various levels, I think that US/UK Blacks are a superior breed than African and even Caribbean Blacks. Along the same lines, Gypsies are inferior to other South Indians. Obviously, Jews are superior to the rest of the Whites in certain ways.

I’m sorry if I make anybody mad with these arguments, but I’m afraid that’s just how it’s going to be.

All of the SJW’s in the world are now invited to bombard with me with racism accusations for the  millionth time into the near future. I’m sure they will whether I invite them or not.

US Blacks should be proud. They are part of the probably the best stock of Blacks the world has ever produced. That’s something to feel good about.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

What Did Africans Look like 40-45,000 YBP?

Polar Bear: What’s your best guess on the 1/3 African? Khoisan maybe?

The commenter is referring to the genesis of the Caucasoid race in the Caucasus 40-45,000 YBP which was formed by an input of 2/3 Ancient “Chinese” and 1/3 Ancient Africans as per Stanford anthropologist Cavalli-Sforza’s groundbreaking research.

Incidentally, this great man is now being attacked by antiracist morons because he had the temerity to suggest that such things as human races either exist or used to exist. This scientific fact is now banned by anti-science Cultural Left obscurantist “fundamentalists” who resemble the religious fundamentalists they hate more than they care to note.

The commenter is asking what the Ancient African component looked like, and then asks whether they looked like a Khoisanid type.

No one really knows the answer to this question because the Khoisan as a race are new. The Khoisan people go back 53,000 YBP, but before 10-15,000 YBP, they looked a lot different. But yes, those people were the ancestors of the Khoisanids.

Have you ever seen the reconstruction of the earliest Caucasian 35,000 YBP? He’s insanely ugly and he looks nothing like any type of modern Caucasoid. He doesn’t look like any modern race, but if anything, he looks somewhat Khoisanid. However, modern Khoisanids are rather attractive people, and this ancient Caucasian looks awful. I think when God was handing out looks, this guy thought God said books, and  he said “I prefer horror.”

I haven’t seen any reconstructions of these ancient Africans, so no one quite knows what they might have looked like.

But only the Khoisan and the Pygmies remain of those ancient Africans. However, the ancestors of the Khoisan probably didn’t look Khoisan, and we don’t know what the ancestors of the Pygmies looked like because the jungle consumes and reduces everything to raw soil, including human bones.

And keep in mind that at the time we went out of Africa 70,000 YBP, there were 40 different groups in Africa, and they were all extremely different from one another. We don’t know what any of those people looked like. An ancient skull from South Africa 35,000 YBP looks “Caucasoid.”

But this is just yet another case of the parallel development that I discussed in this post in which “Caucasoid” is a frequent property of human skulls whether of the Caucasoid race or not simply because the phenotypes available to man are only a small subset of all possible phenotypes.

Hence, “Mongoloid,” “Caucasoid,” and “African” phenotypes pop up regularly outside of those groups. To give an example, many Australoids appear “African.” This includes Negritos, and other Melanesians. Some Africans such as the Khoisan appear “Asian.” And on and on. Therefore we can’t tell just by looking at a human which of the 3-4 large human races that they belong to.

Only two of those 40 groups present in Africa when we left are among those that left Africa, and at one point, those two groups out of Africa groups suffered a mass extinction event to where they were reduced to 1,500-2,000 people, possibly due to the Toba Volcano eruption in India 73,000 YBP.

What’s interesting is that there were already modern humans in India a the time of this eruption, and this is earlier than the usual 60,000 YBP date for humans leaving Africa. That there were people already in India before the Out of Africa date shows that some humans left Africa even before the given date.

This reduction of a large population to a very small number via mass death is known as a bottleneck, and it is known that we non-African humans definitely went through an evolutionary bottleneck. Other species can also go through bottlenecks in their evolutionary history.

These bottlenecks, while devastating in terms of mass death, are often good on an evolutionary basis in terms of fitness. Often only the fittest survive these events in other words, leaving a more robust and adaptive population after the bottleneck.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

“Judgement Day,” by Alpha Unit

The British cargo ship Norham Castle, built in Glasgow, was launched in 1869 as a tea clipper for the trade with China. Clipper ships, sleek and three-masted, were designed for speed. Their production took off in the 1840s because of a growing demand for faster delivery of tea from China.

The Norham Castle transported tea and eventually mixed cargoes to places including Australia and New Zealand. In 1883 she was sailing near the Sunda Strait, which is located between the Indonesian islands of Java and Sumatra. It just so happens that most of Indonesia’s more than 130 active volcanoes lie between Java and Sumatra, the most famous being the stratovolcano (the steepest and most deadly kind) known to Westerners as Krakatoa.

By the summer of 1883 seismic activity around Krakatoa had been intensifying for months, producing earthquakes, steam venting, and ash eruptions. The three peaks of Krakatoa served as an exit for a huge magma chamber beneath. There is some speculation that an earlier eruption had clogged the neck of one of the peaks, creating an incredible amount of pressure building up below the blockage. The volcano was overdue for a climax.

Around 1:00 p.m. on August 26, a volcanic eruption sent a cloud of gas and debris about 15 miles into the air. The eruption was continuous, with numerous explosions. Capt. W.J. Watson of the Irish merchant ship Charles Bal reported that the noise was like the continuous discharge of heavy artillery. The noise intensified and was accompanied by a hail of ash and pumice. Ash eventually blanketed everything within thousands of square miles, plunging the area into darkness that would last two and a half days.

Capt. Watson said that the intense blackness made it impossible to see to any distance. There was also a small tsunami on the shores of Java and Sumatra.

Early in the morning on August 27, a series of explosions began triggering more tsunamis. The third of these explosions was the most horrific, so violent that it was heard about 1,900 miles away in Western Australia – and about 3,000 miles away on the Indian Ocean island of Rodrigues. People there thought the blasts were cannon fire from a nearby ship.

The noise from this explosion is arguably the loudest sound ever recorded. The barometer at a gasworks in Batavia (now Jakarta), 100 miles from Krakatoa, registered a spike in pressure of over 2.5 inches of mercury, which converts to over 172 decibels, at 100 miles from the source. (For context, if you were operating a jackhammer you would be subject to 100 decibels.)

At above 194 decibels, sound waves stop traveling through the air and begin pushing the air along with them – and the resulting “wind,” or shock wave, can blow anything in its path to pieces. Closer to Krakatoa the sound was well over this limit.

The shock waves created by the Krakatoa eruption shattered windows and shook homes within a 100-mile radius of the volcano. The shock waves were so powerful that they were recorded by barometric stations around the globe.

The tsunamis created by the eruption proved most deadly. More than 36,000 people were swept out to sea in the series of tsunamis caused by the volcano’s collapse, which created a wall of water over 100 feet high that wiped out scores of coastal villages on Java and Sumatra. The tsunami carried the Dutch ship Berouw a mile inland, killing all 28 crew.

The eruptions also created pyroclastic flows – avalanches of lava, ash, and pumice. These flows scorched everything in their path, whether passing ships or coastal villages. Michael Bubb writes:

Of the 36,000 deaths, around 4,500 were attributed to the pyroclastic flows which would have arrived just after the tsunamis. Most likely the 4,500 who met their fate with the flows had reached higher ground or shelter to avoid the rushing water, only to be engulfed in fire and ash.

Unimaginable horror was unfolding on the Sunda islands.

This catastrophe marked a series of “firsts,” says geologist David Bressan. It was the first global catastrophe and the first news story to go around the world, thanks to modern communications.

As the Sunda Strait was and still is an important passage from the Indian Ocean to the Chinese Sea, news about the eruption and destruction of harbors and lighthouses in the area were of special interest to merchants, politicians, and the public in general…

Krakatoa was also the first scientifically well recorded and studied eruption of a volcano, from the very beginning to its disastrous ending.

The study of what was left of the former island of Krakatoa also spawned a new scientific discipline: disturbance ecology. Observations made at Krakatoa were valuable for understanding the colonization of devastated or newly formed terrain.

And what of the clipper Norham Castle? On Sunday, August 26, the vessel was at the eastern entrance of the Sunda Strait, along with another ship, the Sir Robert Sale. On Monday morning both vessels entered the Strait but because of blackened skies neither made much progress.

Capt. O. Sampson of the Norham Castle reported that Krakatoa “appeared to be alight with flickering flames rising behind a dense black cloud; at the same time balls of fire rested on the mastheads and extremities of the yardarms.”

In the wake of the devastating eruption, Capt. Sampson wrote in his official log:

I am writing this blind in pitch blackness. We are under a continual rain of pumice and dust. So violent are the explosions that the eardrums of over half my crew have been shattered. My last thoughts are with my dear wife. I am convinced the Day of Judgement has come.

By the morning of Tuesday, August 28, Krakatoa had gone silent. The volcanic island had almost entirely sunk, except for the southern third. The blackness of the sky was slowly beginning to lift. The Sir Robert Sale and the Norham Castle finally made it through the Strait.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Teenage Girls Look So Great Because Their Bodies Are Completely Abnormal and Non-adaptive

If you have ever looked at teenage girls very much (and I know all of you perverts have, quit lying now) you will notice something interesting. Girls from age ~16-~18 have very interesting bodies. In male fantasy, these bodies are absolutely perfect.

For it is mostly in girls this age that you see the male dream of a girl who is quite thin with the most outrageous curvy body! Normally it just doesn’t work that way. Small body, small tits. You want the big tits? Fine. Resign yourself to a big lady. Big tits come on big women. Big tits don’t come on skinny women except if she has plastic surgery, but then she has created a type of human that does not exist in nature other than in the teenage girl.

These girls look so great because their bodies are completely abnormal! Those bodies are not adaptive at all. Forget it. That body is very poorly adapted to womanhood. This simple reason for that is that a girl in that age range still has a somewhat immature body, believe it or not. Most believe that we quit growing around age 17, but while that’s true for height, it’s not so true for development. Because a 16-18 year old girl has a body that is poorly adapted for pregnancy!

Yes, a  16-18 year old girl has hips that are not wide enough yet to carry a baby to term properly. This is one of the reasons for the increased rates of pregnancy complications among girls this age.

And at ages 18-19, a girl’s hips finally widen to the proper width of a grown woman’s. Only now is she fully adapted to carry a baby to term. So you see what turns us on so much is a body that is not even really normal for a human being! It’s immature and completely non-adaptive. We are being attracted to an illusion, an impostor, a fakery.

I have always marveled at the intelligence of primitive peoples. I did a lot of ethnographic work on the Hmong at university. In fact, I read an entire ethnography (cultural history) of the Hmong – ~300 pages. An ethnography is to anthropology what a grammar is to linguistics. A grammar is a complete record of the language of a people, and an ethnography is a complete record of the culture of a people.

A lot of the work was done in the 1950’s. At this time the Hmong had almost no exposure to any sort of modern anything. They still lived very primitive lives as hunter-gatherers and swidden agriculturalists. Most of their knowledge of people and even medicine was traditional.

According to Hmong tradition, pregnancy in women is best delayed until ages 19-20. Before that, the Hmong feel that the pregnancy is more likely to have problems. What is fascinating about this is that this is exactly the age at which a woman’s hips widen enough to properly carry a baby. Before those ages, as noted, a female’s hips are not wide enough to properly carry a baby.

I doubt if the Hmong figured out about the hips widening, but they had figured out via the wisdom of the ancients (knowledge of which is now completely trashed as bigoted and stereotypical by SJW’s) that it was better to wait until 19 or 20 to have a kid versus before those ages. Ancient knowledge of which has now been conclusively proven by modern medical science. But they figured it out on their own.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Newsflash! Human Heads Are Too Big for Women’s Vaginas!

Here.

Newsflash! Human heads are too big for women’s vaginas! This is a known problem and is why childbirth is so painful in humans. On the other hand, these huge heads of ours are what make us so damned smart. For some reason, women’s pelvises didn’t widen along with the enlarged heads. On the other hand, women with pelvises that large would probably not be real attractive to us modern men.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: How Many People Are Gay? The 10% Lie of Gay Identity Politics

No, 10% of the population is not gay.

The 10% figure is the biggest gay IP lie of them all, and they’ve gotten most people to believe in it. It goes back to the deeply flawed Kinsey study, and their gay percentages have never been found by any other study.

The Kinsey study also found that 37% of all men had had at least one homosexual experience. Nothing close to this has been found by any other study although two studies did find that 25% of men had engaged in homosexual behavior at least once.

The first finding was from a Playboy study in 1974. One study found that the 25% figure was for age 18, so that’s how many boys did gay stuff in adolescence. But a lot of boys do gay bullshit in adolescence (circle jerks) and almost all of them are not gay at all. Other studies do not find anywhere close to that figure, but they may not be doing the methodology right.

And even the Kinsey study did not find 10% of all people were gay. They found that for men, but those were just men who had lived a gay lifestyle for three or more years. Men who had been predominantly gay their whole lives was once again something like 3%, which is exactly what we get nowadays.

How many Americans are gay? 2%.
3% of men are gay or bisexual.
1% of women are lesbians.

Source: Every study ever.

Some recent studies are showing higher numbers for these generations, Gen Z and the Millennials. Among British males 18-30, 6% are gay. Over 50% self-identify as “non-heterosexual” whatever the Hell that is. But those two cohorts are part of what I call Generation Fag. Sorry, readers in these cohorts, I am not calling you guys faggots ha ha. Instead I am saying that there is a lot more male homosexuality in your generations. But still almost all of your generations are straight.

So the rate of gay men and men who self-ID as non-straight and those who identify as gay is clearly rising among these new generations. In my generation, 2% of men are gay, and in these younger cohorts, 6% of men are gay. So is the rate really going up, or are more just coming out of the closet?

It’s a chicken or egg problem, and it’s almost impossible to figure out the answer because Gay IP has set up a trap door in the question. According to Gay IP, every time rates of homosexuality go up, it is because more gays are coming out of the closet. If rates of homosexuality decline, that is because more of them are going back in the closet!

Obviously this crazy argument is not correct. Actually it’s even worse than that. It’s not even wrong! Instead it’s completely non-falsifiable like so many stupid IP arguments, so it’s automatically garbage theory.

If the rate is really on the rise, this would seem to put a kibosh in the idea that almost all gay men are biologically gay. How would a biological factor double in such a short period of time? I don’t think it can. Certainly a genetic factor cannot increase in that period of time.

The theory is that male homosexuality (and a lot of lesbianism and male transsexualism) is a developmental disorder, caused by hormonal fluctuations in the mother while the fetus is in the womb.

I swear I read this a while ago, but now I can’t find not can I find a reference to this anywhere, but I read on the Net years back that when Czechoslovakia left Communism and broke up, the new Czech Republic instituted strict monitoring of women’s hormonal levels in the womb. Where the level was off, it was leveled out somehow or other.

The rate of male homosexuality and male transsexualism among the children so monitored nearly collapsed over the course of time when they were doing this. If this is true, it is very interesting a possible cure for homosexuality and transsexualism or a way to stop homosexuality and transsexualism from developing in the first place.

Now perhaps I am remembering this statement I read incorrectly. I’ve done so before with other things. I’m sure about such and such a fact as I have read it somewhere, but when I go back and check, I am remembering it wrong and it didn’t say that at all. That’s the Rashomon Effect.

Three studies in the West found that 12-20% (16%) of young women, 18-30, are bisexual. So the rate of bisexuality in young women is clearly rising dramatically. Obviously they weren’t all “born that way.”

So we can state for certain that many bisexual women do not appear to have been born that way at all but instead are adopting this identity as part of a fad. Young women are mostly engaging in lesbian sex to turn on men because men like to see in as it turns them on. Lesbians despise these bisexuals and say they are fake. They call them “hard-on lesbians.” It’s obviously socially constructed behavior, and a lot of it is being copied out of porn.

Anecdotally, I am seeing a lot more male bisexuality these days. Surveys are not picking it up but maybe they are not doing the surveys correctly. I run into stories about young men doing this all the time, and I have met a number of men who are doing this. Basically all of these men would have just been straight like you, me or any of my male readers in any prior era.

They’re just engaging in gay sex as part of a fad or just for shits and giggles. They’re doing it simply for recreation because they are perverts. I don’t like this nonsense because unlike biological gays who have no choice, these men could perfectly well choose not to do this.

As far as my male readers go, I discourage it. But you guys can do whatever you want with your dicks. I’m no moralfag and I’m kind of a scum myself, so I shouldn’t judge. So just don’t tell me about if you like to put dicks in your mouth, please.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

The Myth of Illegal Drugs Frying Your Brain and Permafried People

In response to Jason’s post here about drug use frying your brain, I have written this response. In general, the notion that the use of illegal drugs will fry your brain or make you permafried even after you quit is nonsense. In general, once you quit you go back to the intelligence and sanity level you were at before you started. Few people get permanently lowered intelligence or permanent mental illness from former drug use.

Most illegal drugs do not cause any permanent damage to your brain that would affect you permanently after you quit.

In all of my years using drugs, I have met 10,000’s of drug users and I never met one person who had used so much drugs that they were “fried” in the sense that they were permanently stupid or crazy after they quit using.

Cocaine

There may be some consequences far down the road – say, with Parkinson’s.

Jason’s article discusses an increased risk of Parkinson’s in former cocaine users. But it’s not really due to brain damages so much as changes in a certain receptor that make someone more vulnerable to a toxin. That’s not the same thing as having a fried brain.

I knew a heavy cocaine user who appeared to have neurological problems from the drug. But I am not sure if it persisted after he quit, if he ever did quit. But he’s the only person I’ve ever met like that, and even he wasn’t fried at all. He was still very intelligent and completely sane. However, he did appear to have some sort of brain damage. Whether it was permanent or not is not known.

LSD

I have known people who took LSD up to 700 times, and I know a number who took LSD 300 times. LSD doesn’t damage your brain anyway. It can cause some changes in the visual system due to permanent changes in serotonin receptors, but that just causes some perceptual problems, and this is mostly in people who have taken it 50+ times. It doesn’t change effect you in any way that changes the way you think or feel, in other words, it doesn’t make you stupid or nuts.

There are some very heavy former LSD users who seem to have permanent hallucinations, but those people took a lot of acid over a short period of time – like way, way too much acid. It’s not known what’s going on with them, but I suppose they are permafried in a sense.

LSD is a dangerous drug.

Cannabis

I know many people who have been smoking pot for 10, 20, or even 30 years, and there’s nothing wrong with any of them. You wouldn’t think there was anything wrong with them if you met them. They’re not damaged at all.

The pot lowering IQ discussed in Jason’s piece is only for use before you are 18. If you start using at age 18 or after, there’s no effect on IQ. People under 18 need to be very careful about pot because it can indeed lower their IQ’s a bit.

Pot doesn’t give you schizophrenia, period. The most it can do is trigger it if you are already vulnerable, but even then, most of those people would have gotten it anyway. But it can definitely bring it on sooner than it would have otherwise.

The rate of schizophrenia has been flat for 60 years, all through the 1960’s, 70’s, 80’s, 90’s, 2000’s and 2010’s, and all sorts of drug use rates for different drugs skyrocketed at various times in that period. In other words, neither cannabis nor any other drug is going to give you schizophrenia with one exception discussed below.

MDMA

MDMA is a very dangerous drug and it can definitely cause physical damage to your brain. It permanently lowers scores on a few aspects of intelligence tests such as vocabulary, but you mostly can’t notice any changes and there do not appear to be any changes in mental stability. In general, it doesn’t make you stupid or nuts.

However, there are some people called e-tards out there who took a lot of MDMA very frequently over relatively short of periods of time, and these people appear to be permafried. Mostly they seem a bit stupid.

However, I have heard that even these effects of MDMA go away after ~7-8 years if you stay away from the drug.

 

Speed is another matter but even that tends to clear up after you quit. There are some very heavy methamphetamine users, especially people who shot the drug, who have developed an illness that looks a lot like or possibly is paranoid schizophrenia.

There are some recorded cases out of Japan, and a friend told me about another case here in California. This is not a common outcome and even with all the heavy meth abuse that is going on nowadays, you don’t hear much about people being permafried in the sense that they become permanently mentally ill with paranoid schizophrenia.

Heavy Polydrug and Alcohol Abuse for Decades (30 years)

I have heard of one person who used huge amounts of drugs and drank very heavily over many years, starting as an adolescent. They are now off of everything, and they have a rather poor short-term memory and forget stuff a lot, but other than that, they are still extremely intelligent.

They are also a bit suspicious and paranoid, but not at the level of a paranoid psychosis. I suppose this man is permafried in a sense, but if you met him, you would not appear stupid or crazy.

Conclusion

Bottom line is a lot of that stuff can mess you up pretty bad while you are on it so you seem stupid, crazy, or even brain damaged. But most if not all of that tends to clear up when you quit. Permafried people who are permanently stupid or nuts from heavy drug use must be awfully rare because I haven’t met one in my entire life. The fried brains and permafried nonsense is mostly mythology.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Feminism Is Shoveling Sand against 100,000 Years of Tide

The fact that Players are typically treated as heroes in most societies by both genders and across age groups is another reason why feminism goes against human nature.

That is why this new feminist reaction that somehow Players are evil, scumbags , pedophiles (!), creeps (!), losers (!), criminals (!), and deserving of contempt and increasingly arrest and imprisonment for the crime of being a male mammal is bizarre. Feminists are part of the Cultural Left. As usual, the feminists, as part of the SJW Left, are trying to destroy human nature.

They are acting like 100,000 years of human history of continuous biological behavioral trends either never happened or are irrelevant. You hear feminists say over and over, “But we are modern now. We have decided you can’t be that way anymore,” about this or that. Feminists, like all SJW’s, are trying like the Communists to create a New Man, in the Communists’ case free of capitalism and selfishness and in the SJW’s case liberated from 100,000 years of evolution.

We are supposed to shrug off a hundred millennia of biological habit as if it never occurred. We are supposed to create a New SJW Man torn free from the roots of his past.

Feminists are also trying to create some New SJW Woman or at least they are lying about the basic nature of women, which is extremely consistent across thousands of cultures and over millennia of written record.

According to feminists, and the Cultural Left in general:

  • Everything your grandfather taught you is wrong.
  • Every human society that ever existed was wrong.

The New Feminist Woman is not working out. Women are simply being women just like they always have in spite of the feminists. Feminists are reacting to the intractable nature of female behavior by both denying it is happening now and denying that it ever existed in the first place.

In other words, feminists are lying like all SJW’s  and IP types. Since all SJW’s and IP types are about denying everything negative about whatever identity they are about, all SJW and IP movements are characterized by constant lying of nearly tidal wave proportions.

The new hatred and even criminalization of Players goes against 100,000 years of human evolution and ultimately shows that Female Rule fails, probably because Female Rule ends up being utopian and based on universal justice when unfortunately, there is no such thing.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Game/PUA: Everyone Loves the Player

At least in any normal society, that is. As in, every single non-feminist-fucked society on Earth.

A Hero among Men

If the Player is very humble or even acts embarrassed of his success, other men will respond very well. In Man World, Players are often treated as sort of heroes for some reason.

This goes for men of all ages and even boys, teenage boys, and even prepubertal boys. And it goes for all ages of men – young men of course, but also middle aged men think Players are hilarious and heroic figures. Oddly, even elderly men fall into convulsive laughter over the Player’s exploits, pat him on the back, and treat him like a hero.

In fact, humor is a typical reaction to the player. Males of all ages will roll on the floor laughing at the antics of the Player. For some reason, he’s absolutely hilarious.

And a Hero among Women, Too

Many adult women also treat Players this way. A lot of women think Players are funny. They burst into laughter when they meet one or hear of his exploits.

Girls, even prepubertal girls, act rather amazed, amused, and giggly about the Player. This applies especially when they are 10-12, when they are starting to get a bit curious about boys. Younger girls don’t understand male-female dynamics very well.

Married women chuckle and think he is funny. Oddly enough, most old women also find him absolutely hilarious. Once again, as we see with men, the Player is an object of comedy and hilarity. Why?

A Hero in Most Traditional Cultures, Too

I figure that this is the normal way that any society treats the Player. Traditional societies apparently are a bit in awe of him, and the men quite possibly treat him as some male hero figure. The women are stunned by him, some want to date him, and most think he is humorous or hilarious. This seems to be the natural, normal way that most human societies treat the enigma known as the Player.

Keep in mind that Players are basically Alphas by default. On one Manosphere site, one man said if you have had sex with 100 females, you are an Alpha period – no ifs, ands, or buts about it. If you have a high enough lay count, you cannot not be an Alpha. That’s probably correct. Only 6% of men have three-figure laycounts. I would wager that most if not all of them are Alphas.

Furthermore, I doubt if there are many Beta Players out there. The nature of the Beta seems to imply that he’s usually not a Player. An Omega Player is literally not even possible due to the nature of the Omega. Alphas are 15-20% of male society, and that’s probably the maximum number of males who are Players in any age group.

You can’t have a society where every man, or even a majority of men, are Players. Well, you could. That would be gay male culture. But I do not think that straight society will ever resemble gay male culture. If anything, it’s the opposite, as the growth of hypergamy and the damage left in its wake such as incels show us.

It’s Human Evolution Talking – the Voice of Hundreds of Thousands of Years

The normal society reaction to the Player is probably rooted in evolution. See the elephant seal, buck, or stallion with his harem. Get it? It’s evolution in action. The Player is a male two-legged ape with a harem. We are mammals after all.

If you really want to understand human males and females, study those female deer, elephant seals, and sheep. Study those male elk, seals, and horses.

I have learned more about human males and females by studying the so-called lower mammals than from studying humans. Everything starts to add up and finally make sense. We are doomed to be mammals no matter how hard to we try to escape the bestial trap. We cannot not be mammals. As with everything else, when it comes to mammalian behavior in humans, Nature bats last.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

PUA/Game: Casting Spells on Women

Rep: But then I had a relationship at age 29-32. It destroyed me on an emotional level, and she left me. Now I’m 33. It’s been a year and a half since she left.

And it appears I have like a bad spell on me. Even my photos online don’t seem to work. The different is HUGE. I even tried using my old photos which worked back then and got the same result. It’s as if I have an aura that they don’t want, and it even telepathically gets to them or something behind their mobile screen!

Has this ever happened to you? Any tips to flush that bad spell away? It makes me crazy, like I feel like telling them: “No! No! This is mistaken identity! In actuality, I *am* a stud!” And I was. I didn’t gain weight or anything.

Sometimes I feel like I have that bad spell on me too, and they can read some sort of bad vibes even through the damned cellphone without ever seeing me or hearing my voice one time. I don’t know what to do about it, honestly.

On the other side of the wall, I’ve also been able to actually cast love spells on them somehow. No idea how I do it, but over and over again, women say it seems like a cast a spell on them.

What are you, a warlock?…What have you done to me?…I feel like I am under your spell.

They often say that they are horny all the time, from morning until night, and that they want to masturbate all the time. And they often say they have never felt this way before.

I laughed at one, an 18 year old girl. She was getting frustrated: “Take it off. Take off the spell.” She told me she was horny and wet from the time she got up in the morning til the time she went to bed at night, and she had never felt that way before.

I laughed and told her that that’s how it’s supposed to work. Then I laughed again and refused to take the spell off. She pouted. I laughed at her again, this time right in her face. She looked at me like she was going to slap me, but then her expression changed. It was as if she was thinking, “This guy’s so arrogant I want to slap his face. But then I think again, and I realize, ‘But I like that.'”

I haven’t the faintest idea if I am really casting spells on them. I do it in my mind like a magician. I concentrate all my mental energy into an intense spell, which feels like a pure wave of silver-bright energy. I have no idea if it is real or not.

For all I know this may be working off of  some known psychological mechanism. Or maybe magic itself works off of some psychological mechanism, known or unknown.

After all, the universe is ruled by the laws of physics. Everything that happens in the world, even magic, spells, ghosts, poltergeists, levitation, any of that stuff, whether it’s true or happens or not, I will tell you one thing for sure, if there is anything to any of those insane  “pseudoscience” phenomena, I assure you that they are working via the known laws of physics.

The universe operates on a couple of basic principles:

  • Inside the laws of physics, every actually existing thing in the universe.
  • Outside the laws of physics, nothing at all, anywhere, at any time, ever.
Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

How Did the Polynesians Get So Huge?

Polar Bear: Polynesians fascinate me because they have Asian (SEA or Taiwan) roots and big builds. The Austronesian women they descend from must’ve been large and in charge.

Good theory but that’s not what happened. They went on long sea voyages to populate the Polynesian islands, but first, they came from Taiwan all the way to Papua New Guinea, which was also a very long voyage.

These were the Lapita people from Taiwan and later from coastal New Guinea and then on to Polynesia. The Lapitas were the greatest mariners who ever lived! And they were around a very long time ago. They are thought to have navigated by the stars.

I did a lot of work on another group of ancient Indo-European people speaking a now extinct language (Liburnian) on the Croatian islands. They were also thought to be amazing navigators. Some people think they even went to India! They also navigated by the stars. It’s pretty amazing that primitive people could figure something like that out so accurately.

Obviously the big problem at sea is fresh water. There are probably always plenty of fish to catch and eat and you can live off of those.

Scurvy was possibly not yet a problem for whatever reason and only turned up among British mariners later on. It’s amazing how they figured that one out too.

Sailors kept getting scurvy. It was Vitamin C deficiency because they were living off hard tack (a form of hard bread) and water, pretty much. Well, scurvy can make you pretty ill. I suppose some sailor at some point must have had some citrus with him on a ship, and when everyone else got scurvy, he avoided it.

And humans are intelligent enough to put two and two together when something like that happens. “Let’s see. What’s this guy doing that no one else is doing? How’s he not getting it? He’s eating citrus!”

Or they went back into port and those who ate citrus right away got better fastest. Who knows! All we know is back then people didn’t even understand about vitamins and minerals, much less deficiencies and yet somehow they figured out that you needed to bring citrus with you on ship voyages to keep from getting scurvy.

Incidentally this is where the word Limey for British person comes from. British were also the greatest mariners of their own time and at one time, the Union Jack ruled over all the High Seas. Spain was the previous power but the turning point came with the Defeat of the Spanish Armada by the British in the early 1500’s. British sailors had limes aboard their ship to eat to keep from getting scurvy, hence, the slang term.

Anyway somehow or other the Polynesians managed to have enough water with them for these long voyages.

How on Earth did they know that they would find islands out there somewhere? Many of those islands are a long way from anything else.  They could have kept sailing on and on and never found any island anywhere, at which point, they would all die.

Anyway they somehow had enough water and food to survive. But the theory is that things were very difficult on these long voyages, and only those who could best withstand famine and other harsh conditions survived. So by the end of the voyage, only the biggest and strongest were still alive – all the others were dead.

Well, it’s obviously a just-so story like so many evolutionary explanations, but at least it’s a theory. And I ask the detractors of this theory: Fine, do you have a better theory? Of course they never do.

 

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Modern Science Has It All Backwards

This is what science is boiling down to nowadays – a School of Negativity where we spend most of our time shooting down theories and saying there’s not enough evidence for them, while offering no substitute theories or offering substitute theories that are pathetically bad.

I do not believe that scientific theory is like a court of law. Theories do not need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and they’re pretty much all up for grabs anyway and “only true for now” or “true until we can come up with a better explanation.” Instead, I believe that when you have competing theories, you simply choose the theory that best explains the evidence. It doesn’t have to be perfect.

It can have holes itself and believe me, most “proven” theories have all sorts of holes. Filling in the holes comes after you prove the theory.

We have gotten away from that in science and instead of being in the business of explicating what the truths and mechanisms behind the world are, what we are doing is explaining what the truths and mechanisms of the world are not, without offering any alternate explanation or offering an  alternate theory that is pathetically bad and much worse and less explanatory than the theory that is being shot down for “lack of evidence.”

 

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

How to Set Something on Fire with a Magnifying Glass

SHI: Snails, ants and bugs? I say holocaust them.

Well, all boys kill insects. Or most of them do. Did you ever kill insects with a magnifying glass? It’s a blast.

You take a slow-moving bug and put it on the sidewalk on a hot sunny day. Then you point the magnifying glass at the bug and turn the glass a certain way so that its reflection becomes a single sharp point of light. I forget what is going on. You may have to converge two points of light together.

Anyway you get this single convergence of light, and it looks very bright and hot. You point this nexus of hot light at the bug, and shortly, the bug actually catches on fire! Yep, you are concentrating the sun’s rays so well that you can actually set things on fire. I assume you could set other things on fire this way such as dried grass or maybe even flammable wood. I think for sure you can burn paper this way because I think we used to set paper on fire like this.

What’s going on. Apparently the glass concentrates or channels the heat of the sun enough somehow that it the heat of the sun can actually start a fire. You can also use any piece of glass or even your eyeglasses! You have to keep moving that magnifying glass until you get that point of hot light down to a small dot about 1/4 inch in diameter. Only then will the sun’s heat be concentrated enough to start the fire.

The science itself. Involves things called photons which  carry the light (and heat) of the sun down to Earth. The magnifying glass is convex so it gathers the photons in a single place all together and the combined heat of the photons concentrated on that spot start a fire.

The temperature has to get up to 451 degrees (remember the Ray Bradbury book?) in order to start the fire. That’s hot enough to burn your skin so never put your finger in that spot of light and never point the magnifying glass at your skin and do this.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: The Dangers of Medical Transition for Transsexuals, Especially During Childhood

I hope to do quite a few papers on this subject. In general there is no such thing as transsexualism and there is no such thing as transsexuals. Nobody is born in the wrong body.

~10% of transsexuals, mostly gay transwomen, do have a female-shifted brain, but it is not an actual female brain. Their brain is simply in between a male and female brain, so it is female-shifted if you will. But there is no one who is stuck in the  wrong body. No one has a female brain in a male body or vice versa.

And a recent flood of new cases, mostly in teenage girls, is simply a mental illness being caused by social contagion. In this sense it is quite similar to Anorexia Nervosa and in fact, these girls resemble anorexics in  many ways. All of this is completely fake. None is real at all.

I have to have some sympathy for some transsexuals, mostly gay transwomen. These boys have stubbornly insisted that they were girls from an early age such as two or three. Such cases are intransigent and resistant to treatment. I am just fine with transition for these folks.

The rest are just mostly very effeminate gay men who are so effeminate that they think  they are women, sort of an extreme form of homosexuality.

Many transmen are simply very butch lesbians. Whereas in the past they would simply have identified as lesbians and lived their lives this way (something I am just fine with in these cases as I feel it is biological), now they are insisting that they are really men and transitioning. As might be expected a lot of lesbians are pretty mad about this. They hate men enough anyway, and now many of the recent crop of lesbians are insisting that they are the hated gender. Oh noes!

Puberty blockers are catastrophic and they are being given out en masse to very young children nowadays. The results are disastrous and I think this should be done seldom if ever.

Risks of puberty blockers: Sterility and permanent loss of sexual function. Very high levels of sterility. Impairment of bone mineralization, hence weak bones that easily break. Impairment of proper hip development (females only). Results in a male hip instead of a proper hourglass shaped female hip.

Risks cross-sex hormones for MtF only: 5X rate of throboembolic disease. The estrogen causes blood clots in these men’s veins, how I have no idea. Gynecomastia, rarely reversible. These men develop female-type breasts or moobs that never  go away.

Risks of cross-sex hormones for FtM only: Hirsutism, very difficult to reverse. They will have hairy bodies for the rest of their lives even is they detransition. For instance, even if these women go back to being women, they will still have to shave their faces for the rest of their lives. Deeper voice – this is permanent.

Risks of cross-sex hormones only: Elevated heart attack rate, possibly in both sexes.

Transition unnecessary in childhood – no need for immediate transition to prevent suicide: No evidence that transition with drugs and surgery before adulthood reduces the trans suicide rate.

Fake disorder – transsexualism is not real – they are all just mentally ill: Rates of mental disorder and autism among FtM transsexuals are very high, mostly Borderline Personality Disorder and autism.

Unnecessary – goes away on its own: 80% of childhood onset gender dysphoria resolves, often with puberty.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Narcissism and Psychopathy Are on Continua Too

Very good book.

I just finished reading this book.  It it titled The Psychopath Inside: A Neuroscientist’s Personal Journey into the Dark Side of the Brain

Author is a well known neuroscientist who discovered while looking at his brain scan that he is a psychopath himself! His scan looks exactly like that of a criminal psychopath. He is what is called a prosocial psychopath. These types or even a lot of the antisocial noncriminal psychopaths types are everywhere in politics, business, law enforcement, the military, law, and medicine. Psychopaths are attracted to all of those fields and all of these areas of work are swarming with those jerks. Most antisocial noncriminal psychopaths never spend one day of their lives in a jail or prison. They are what I like to call legal criminals, always skating  just on the edge of the law. Our government (see Mr. Trump) and many corporations are full of these “legal criminals.” I don’t think too much of them honestly.

I’ve met a few apparent antisocial criminal psychopaths in my life. The last one was a 23 year old woman! You really need to stay away from them.

Every psychopath who entered my life ended up harming me. For the most part, they all stole from me. You won’t be able to befriend these people without getting used and harmed because that is exactly what they do to most if not all other humans. Nobody emerges unscathed from befriending a psychopath. You’re not going to get away with it!

Psychopathy is also a continuum, just like…everything! The PCL scale ranges from 0-40. 0’s and 40’s are not common. For instance, I assure you that I am absolutely not a 0! But I am not a psychopath either, although my score is  for sure somewhat elevated above that of  goody-goods, cop-lovers, authoritarians, and choir boys.

On the other hand, I don’t really victimize innocent people, unless you count women, but that’s debatable as all’s fair in love and war! Sexual relationships are generally outside of morality. They can be immoral but they have to be pretty bad to get to that point. Players, pump and dumpers, easy women, etc. are generally not behaving immorally.

30+ is a psychopath and 20+ has serious psychopathic traits. Even in 0-20, if you score a 6 on the scale, and someone else scores a 12, they will appear more psychopathic to you. If we look at the scale that way and pick out everyone who clearly has elevated psychopathy, we are talking about 10-20% of the population or maybe more. Maybe a lot more.

Most everything else in the world that is a subjective quality  is a continuum too. Philosophically, qualities and objects are different things. Objects are objective and generally are not on a continuum. An object either exists or it doesn’t, 100 or zero. There’s no such thing as part of an object or an object that is only there a little bit but not completely there.

For instance, all humans are narcissistic and you can score that on a scale too. Narcissism and self-esteem mean the same thing! So low narcissism means low self-esteem. And high narcissism means high self-esteem, which is considered to be normal and is actually thought of as good mental health, although some folks might find people with big egos like this a bit much.

Here we are into people who are vain, conceited, self-centered, etc. but nevertheless normal. None of those three things are indicative of narcissism.

Sure narcissists have all of those in spades, but narcissism goes far beyond that. Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is pathological narcissism (Trump), and if you have been around anyone like that, trust me, they are real bastards and get on your nerves real fast if you are reasonably sane.

They are very annoying people and actually they are rather mean, ugly, and hostile in many ways. NPD’s are not very nice people!They are also profoundly selfish. They really don’t care about you! It’s all about them. What’s all about them? Everything. Face it, you’re either a taker or a giver in life. Narcissists are takers, not givers. They don’t necessarily take from everyone, but they definitely don’t give to much of anyone either. All of their stuff, material and otherwise, is for them.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Apparently Facts Are Racist Now

I’ve been studying this issue deeply since ~1989. That’s 30 years or half my life. A  journal article by Richard Lynn set me off on this quest.  While it’s obvious that there are racial differences on average between the races, I’m not 100% clear about what causes them, but I doubt if it is racism.

My attitude is that Blacks are deliberately, of their own free will, creating really lousy cultures, and they can knock it off any time they want. In other words, Blacks need their shit  together. While that seems harsh, the alternate opinion, once you throw out racism, is that Black genes are inferior regarding intelligence, and this is where the test score differences come from. I think my view is a lot more Black-friendly, but that’s just me.

I am the odd liberal who even dares to talk about things like this. What is pathetic and rather terrifying is that I get pummeled mercilessly and called racist and ultra-racist for saying things like:

Presently Blacks score 13  points lower than Whites in IQ tests. I believe that IQ tests measure intelligence well and they are not biased in favor of Whites. I am not sure what is causing these differences. Obviously differential intelligence is going to explain a lot of the discrepancies between the races where Blacks seem to come out behind.

That is a perfectly noncontroversial opinion! The entire field of intelligence studies agrees that there’s a score gap.

And now nearly the entire field says that IQ tests measure intelligence well (they fought that one forever, but they caved on that one a while back). The left of this field caved on the question of whether the tests are biased in favor of Whites or not even before this latest cave.

The only argument now is over what is causing the differences, and it is raging right along. The fact is that both sides can collect at least a fair amount of evidence for their side. And at the moment, scholars of intelligence regard the question of what is causing these differences as unresolved.

The left of this field mischaracterizes this debate by saying that there is no evidence at all for the genetic side so it is a pathetic and racist argument. This is not true.

The awful nonscientific folks on the Left in the popular media are much worse, regarding  the Genetic Theory as racist pseudoscience. It most certainly is not pseudoscience and it’s not racist at all. It is simply a hypothesis, just as the Environmental Theory is also a hypothesis.

As I said, both sides have a fair amount of evidence for their case sufficient to make for  adequate scientific questions on their part. And instead of being a  pseudoscience, the Genetic Theory has accumulated a rather frightening amount of evidence for their side. However, the evidence is not yet probative, and the question is regarded as inconclusive and presently under debate.

And I’d rather sit this one out as far as conclusions go for a variety of reasons that I will not go into. But I will say that I do not regard the 15 point gap as set in stone and I believe the environment can close at least some of the gap.

So my statement is:

There is presently a 13 point discrepancy between Black and  White IQ scores (fact).

The tests are not biased against in favor of Whites (fact).

I am agnostic on whether the differences are due to environment or genetics. This is actually the official position of the intelligence studies field at the moment, so it’s hardly a racist position!

I believe that a number of the discrepancies between Blacks and Whites are due to this test score differential. This simply stands to reason. A 13 point lower intelligence score is obviously going to play out in all sorts of behavioral variables on the ground, right? I mean that’s just obvious.

So my statement above, for which I get absolutely pummeled for, is made up of two solid facts, the standard consensus of the field, and a statement that is simply obviously true.

See how crazy this is? If you state obvious, proven, scientific facts, you get destroyed for being a racist!

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: The Real Reason the Racist Right Won’t Shut Up about the B-W IQ Gap

I’ve been around this rightwing racists and their favorite science for a very long time now, and I know them extremely well. I have spent years on their forums and websites like American Renaissance, and in fact, I still comment there sometimes. I was for a time on an acquaintance basis with some of the top names in the field.

These were the “nice” suit and tie, classy racist types, and we emailed back and forth for a while. One thing I will tell about these people is that they are very classy. In all of our emailing, I did not hear nigger, spic, gook, or any other nasty racist slurs. The “nice racists” don’t talk like that. You see, they are too classy for that. But whether that makes them better people is debatable.

I won’t tell you any names because these people have become prominent now with Trump in office, and they are being called White Supremacists in the media and bashed to Kingdom Come.

Well, at the moment I would rather disassociate myself with White Supremacists for a variety of reasons, first and foremost of which is PR and covering my ass. Plus I don’t really believe in or resonate with that sort of yucky hardcore racism. It turns me off and it feels disgusting to even read it. It’s gross.

I read The Bell Curve and all the arguments against it. I know more about this question than probably anyone you will ever meet. I am acquainted with some of the top names in the intelligence field, and we communicate from time to time by email.

So trust me when I say that the text below describes 100% of the reasons why racist people, mostly Whites, love to jump all over the B-W IQ gap question, while the rest of us feel a bit queasy and nervous when we bring it up, as if we are being impolite (which we probably are).

These people have banners up on their websites about quests for the truth, how truth is the most important thing in science, and how all scientific truths must be examined. Well, they don’t really believe that. They are not involved in some dispassionate, non-biased, non-prejudicial search for the truth. There’s a very nasty political goal behind all of this perfectly valid yet uncomfortable science.

They really don’t give a damn about science at all. They just say they do because their race, the Whites, looks good when scientifically compared to a number of other races. So they get all sciency because the science gives them a shot of pride and boosts their chauvinism. If Whites had come out behind, these people, if they existed, would be bashing away at the science and talking about how biased it is.

The science here seems to uphold their nasty racism. Which why they suddenly love science so much!

But there’s more here than just vanity and prejudice. There is a very ugly politics lurking in back of this science. You see, these racists think that they can use this science, once it is proven mind you, to implement a variety of political projects that they are desperate to introduce. And it just so happens that all of those projects are hard rightwing conservative ideas.

Which is why, if you noticed, almost 100% of White nationalists and even garden-variety White racists are hard conservatives or Libertarians. Some of them go a lot further and say that when the B-W IQ gap question is decided in favor of genetics this will be the death of the Left.

So this is their ultimate weapon to destroy liberalism and the Left once and for all. Now personally, I don’t think even if this uncomfortable idea becomes a truth, it will destroy the Left. It will make our job harder, that’s for sure.

But one of the reasons that I founded the Alternative Left was to come up with a Left response to the uncomfortable scientific truths about race. In other words, what should be the agenda of the Left when it is determined that race is real and important (race realism)? What do we say? What do we do?

Below is a very nice summary from the Right that I found on the Internet about why the racist Right loves the B-W IQ gap thing so much. This is why they can’t stop talking about this rather rude question:

IQ differences between the races matters because it provides an alternative explanation for racial differences in education, income, social deviance, etc. that the Left would rather attribute to racism.

If IQ is primarily based on genetic factors, it also means that most Leftist policies such as affirmative action or racial quotas designed to “fight racism” are not going to be effective because they cannot close the IQ gap that is a primary cause of racial gaps in achievement.

Similarly, if low IQ is related to poverty, then Leftist welfare policies designed to “end poverty” will also be ineffective in the sense that they cannot boost the IQ that is the cause of the poverty. Thus IQ threatens the Left’s very mindset (i.e. racism explains everything) and the “problem solving” toolbox in trying to achieve their desired equality of results.

I will discuss this ugly politics which is what is really behind the racist Right pushing this controversy so hard in a post in the new future.  You hear them yelling, “Hey, we’re just unbiased scientists! Don’t be so mean!”? Well, just forget about that.

But trust me folks, this is what it’s all about. This is how the racist Right intends to use the science of race realism. Which leaves a very cynical and bitter taste in my mouth.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

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.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: What's Up with Toxic Masculinity?

The feminists and SJWtards have been tossing this concept around for a long time. First of all, we need to recognize that feminists wish to wipe masculinity off the face of the Earth. They don’t want any of us men to be masculine anymore. Only when we have renounced all of our masculinity, will we finally be free and will they finally be satisfied. For the record, the feminists also wish to abolish femininity because they hate that too. They want to get rid of every last bit of femininity in women.
Now these desires are most prominently seen in Radical Feminism. I am not sure how prominent they are among Third Wave Feminists. 3rd Wavers have been well know for saying that it is ok for feminists to wear dresses, heels, spandex, and makeup and to act as feminine as they wish. Women can wear this stuff and act this way and still be feminine!
However, Gloria Steinem is not a Radical Feminist and in a recent interview, she said her goal was to eliminate gender. I asked my mother what that meant and she said Steinem wants to get rid of masculinity and femininity because she thinks femininity oppresses women and holds them back.
Feminists have always hated femininity. It just dawned on me that this is why feminists cut their hair short, wear men’s clothes, refuse to shave their armpits or legs or use makeup and generally dress and act as much like men as possible, the end result being that most feminists have deliberately made themselves very ugly. This attempt to look like males is part of feminism’s war against the Beauty Industry, which they say oppresses women, and it is also a big middle finger to femininity.
All feminists, 2nd and 3rd wave, all believe that gender is a social construct. It is an article of faith among all modern feminists that there are no biological differences between men and women at all  other than the obvious and that there are no differences in our brains. Neither masculinity nor femininity have any biological basis at all. In spite of the fact that this seems ludicrous on its face, there has been quite a bit of good, hard research coming out in psychology journals involving studies with very young children which prove that masculinity in males and femininity in females have a biological basis.
Although radical feminists hate masculinity period (this can be observed by the fact that the only male radical feminists are gay men or very wimpy, feminine or even effeminate  straight men), 3rd Wavers seem to mostly wage war against Toxic Masculinity while supposedly arguing that there is some healthy type of masculinity that is not toxic.
I have done some research, and I still can’t figure out what toxic masculinity is. If you mean the hypermasculine strutting, swaggering, bragging, asshat, super-aggressive, dick-measuring contests and fistfights in the comments section you see on your typical horrific PUA site, then I would agree that that’s pretty toxic stuff. The thing is that the most toxically aggressive men, the most hostile, belligerent and unpleasant men of all, men who fight all of the other men around them, get the most women. So women love toxic masculinity. In fact, a recent study showed that women preferred toxically masculine men over men who lacked toxic masculinity.
Toxic masculinity seems to involves a reduced range of emotions with anger being the only prominent emotion allowed, a fear and hatred of softness or weakness, high aggression, violence, competition, oneupmanship, objectification of women, and bragging about sexual conquests.
A lot of these things are just normal male behavior. All men objectify women in the sense that they check out goodlooking women. They only men who  don’t do that are gay men or straight men who might as well be gay. And yes, the definition of objectifying women is to look at women in a sexual way.
All or most all men brag about their sexual prowess or conquests. That’s just normal guy behavior.
The problem with being an emotional man or showing a lot of weakness is that society including both women and men, will beat the crap out of you for doing this. I used to do both of these things quite a bit but I got my butt kicked so many times by both women and men over this that I said the Hell with it, shut down my feelings and turned hard as a rock. I don’t know if it’s healthy, but society seems to demand it and I’m tired of getting beat up for not going along.
Most men are not particularly violent, nor do they love violence. You see this in boys or young men more than among older men.
As a terminally laid back man, I despise highly aggressive males, but I wonder where society would be without them. Face it, these guys kick ass, take names, and get stuff done.
Same with competitiveness. I am too laid back to be a competitive man, but it is that male competitive drive that drives a lot of mankind’s highest achievements.
More and more I am thinking that “toxic masculinity” is nothing more than normative masculinity in American society. If a man appears to behave in a normative American masculine way I would assume he is engaging in toxic masculinity. No one has shown me what healthy masculinity would look like as compared to the toxic stuff. So the war on toxic masculinity just seems to be one more end run to attack masculinity itself.
If you all have any thoughts on masculinity or toxic masculinity, let us know in the comments.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

America's Ferociously Anti-Intellectual Culture Is Literally Idiocracy In Practice

Rahul: Robert, Feynman didn’t win the Nobel Prize in Physics because he had a 190 Physics IQ or because he had a 125 IQ. He won it because he was ardently passionate about Physics and Math, and he contributed enough to the betterment of using Physics to serve humanity. That’s why he won the Prize.
I don’t mean to be rude when I say this Robert (hell, this is the case with pretty much any disagreement I have, which is a lot), but this comment was somewhat insulting to Richard Feynman. Really, you’re attributing it to his 190 Physics IQ (which I doubt)?

He was passionate about it and he contributed to using physics to better humanity because he had one of the most brilliant physics minds ever recorded. It’s not insulting to say Feynman had a 190 IQ in Physics. In fact, I bet if I knew him and I said that to him, he would probably laugh and say I was right. The 190 physics IQ is literally proven by having some of the highest physics scores ever recorded on various tests. If you go around the Net, everywhere they talk about Feynman’s IQ, they say just this. No one anywhere says he did it by trying really hard.
You do not get one of the highest Physics scores ever recorded on a widely given test by trying really hard. Fuck that. You get that by being one of the smartest and highest Physics IQ men in history in Physics.
Why are you such an IQ denier? Have you lived in America your whole life?
Because in this idiot, insane culture, the line is, “Anyone can do anything” and “Intelligence doesn’t matter.” And in America, there is a complete denial of intelligence itself. This is shown by contempt for the very concept. In America, “anyone can do anything they want if they give it enough effort” and often you cannot even acknowledge that human beings differ in intelligence at all or that this matters in any way.
I talk like this a lot because intelligence is interesting to me, and I get very politely shut down (they simply disagree with me very politely, mostly by dismissing my argument with a smile) all time.
This Idiocracy culture is so infuriating. We acknowledge frankly intellectual gifts in a whole range of things, even athletics, where “physical intelligence” forms a large part of “athletic genius.” Haven’t you heard athletes who say things like, “Baseball is 90% mental.”? However, your average American usually insists that great athletes simply tried real hard.
We often speak of artistic and musical genius and the implication is that it was inborn, though you often run into resistance to that with countless Americans implying that musical and artistic geniuses simply “tried really hard.” 
Americans simply refuse to believe in the concept of inborn intelligence or intellectual strengths in any way, and that is when they acknowledge that intelligence itself even exists at all.
Many, perhaps most Americans simply insist that “there is no such thing as intelligence,” which is a stunning statement for a human being to utter. Most infuriating of all is that the smartest people are the worst intelligence deniers. Even more infuriating is that the more leftwing people get, they more openly hostile they are to the very concept of intelligence, especially if it is inborn. All I have to say is that an American Left culture that has extreme hatred for the very notion that intelligence exists at all is not one I want to be a part of. It doesn’t sound like one that’s going to be very successful either, or if it is successful, I fear for the country that ends up being run by these overeducated fools.
You start getting down below 100 or especially 90 IQ, they generally agree that some humans are definitely way smarter than other humans. At that level, people are often awestruck by very smart people.
That’s if they are not too stupid. Truly stupid people around 80 IQ often can’t even seem to grasp the concept of intelligence at all or refuse to see how it could be important in any way. This is because they are literally too stupid to even recognize intelligence for what it is.
Further, if you start talking about intelligence even related to jobs in the US, you get shut down almost immediately with, “Oh no, you don’t have to be smart to do that. Anyone can do that.” You even get shut down if you imply that some people are smarter than other people.
Sometimes I talk about how I can tell someone is smart by simply looking at their faces while I interact with them. I usually get completely dismissed when I say that. I can tell how smart someone is by looking into their eyes, listening to how they talk (for instance, speed, comprehension, response speed), and mostly looking for, more than anything else, simply speed of response. Smart people are simply faster than other human beings. And it correlates directly with IQ.
I had a girlfriend with a 140 IQ once, and she was one of the fastest women I have ever known. She got my jokes, bam, immediately, as soon as they hit her brain just like that. And she had a sharp response to the joke almost instantly. She was so fast it almost seemed like she started laughing before the joke was even over. I had another girlfriend with a ~115 IQ, and while she was definitely intelligent, there’s no way on Earth she was that lightning fast.
And I met a woman with an IQ of 156 once who was literally the fastest woman I have ever met in my life. She was faster than the 140 woman, knew more stuff, and picked up completely new topics she knew nothing about very quickly. She would ask me, “What is that?” about some concept that she had no idea what it was. I would start to explain it, and it never took more than 3-5 minutes before she had gobbled up the whole concept and had gotten the gist of it like an expert. I have never met a woman who understood brand new things with so little explanation.
She might even have been faster than I am. Her IQ was ~10 points higher. I didn’t feel outclassed at all though. We were basically on the same level. But I had definitely met my match. She was a real challenge to talk to, but I love challenges.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Why Emphasizing the Exceptions Over the Rule is Dumb, Lacks Self-Awareness, and Gives False Hope

Thinking Mouse: Also, why do you use the Feynman example as a minimum? He’s an ultra exception?

Didn’t he get a Nobel? Well, if he did, he is interesting because I suppose that is a threshold effect. But bringing him up over and over to prove some point is dumb.
You must understand that Feynman scored the highest score ever on the Physics entry exam to his university. A number of his other tests in physics were completely off the charts. So Feynman was like a 190 IQ in Physics. Feynman was weak on verbal. People who have access to his notes have observed frequent spelling, punctuation and grammar errors.
So using the Feynman example that “any 125 IQ person can win a Nobel” is just stupid. Can a 125 IQ person win the Nobel Prize? Sure, maybe in Physics. But all you need is a 190 IQ when it comes to Physics. How many 125 IQ people have that? Zero? That’s what I thought.
And it gives false hope to a lot of people while de-emphasizing the importance of intelligence to others. To allow a 100 IQ person to go to university without telling them or at least knowing yourself that they will have to work very hard is irresponsible. To allow someone with an IQ below 115 to even entertain the possibility of getting a PhD or an MD is the height of irresponsibility. I mean it’s hard to tell people these things, but you can always let them go find out for themselves and learn the hard way. But giving people false hope is stupid, cruel, and a waste of time and resources.
The Greeks said, “To know thine own self is the rule.” One of the purposes of life is to know yourself or finally understand yourself, your strengths, your weaknesses, the whole nine yards. Not understanding yourself and always overestimating how good you are at this or that is ridiculous.
Most people I know do not know themselves well at all, even far into their 50’s. This is ridiculous. “I am good at this” or “I am not good at that,” takes a lot of bravery that most folks just don’t have. This is a problem because always overestimating what you can do leads to a lot of time and effort wasted on useless projects and further leads to a lot of frustration and depression when you inevitably fail.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

How IQ Limits You in School and Life

Rahul: Robert, there are professors with IQ’s in the 90’s out there. There are scientists too, and many other professions.
You are being very IQ deterministic. IQ does carry some merit, but it’s not the only thing. Also, intelligence can span from many different things. Intelligence is the ability to learn. People with Low IQ’s are very street smart, more so than high IQ folks. Musical intelligence exists too, many low IQ blacks are excellent rappers. Mechanical intelligence, not every high IQ fella can fix shit with their hands.
There’s this article on Grey Enlightenment on illusory superiority. It’s a phenomenal article.
Also, you can increase your IQ, it’s not fixed at all. Just because most people don’t increase it doesn’t mean that it’s impossible. Some people get pretty big gains too.
For a degree, you only need an average IQ.
For a masters too, only an average.
Even for a PhD, you only need average.
Hell, for the Nobel, you probably don’t need a monstrously high IQ either.

There are almost zero university professors with IQ’s in the 90’s. I dare you to show me one university professor with an IQ at that level. With an IQ in the 90’s, you will have a difficult time getting a BA, for Chrissake.
Show me one “scientist” anywhere with an IQ in the 90’s. One.
You don’t realize that IQ is intelligence. By attacking IQ, you attack the very concept of human intelligence itself.
Street smarts, musical and mechanical knowledge alone won’t get you through university or a job as a professor or scientist. As an aside, most very good musicians are quite intelligent. We think Blacks are stupid, but I have read interviews with great Black blues musicians who no one would ever think would be smart, and I was shocked at how smart they were. I read an interview with Miles Davis, and it almost knocked me on the floor. He’s at least as smart as I am.
I am always shocked at how smart auto mechanics are. They’re not book smart intellectuals, but I haven’t met a stupid mechanic yet, and I’ve met more than I can count. We think they are just stupid grease monkeys, and they don’t act all that smart, but those guys are wicked smart. I saw a chart once and I was shocked at how many auto mechanics had IQ’s of over 130. That will literally put you in the gifted program at school.
I met a man the other day whose job was fixing the slot machines in gambling houses. I was stunned at how smart he was. I could tell he was smart very fast just by looking at his eyes, listening to his speech and just seeing how sheer fast he was.
After age 18, IQ doesn’t go up much at all. Nor does it lower much either. IQ is even preserved in alcoholism, believe it or not. It can damage your brain, but IQ is typically preserved somehow.
Show me one person who got an over 15 IQ gain in adulthood. I would even like to see someone who got 15 points. I’ve heard it’s possible, but I’ve never known anyone who did that.
An average IQ of 100 will not get you a BA. You will struggle a lot, and you will simply not be able to understand a lot of the material. Many 100 IQ people will drop out of the university. You need a minimum 105 IQ to get a BA. You need a 110 IQ to get one relatively easily.
I definitely don’t see how you easily get an MA with an average IQ. I have known people who seemed to do it, but they were schoolteachers getting more or less bullshit Education MA’s, the easiest MA’s out there. And this woman that I knew had to have her attorney mother write most of her papers for her, otherwise she would never have passed.
I was in a Master’s program and there didn’t seem to be a lot of average IQ folks in there. Some of them were smarter than I was, or at least they were better at the material. For a Master’s, you will ever struggle at a 105-107 IQ. You won’t understand a lot of the material, and you will have a high likelihood of dropout, assuming you can even get in anyway, as you have to pass the GRE, and it is hard to pass the GRE with average intelligence. I would want a 115 IQ to get a Master’s degree, and even then it will be hard.
You need a minimum 115 IQ to get a PhD, and even then, you will not understand a lot of the material and you will have a high tendency to flunk out. You want a 125 IQ to get a PhD. If you have an IQ below 115, in all likelihood you will simply not be able to get a PhD unless you have an extremely lopsided IQ.
Most Nobel Prize winners have IQ’s of over 145. They’ve been studied.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

All the Ways That IQ Is Relevant to Society

Intelligent Mouse: By “relevant for society” i meant relevant for economics. IQ can matter for many reasons, like for example just being interested in any form of scientific rigor in understand behavior could make it relevant to an individual as the person would seek for all (or at least most) alternatives in models.
But lets investigate some of the potencial usage of intelligence meassurments and see how IQ tests meassure up.
Measuring potential school performance:
Some small amount of years in school will already give the teachers or parents ample information about their prospects, but also traits that make IQ more productive in synthesis:
https://books.google.se/books?id=SCyEAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=Layzer+(1973:+238)&source=bl&ots=9Rf9sy0Jd6&sig=WjWMXZsLTGLGy7SS7JSZQ9RLmNE&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjl0q7t78fdAhUQpIsKHXb7AFsQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=Layzer%20(1973%3A%20238)&f=false
Job performance:
Well, IQ correlates around 0.3 with job performance, but the measurement is subjective so it might capture some things that correlate with social-class and therefore IQ.
Eugenics:
Pleitropy and polygenic structures makes eugenics by swapping SNPs impractical. Breeding programs can only do so much without further molecular biology knowledge. Twin studies seem kinda ridiculous:
Twin Studies, Adoption Studies, and Fallacious Reasoning
And i also agree with:
Behavior Genetics and the Fallacy of Nature vs Nurture
and (which is what GWAS interested behavioral geneticists like Steven Hsu agree on):
Height and IQ Genes
making eugenics very hard. If we already knew the mechanisms behind
Testing mental health:
This is actually the best use of IQ, as decreasing IQ is indicative of loss in brain stuff.
Criterion validity and correlation:
I also think that IQ´s criterion validity lies on shaky grounds when its founded on correlations that are only tested in narrow environments, essentially just creating the same correlation again and again without testing the methodological validity by testing the correlation appropriately. to test correlation appropriately would find anomalies in the pure environmentalist approach (or any level of conviction to environmental explanations) or finding causal IQ relationships (which Environmentalists have done).
I’m not really an IQ denier though, i think there probably is an range of IQ that any given person can inhabit, but the fact of individuals sticking around the mean makes it hard to know who could be where, especially in such large and genetically similar groups like economic classes and races. Some people are obviously extreme, but as previously stated, we don’t need IQ tests to know that.
And whats to say that smart people have high IQ? IQ is contingent on G, but all of my criticisms on IQ are pretty much equally (for better or worse) valid against G.
I see no use in IQ if not for future developments. Its an unfinished project at best.

 
I do not think that people realize what they are criticizing when they attack IQ. For IQ is simply the best measure we have for measuring intelligence in human beings. No better test has ever been devised. So when you criticize IQ as a concept, you are actually criticizing human intelligence itself. Do you IQ critics who say IQ is not that important really want to say that human intelligence is not important for human beings? Because that is exactly what you are saying.
You realize IQ correlates very well with all sorts of things, right?
Percentage of country that are college grads. % of college grads rises with rising IQ.
Grades in college, SAT. Good correlation between college grades, SAT scores and IQ.
Wealth of society. As IQ rises, societies tend to become more wealthy. As IQ falls to a low level, you can end up with extreme poverty, a lot of crime and chaos, rampant disease, and sometimes even a failed state.
State of the infrastructure of society. Infrastructure of society improves as IQ rises. People and society are more likely to maintain things. When IQ falls to a low level, people often do not know how to fix broken infrastructure and there is a tendency to jerry rig or do temporary quick and dirty fixes to problems that last for a bit but then fail again.
Civilizational level of society. As IQ rises, societies appear more civilized. As it drops to a low level, countries can appear downright barbarous.
Crime rate of society: As IQ rises, the nation’s crime rate falls.
Whether or not you will go to jail or prison and how long: As IQ falls,  you are more likely to be imprisoned and for longer.
Whether you will go on welfare programs. As IQ falls, welfare use increases.
Whether you will get an advanced degree. As IQ rises, advanced degrees become more common.
Income (up to a certain level). Income rises in tandem with IQ up to 125-130, after which it falls
Accident rate. As IQ falls, people get into many more accidents, some fatal. Includes car crashes, recreational accidents, accidents at home, etc.
Hospitalization rates. As IQ rises, people are hospitalized less often.
Rates of alcoholism and serious drug abuse. As IQ rises, rates of drug and alcohol abuse fall.
The environment you create for your children. As IQ rises, parents create better environments for their children.
Stability for chaotic nature of your surroundings. Even if you look at it on a neighborhood level, as IQ rises, the neighborhood becomes calmer, sometimes nearly to the point of being boring. Yet only three miles away, a large group of apartment complexes housing many low wage workers has a lot of noise, a general chaotic atmosphere, frequent police calls, a lot of yelling and screaming coming from homes, more frequent and more chaotic parties, more violence, more residential crime, and more drug and alcohol abuse.
Domestic violence rates. Domestic violence falls precipitously as IQ rises. Men at the highest IQ levels seldom beat their wives. As IQ falls down to a low level, domestic violence becomes commonplace to the point where most men are beating their wives.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Identity Politics is Based on Postmodernist Obscurantism

All modern Identity Politics movements, including feminism, are infected with postmodernism, hence the answer to a lot of questions is,

“There is no answer to that question…There’s no way to determine that…That’s not a question that can be answered by science…That’s not a matter that science can investigate…”

All IP groups are like this. All the important questions can never be answered, there are no truths because exceptions prove that truths don’t exist, there are no facts, there are no statistics to be measured and all statistics to be gathered are to be questioned on the grounds of false data, etc.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: How Many Men Are Gay, Bisexual and Straight, and How Common is Homosexual Behavior in Men?

It’s been a longstanding shibboleth in the gay community that all men are basically bisexual and with straight guys, all you need to do is seduce them into their natural tendency. First of all, the common myth that everyone is bisexual, attributed to Freud, is just not true.
The best study I found, of medical students in Australia, found that 62% of men are completely straight, with the remaining 38% having some degree of bisexual attraction. If nothing else, this rather shocking figure should serve to normalize the notion of many straight men having at least some homosexual attraction. 40% is a lot of people. It’s almost half.
However, most of that 38% were made up of straight men with maximal attraction towards women and only minor or incidental attraction towards men. On a scale of 0-100, with 100-0 being completely straight and 0-100 being completely gay, most of that 38% were made up of 90-10 and 80-20 men. A very large number of these men will go their whole lives and never act on  their minor homosexual attraction. As long as they are extremely turned on by women, there’s no need to feed your curiosity about gay sex.
Once you get to 70-30’s and 60-40’s, you are starting to get into more of your true bisexuals. But even these men are straight leaning. I would imagine quite a few of those men have at least tried gay sex. 50-50’s or true bisexuals are very rare in both men and women, constituting only 1% for each gender. The longstanding old wisdom about bisexuals, that I even learned from my own mother (born in 1932), was that most bisexuals tended to lean one way or the other, often strongly.
Anyway, of all men who have some attraction to other men, 80% of them lean straight. So 80% of “bisexual” men (in attraction anyway) lean straight. Which is quite an interesting figure.
But it makes sense when you realize that 93% of all men are maximally attracted to women. Heterosexuality or maximal attraction to females is nearly the norm in almost all human males. Only 7% of men are maximally attracted to men, and only 2% of all men are gay. So strong attraction to other males only effects a tiny number of men, barely more than 5%. Gay men or even gay-leaning bisexual men are extreme outliers among human males.
6% of men are either gay or gay-learning bisexuals, which is interesting as this figure is higher than what most surveys come up with.
But there is a good argument that a lot of people lie in phone or face to face surveys. In particular, many lie about homosexual attraction or behavior, and it is very common to lie about hard drug use. So there’s typically a lot more hard drug use or homosexual/bisexual behavior or even identity than the typical survey finds.
How do we know this? Because of one study which was done completely blind. Subjects were in a closed room with a computer entering answers. They were assured that they each would only be given a number and no one doing the study would know what any subject entered. So subjects felt that this was a completely anonymous survey.
Subjects were young college-aged men in Ontario, Canada. The results were very interesting.
A whopping 13% of these men had had gay sex in the past six months, even though most of that 13% identified as straight or straight-leaning. That was considered current homosexual activity. So an incredible 13% of these young men were currently having gay sex. That is a very high figure for current homosexual behavior in men, one of the highest I have ever seen. This implies that there might be a Hell of a lot more gay sex going on than we think, and most of the hidden gay sex involves straight or straight-leaning men, and possibly most of those engaging in this hidden sex are very young men, with rates presumably dropping as men age.
And the rates of heroin and PCP use were also quite high. ~4% had used heroin and ~3% had used PCP. These figures were 3-4 higher than the typically found figures of 1%.
Anyway, no, all men are not bisexual, the difference between a straight man and a gay is not a six-pack of beer, etc. This is all just wishful thinking and solipsism on their part. The gay men are acting like solipsistic women. They are very attracted to men, so therefore all other men must also be attracted to men too. Solipsism is a problem with boundaries where the boundaries between the self and say half the population dissolve. People like this just can’t believe that anyone would think differently from themselves.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: An SJW Calumny Against Milo Yiannopoulus

Now hear me out. I absolutely despise Milo Yiannopoulus, the reactionary Alt Right troll and hero of sticking it to the SJW’s. But he does a lot more than skewer leftwing airheads.
He’s also a reactionary on everything else, and if you have been reading this blog long enough, you know that we are basically liberals to Leftists on most issues aside from the Cultural Left Freakshow, about which we are to the right of but not all the way to Republican social conservatives, who we consider to be rightwing Puritan crazies.
So with the Alt Left here, as with the Alt Left on so many things, it’s idiots to the right of me, idiots to the left of me. We would never want to be members of any club that would let us in, but no one would let us in anyway. Instead, everybody hates us. To be Alt Left is to be in the center of a circular firing squad. But it also means to be correct. The Alt Left is based on facts, truth, and science – Enlightenment values if you will. It’s not only the Right that hates science and truth, it’s the Cultural Left too. They’re just as bad as Republicans, as most Identity Politics movements proceed from fact-free theories and assumptions.
Anyway, Milo is a stinking filthy rich member of the ruling class, and he’s depraved, degenerate, and decadent like so many of them. Morals? Milo doesn’t have any. He jokes about taking huge Black cocks up his ass. His Alt Right “conservative” audience roars with approval. Since when is interracial homosexual sodomy the favorite meal of…reactionaries…?!
None of it makes sense unless you understand the decadence of the ruling class. The ruling class takes power on campaigns of religion and morality, which they sell to the masses. Morals are for the poor, and they go on and on about how immoral the poor are. Why, if they would only go to church more, they would get rich!
But you know pesky things like morals are only for those Little People. The aristocrats are of course exempt from morals in the realm of sex, drugs, and…just about anything, just like they’ve always been. So it is only in this context of chastity for the poor, interracial gay gangbangs for the rich that this confounding Milo can be understood.
Of course Milo has a right to be a degenerate homosexual.
As noted earlier, SJW’s harangue us straight men endlessly daring to look at JB’s, but gay men get to bang all the boy JB’s they want because gay men are good in SJW theory, and straight men are evil.
But somehow the SJW’s violate their own rules when it comes to Milo. Now if Milo was just an ordinary leftwing gay man, no one would care what he said or did. But Milo did the unthinkable. He decided to be a typical degenerate gay man while adopting ultra-rightwing politics. It was the latter that pointed the bulls eye on his head for SJW’s. So rightwing gays are in a class similar to straight men – evil males who must be demonized.
Hence the constant “Milo is a pedophile” claim from the SJW Left.
But what’s behind this serious allegation? Is Milo just an ordinary pedestrian chicken hawk like so many gay men? Nope. He’s not even that bad! Under SJW parlance, Milo was actually a victim of gay child molesters or pedophiles. So SJW’s are calling the kid who got molested by pedophiles a pedophile for daring to get molested! Outrageous or what?
The truth is a bit more complex. Milo stated flippantly that as a precocious male Lolita or Lolito of 13, he was already deep into gay sex and drug party culture. Of course, this culture is full of underage teenage boys. They’re everywhere at parties like that, and the older men pass them around callously like candy.
Milo said he was a regular at these degenerate sex and drug gay parties on fancy boats owned by gay men. There was plenty of sex with older men on offer for the budding Milo, and I guess he decided that the stovepipes were to his liking. In other words, Milo said that as a young teen of 13, he used to go to gay drug and sex parties full of older men, he had a lot of hot sex with  older men, and worse of all for SJW’s, he dared to actually like the experience.
Now victims of statutory rape or kids who get molested are not allowed to enjoy the experience, although many if not most of the teens love it. Even some of the little kids enjoy it. If they do enjoy it, the feminist line is that these poor kids or especially teens are deluded. Their enjoyment is not real. It’s fake. It’s fake because somehow they have been brainwashed into getting off on it. They actually hate it but they only think they like it because as minors they are too immature and stupid to figure out if they enjoy something or not!
This is the source of a lot of confusion for them because it was wrong, but it felt so good, and this mixes them up a lot. This is part of the reason that so many molested kids go on the years-long Therapy Express. But no one ever talks about this. No one talks about how some of the kids and most of the teens liked or even loved the experience. To do so brands one a pedophile by proxy simply by promoting a “pedo argument.” Except the pedo argument here happens to be true.
So, Milo isn’t a pedophile and he’s never been one. Instead Milo is being called a pedophile for what SJW’s would call getting molested or being a victim of sexual assault and breaking the rules by saying he liked it instead of falling apart like a baby.
So why is Milo a pedophile? Because he was a molestation victim who enjoyed getting molested. Even if that is true, how on Earth does that make someone, anyone, a pedophile?
Milo’s a slug but I believe in fairness and giving everyone their due. Next time you hear BS about Milo being a pedophile, you might want to, just maybe, think twice before believing that accusation.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20