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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:
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.
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.

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.

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.

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.

Alt Left: Why the Endless Feminist Screeching about Male Violence Against Women Is Wrong

I recently clicked on a Youtube video that talked about the wave of violence against women in South Africa. Women down there were organizing demonstrations against the murders of women, and feminists around the globe were agitating about the number of murders of women by men in that country.
Then I did a bit of research. Sure, the numbers of murdered women (almost all by men no doubt) was quite high at least by Western standards. But I did some mucking around with statistics and came up with something very interesting.
88% of all people murdered in South Africa are their fellow males. Only 12% of male murders in that country are females.
So according to feminists, we are supposed to ignore that men get the most horrific brunt of male violence in South Africa and instead focus on the women who are murdered in vastly smaller numbers. Furthermore, the feminist critique of male murders of women is that they are all motivated by misogyny and that men specifically single out women due to their sex alone for violence and murder.
Men kill women for all sorts of reasons. I’m sure misogyny is one of them. But a lot of other times misogyny is not a factor. Maybe a man is mad at a particular woman. Maybe he’s a psychopath who doesn’t care about the gender of his victims.
And if men go out of their way to specifically target women for no reason other than their sex, why are the numbers of murdered women so low compared to the murdered men? If anything, men are massively deselecting women for homicide compared to their population, and they are deliberately selecting men for murder to a huge degree. So men aren’t singling out women at all for murder down there. They’re singling out men for murder. But that doesn’t fit the feminist theory,  so that fact is elided.
In science, if your theory doesn’t match the facts, this means that your theory is wrong, so it’s back to the drawing board.
However, when the facts on the ground don’t match the feminist theory, feminists, like ideologues everywhere, decide that the theory is just fine and the problem is that the facts are wrong. Instead of redoing the theory, they decide that they need to redo the facts to make them fit the theory because feminists believe that theory trumps facts and evidence.
You women think you got it bad in terms of male violence against you, try being a guy! You ladies are getting off easy.
Hint: it’s even worse.

Alt Left: The Transgender and Transtrender War

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

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

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

Alt Left: How Many People Are Transgender, and Is the Rate Increasing?

Eric Blair: Speaking of gender, I am not very familiar with non-binary gender did we even get from two genders to 70?

Thanks for the comment, George, and thanks for stopping by the blog. All this time I thought you were dead!
That’s a damn good question. My position is that once you let people act as crazy as they want to, you open the door, and there’s no limit to how crazy people will act. Which is how you end up with 70 genders.
The trans madness has been exploding. The figure cited in the 1960’s and 1970’s was 1/30,000. Presumably almost all of these were the more pure biological transsexuals with gender dysphoria from a very early age, sometimes as young as two. However, a recent survey of Generation Z showed that 2% labeled themselves transgender, and another 11% labeled themselves nonbinary. So you can see that the rate of this stuff has gone through the roof.
You would not expect a genetic or biological condition to go from 1/30,000 to 1/50 in a few short decades (someone do the math for me please). Genetic or even biological change does not happen that fast. Obviously this is a sociological phenomenon no doubt being driven by quite a bit of faddism. Even trans advocates admit that 88% of transgender people are not transsexuals. Only 12% are the relatively pure biological transsexuals with gender dysphoria from a very early age. The other 88% are people with paraphilias, all or almost all men. The paraphilias encompass autogynephilia, crossdressing, and transvestism. The latter are mostly heterosexual and the former are mostly homosexual.
Indeed, when we get to the point where 2-3% of people are gay and another 2% are transgender, we are definitely getting into a pretty weird world here in the Current Year. It’s long past 1984 already and we are into a whole new dystopia of sexual bizarreness.

How to Define Sexual Orientation – Behavior or Attraction?

It is often said that the statement “Straight men who have sex with men” is an oxymoron because any man who has sex with men is at least bisexual. I disagree.

It depends on how you want to define sexual orientation.

First of all we need to realize that most gay men have had sex with women, and many continue to do so. And all the talk about married gay men. Most lesbians have had sex with men, and many continue to do so. So none of these gay men (almost all of them) who have had sex with women are really gay? So none of these lesbians (almost all of them) who have had sex with men are really lesbians?

I do not define sexual orientation on behavior. Behavior is one thing and orientation is another. They tend to line up pretty well but not completely and not always.

Orientation is the largely biological tendency or setup of what at least men and many women are attracted to. A lot of lesbians appear to be biologically set up to be this way.

Behavior is who you have sex with, which usually lines up fairly well but sometimes not completely with orientation.

It’s well known that when women are not around, straight men (men who are attracted to women only and men not at all) will have sex with men.

Many lesbians who have little or no attraction to men nevertheless have sex with them, often quite a bit of sex. Note how many prostitutes are lesbians.

Many straight women will have sex with other women in all-female institutions if there are no men around.

The people engaging in this opportunistic homosexuality are often not bisexual; instead they are just deprived straights fulfilling their sexual needs with the same sex as the opposite sex is not available.

The only men who are bisexual are those are who attracted to both sexes.

We also get into how people identify, which is important. I know women who have sex with men and women but identify as straight, as they only have relationships with men. I know a woman who identifies as lesbian though she has sex with men too because she can only fall in love with a woman. This woman was a 25-75, which normally should mean lesbian-leaning bisexual, but she defined herself as lesbian.

Many men are 90-10’s or 80-20’s (very straight leaning bisexuals), but as they have no interest in and refuse to act on their male interest, they identify as straight, which is reasonable. Many women who define themselves as straight to me tell me that they have some lesbian interest but refuse or choose not to act on it.

The GLBTQWTF SJW’s have been wildly antiscientific about sexual orientation since forever. You almost never read anything truthful, factual, or scientific about sexual orientation in the popular press and increasing even in academic journals. That is because the debate has been taken over by GLBTQWTF SJW’s who have twisted all the science into propaganda and lies for their nonheterosexual orientations.

There are very few clinicians or scholars who are doing actual scientific work in sexual orientation nowadays because GLBTQWTF SJW’s are utterly hostile to even having science look at the question.

Joe Kort is a gay psychologist. He is one of the few humans in the US who is actually doing real work on sexual orientation. He has written a book called Straight Guise about straight men who have sex with men. He lists all the different reasons why they do this.

Kort defines them as straight because they are not attracted to men or men’s bodies.

Alt Left: Putting "Transsexual" Minors on Hormones Boils Down to Child Abuse

70% of “trans” minors grow out of it by age 18. I know a man who tried to transition as a teenager. Then he went back. He now has some permanent physical damage and deformation to his body (3 inches too short for instance) due to his normal development as boy getting hijacked by powerful hormones. He calls his trans phase a delusion (which it is), and he’s deeply depressed, even suicidal. Oh, and he’s also incel. And consequently he’s really pissed off on top of the suicidality and self-hate.
Giving these “trans” kids those insane hormones boils down to child abuse.

Radfems and MRA's: Two Peas in a Pod

Noting that radfems reject the strong science proving the reality of biological gender, the fact is that radfems anti-science. So like the reactionaries in that way…must be horseshoe theory again.
Radfems are some of the most extreme ideologues out there. I see absolutely zero difference between radfems and the MRA’s, PUA’s, incels, and MGTOW’s. Radfems the other side of the mirror, that’s all. Radfems hate men like MRA’s hate women. Both screech that they are constantly under attack by the other gender. They both claim that their gender suffers from horrific oppression. They both propose extreme solutions to deal with the enemy, which happens to be the other gender.
Both deny that there are any good people of the other gender. And it appears that they both hate science when it gets in the way of their precious ideology. They’re both frighteningly angry all the time, but MRA’s anger is more dangerous because male anger is more physical. They both center your entire existence and the entire universe around the notion of gender. They both claim their own gender is an oppressed class. They both refuse to make allies with the other gender.
They both claim that the other gender does not suffer or that their suffering merits no importance. Both claim the other side has it easy and is not oppressed. Many of both seek to live lives as separately from the other gender as possible. They are both wildly ideological, with lists of 100’s of positions that every one in the movement must check one, and if even one checkmark is missed, that person is declared on the side of the enemy and is thrown out of movement. Ideological diversity is nonexistent in either movement. Neither group believes in the existence of nuance.
Both groups are examples of extreme solipsism – the whole universe is about them – their own bodies, that is, their gender. Both claim to be engaged in informed searches for the truth, but they are too weighted down with dogma to do that. Both lionize some of the worst haters around. Schopenhauer is Mary Daly. Nietzsche is Julie Bindel. Elliot Rodgers is Valerie Solanis.
Misandrists and misogynists are the same thing. Both groups are forms of Identity Politics. Radfem is female IP and MRA is male IP. They hate each other, but they are both just different forms of IP and they are much more alike than different.
Most sane people reject both of movements and think they’re both insane, just at different ends of the crazy spectrum. No one likes MRA’s for good reason, and radfems are not popular either. Even normal feminism is not popular. Only 14% women say they are feminists, though equal rights is a reasonable concept. This is because though equal rights is great, most feminists are fanatics, and their views do not line up with that of the average woman because feminist views are extremist.

Gender Is Biological and Given, Not Social and Constructed

The view of radical feminism and in fact all of feminism is that gender is socially constructed. From a radical feminist or radfem website:

There is no such thing as biological gender! Seriously dude, do you even know what radfem is? From your comments here you seem to think we are a bunch of sexless, genderless, manhating, violent women.
Sex is biological. We are born either male or female (with a small percentage intersex).
Gender is a social construct with attributable stereotypical traits, behaviours and presentation.
Please educate yourself on the basics.

All you have to do is wander around the planet a bit for while with your ears and eyes open to realize that that’s not true. Recent advances in neurology indicate that there are vast differences in male and female brains in terms of the number of structures effected, which typically differ in size, shape, etc.
Look also at the experiences of transwomen,  men who became women. On female hormones, their behavior and  thinking changed radically and even their entire view of the world became radically  different.
Some transwoman’s on those hormones have reported changes in emotionality and even entire worldview. I realize radfems reject biological gender, but these reports are very interesting. One transwoman was a very masculine, almost stoical, hard-type man. On the hormones, he reported that he was wildly emotional, all over the place all the time, and frequently out of sorts via being confused by all this mercurial emotionality. And this guy was John Wayne before. I figure the pills caused the changes. And one more thing, radfems will hate this too – he said he started giggling. A lot. Not sure if I have ever seen a man giggle.
Another transwoman was on the Reddit Redpill MRA group (I know you hate them but I read everywhere). He reported that on the hormones, the world felt very frightening and confusing and he has a strong sense of weakness and wanting to be protected, specifically by a strong, powerful figure. He also become quite emotional, often for little reason. He noticed that his “cis” boyfriend pretty much ignored the emotionality and this transwoman felt that men often ignored a lot of women’s emotionality because a lot of it was not based on much and its too tiring to respond to weathervanes all day.
I know feminists don’t believe any of this stuff, but those pills are very powerful and surely hormones can have some psychological effects? Isn’t this obvious evidence that gender is biological? Give a men female hormones and his behaviors, emotions, thinking and even epistemology change dramatically in ways that remarkably resemble stereotypical female behavior. How can feminists explain this away?

Why Do Many Geniuses Have a Large Forehead?

You mean people with genius IQ’s over 140? I am not sure about those with 140–160 IQ’s. Their heads are surely larger than average, but whether you would notice it or not is dubious.
But quite a few super geniuses with IQ’s of 160–200 have extremely large heads. Christopher Langan had to special order a motorcycle helmet made specifically for him because his head was so big. The manufacturer told him that only 1 out of every 3.3 million people had a head as big as his. He has some videos on Youtube. If you look closely at him, you might notice that one thing that is remarkable about him is that he does indeed have a huge head.
This is where the term “egghead” comes from. If you get a chance, look up an old photo of the team that worked at the Manhattan Project to make the nuclear bomb at White Sands, New Mexico. There are 30-40 men in that photo. Look closely at them, and you will see that most of them have pretty big heads. In particular, look at how big their foreheads are. The larger forehead on very bright men gave an egg-shaped appearance to their skulls, which gave rise to the phrase.

Shouldn't One's Confidence in Their Intelligence Validate Itself, Since Intelligence Is Defined in Some Spheres as the 'Ability to Discern Similarities & Differences?'

Answered on Quora.
Well, I am supposed to have a genius IQ, but even I cannot understand what the person asking this question is trying to say.
First of all, if critical thinking is anything, it is intelligence.
Intelligence, more than anything else, is pure brain speed. And in fact, that is exactly what an IQ test tests for.
Let us say that I have a higher IQ than someone else. Mine is 147. The other person’s is 120, almost a full two SD’s below me. For some people around this level, I seem smarter than they are, but on the other hand, they are no dummies. We can communicate very well. It’s the difference between a smart person and a really smart person, which doesn’t boil down to a whole lot in the real world.
For others at ~120, I hate to say it, but I simply cannot see how I am smarter than they are, even at a near full two SD difference. Now why this is, I am not sure, but maybe we are comparing smart with very smart, and it’s hard to see a difference there.
Nevertheless, according to an IQ test, comparing me to the 120 IQ person:

  • I have a faster brain.
  • I have a better and bigger memory. I can remember more stuff and keep it around better.
  • My memory recall is faster and more accurate. I can pull stored knowledge out of my brain faster and more correctly.
  • I have better verbal and nonverbal analytical skills. I am better at “seeing the whole picture” and “tying it all together.”
  • I can analyze a problem in terms of vocabulary and make sense out it and see patterns and connect them together better and perhaps faster.
  • I can see patterns in objects in space and connect them up more faster and more accurately.
  • I can find the answer to a new problem that I have never seen before faster and more accurately.
  • My critical thinking skills work faster and more accurately.

Bottom line is simply that I have a faster brain. My brain also utilizes glucose better and faster. In addition, my brain itself may well be larger, and I may have more cells and especially connections.
I may not be more creative, and I may well have worse musical or artistic skills. These are all subtypes of intelligence.
My kinetic intelligence may well be worse. This is “physical intelligence.” It is a real thing. The best athletes actually have “intelligent bodies.” They are better and faster at moving their bodies the way they want them to than I am.
I may have worse social intelligence. Social intelligence is a very real thing. It is definitely a type of intelligence.
I may have worse street smarts, or crafty, foxy, sly, clever, or sneaky type intelligence. This “smart like a fox” intelligence is a very real thing, and it is a type of intelligence.
I may not be as wise. In fact, I may have little or no wisdom at all, and I may live my live in a completely idiotic or para-suicidal manner. Wisdom indeed is a type of intelligence.
I may well have worse mechanical skills. Mechanical skills are absolutely a type of intelligence.
I may have poor skills at higher mathematics. IQ tests only test low level mathematics. Quite a few very high IQ people barely got through high school math and struggled with Algebra 2 and Geometry, including me.

  • An IQ test does not test for artistic, musical, or creative intelligence. Not at all.
  • An IQ test does not test for kinetic intelligence of course. You would test that on a playing field of some sort.
  • An IQ test absolutely does not test social intelligence at all. You test that out in the real world with real people, and they will be the judges of your social intelligence, not you.
  • An IQ test does not test crafty, sly, or street smart intelligence. Street smart people will judge you on that on their own, and they will always be right.
  • An IQ test is absolutely not a wisdom test! So many people cannot seem to figure this out as they constantly conflate raw intelligence and wisdom. They are two different things.
  • An IQ test does not test mechanical intelligence at all.
  • An IQ test absolutely does not test for higher math skills at all.

I hope this clarifies for people exactly what an IQ test checks for and how indeed it leaves out a number sub-intelligences which may well be very important for you and society.

Why Do So Many Successful and Wise People Believe an IQ Test Doesn't Mean Anything?

Answered on Quora.
It’s an Americanism. Americans hate the idea of intelligence in general. Supposedly everything is down to dumb luck or especially hard work. We believe that anyone can do anything if they only try. It is part of a mindset called “boosterism.” Want to get a college degree? You can get one if you work very hard! How about a Masters? If you work even harder, you can get a Masters!
Americans simply do not wish to believe that anyone is innately more intelligent than anyone else.
Of course that is an insane idea, and it is rooted in the ferocious anti-intellectualism in American life. It’s been here from the start. Check out De Tocqueville in Democracy in America. He said the same thing in 1850. Richard Hofstadter said the same thing in a seminal book, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life a century later. In between there was H. L. Mencken saying the same thing.
Our anti-intellectualism is actually quite pitiful, but we pride ourselves on it. Why we are proud of being stupid is beyond me!
So an “Americanism” has developed that success is all down to grit and hard work, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, Horatio Algerism, etc.
You don’t need a high IQ to be successful in America. Many successful businessmen have average IQ’s. Oglivy, the most famous ad-man who ever lived, had a 93 IQ. No one could believe it, so he kept taking the tests over and over, and he kept getting the same score.
A lot of high IQ people do dumb stuff, are social clods, and ruin their lives with idiotic behavior. Here we see the confusion of IQ and wisdom. These high IQ people who do this lack wisdom. But IQ tests don’t test for wisdom at all! It’s an intelligence test, not a wisdom test, and the two things are not the same.
In addition, we all know many average IQ people who are immanently sensible and have great common sense, street smarts, and social and people skills and seem to breeze through life this way. Many average IQ people are very wise.
Other than hatred for intelligence (which is IQ-hating is all about), another reason is liberalism. Unfortunately, different races score differently on IQ tests. For instance, Whites score 15 points higher than Blacks on IQ tests. Liberals believe in equality, so this result can’t be correct. It comes up with the wrong answer.
Instead we had a huge move by liberals to say that IQ tests didn’t matter, they don’t test intelligence, they only measure test-taking schools or book smarts (which is bullshit, but everyone believes it). It was also feared that if this got out, it could increase racism against Blacks. Also, people would not want to spend money to help Blacks on social programs if it was believed they were innately dumber. If they’re born dumb, why bother educating them? Waste of money.
To an extent, the liberals are correct to worry about how this information will be used. Most White racists are strong believers in IQ tests and differential intelligence among the races, and they use this to justify their racism all the way down to saying Blacks are too stupid to live alongside Whites, so Whites need a separate country. Almost all White racists are Libertarians because they think Blacks are innately stupid, so any money spent on them is wasted.
Due to all of this, a proven scientific fact, that Whites are smarter than Blacks on average, is disparaged and said to be a vicious racist lie. Merely stating this fact is sufficient to get one pilloried as a racist. You can have your career destroyed. James Watson’s career was ruined because he stated the truth about IQ and race.
This is quite pitiful because it shows that liberals in some cases have the same hatred of science that conservatives do. When you can be called a racist and have your career destroyed for stating a proven scientific fact, you are living in a pretty pitiful and truth-hating society.

Can a Person Have Above Average IQ 125-135 SD=15 and Still Be a Slow Thinker?

Answered on Quora.
That would not make sense at all.
IQ more than anything else (at least fluid IQ) is a test of raw, pure, brain speed and efficiency. Studies have found that as IQ rises, the brain works more efficiently.
If you have spent time around bright people, one of the most striking things about them is how lightning fast they are. This can be seen even in conversation. Have you ever met people so fast that they almost finish your sentences for you. You get halfway through the sentence, and they are already reacting to the sentence because they have actually predicted what the rest of the sentence is! That’s pretty damn smart.
Some very bright people have fast moving eyes. If you watch them when they talk, you see their eyes flitting all around very rapidly. Sometimes there are also a lot of micromovements with their faces.
In fact, I think I can see this even comparing a 110–115 IQ person to a 95–100 IQ person (I am guessing at their IQ’s). The latter are noticeably slower, and the former are often strikingly fast. The slower people are often very nice and pleasant, but they’re just not as fast. You have to admit it.

Everything You Need to Know about the False Flag Fake Chemical Weapons Attack in Douma, Syria on April 7, 2018

The Russian government sent special CW teams to the site where the “chemical weapons” attacks took place, and they found no evidence of any chemical weapons use.
Here are quotes from two doctors from the Syrian Red Crescent Society saying that they have not treated anyone in Douma for chemical weapons exposure during the course of the war.
The Syrian Red Crescent is a separate organization that is not part of aligned with the government in any way.
Here are interviews with Syrian doctors from Douma saying there was no chemical attack. Unfortunately it is in Arabic. The doctor says that an airstrike set a fire which then suffocated a number of people. In this case, those dead people really were killed by Assad or his allies. This also explains the burned or singed extremities.
They also visited the area hospital and found no one being treated for chemical weapons exposure.
In addition, there is only one hospital in Douma, a government hospital and all the doctors all work for the state and have been getting salaries all this time. It was not bombed by Assad though he supposedly bombs every hospital he can. The physicians at this hospital reported that they treated no one for symptoms of chemical weapons exposure from April 6-8.

11:31 AM Twitter time = 9:31 PM in Syria? early tweet UOSSM uses only those same clinic images, but heard at least “6 people killed and 700 suffocation cases from a reported chemical attack on Douma, Ghouta; Largest area hospital destroyed. #SaveGhouta”

OK look, they claim the largest hospital in the area got destroyed, but there’s only one hospital in Douma, the employees still get paychecks from Assad (he pays state employees in rebel areas, even under ISIS rule!), and it has never been targeted. This is a straight up lie.

I am hearing that doctors at the hospital have been interviewed and they said they were treating some people for injuries when some White Helmets people ran in the hospital with video cameras yelling that there had been a chemical attack.
Above is a video of the events above with two Syrian doctors narrating. You can see the scene on their computer screen as it was all captured on video. The people are being treated, possibly for smoke inhalation, and a man runs in and starts yelling that there was a chemical attack. A film crew then comes in. You see later patients panicking when this group tells them that they need to be hosed down due to the chemical attack. You can see these people washing down the patients with hoses.
Unfortunately it is from the Russians, but it does quote two people, Yaser Abdel Majid, a doctor at the only hospital in Douma, as saying that they treated no one with chemical weapons symptoms in recent days. In addition, ambulance driver Amed Saur said that between April 6-8 they treated no one for chemical weapons exposure, only ordinary war wounds.
The reports from WHO that the attack took place are based on health officials who are part of the rebels. The official report of the health officials is as above.
This piece says that WHO’s evidence apparently came from the White Helmets, and Medicins sans Frontiers has no one on the ground in Douma.
From the website A Closer Look at Syria:

SAMS is the fraudulent acronym for the Syrian American Medical Society, reputedly founded in the US, in 1998, as a “nonpolitical, nonprofit, medical relief organization.”
Reports on unproven allegations of a chemical attack in Douma, the Syria city formerly occupied by the Army of Islam insurgent group, invariably rely on a key source: The Syrian American Medical Society (SAMS). Together with the White Helmets, SAMS has been cited by the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN and virtually every Western media organization reporting on the incident. In Douma, SAMS staff have claimed that they treated more than 500 people for symptoms “indicative of exposure to a chemical agent.”

SAMS  is the Syrian American Medial Association. It was set up in the US. It is connected to the Muslim Brotherhood and is reportedly funded by USAID. USAID = CIA. It’s been a CIA asset forever.
I have no response to claims about claims by US officials of chemical weapons being found in blood and urine samples. Remember that Iraqi WMD BS also relied a lot on these anonymous US officials.

This scene appears to be staged.
From the comments on the video above:

Absurd. I’ve been working a lot with gas cylinders. No Way it can pierce a hole into the steel reinforced concrete roof and stay undamaged….It hasn’t even DENTS. Further, it penetrated the ceiling but landed softly on the bed w/o breaking it.
The canister looks well rested after breaking the roof, probably because it made its way to the bed and is having a nap.
I repeat here: the gas bomb breaks concrete ceiling and hit a bed. NOT EVEN A SCRATCH on bomb. Clear paint. Parts of the bomb, which were made of thin metal, is not even bent. They brought this bomb in the house and put it to bed. Poor-made fake.
No way! The hell cannon shell was so tired from doing all that work – breaking the reinforced concrete roof and all – it decided to take a nap 🙂 I’m surprised it didn’t use the blanket, it looks chilly
On what idiots is this video calculated? The bomb broke through the concrete roof, but the hole was left, and the wooden bed was not broken. Dust is only on top of the bomb, but not across the entire surface of the bed. Do they think we are these idiots???

Indeed, the canister has dust all over it, but there is no dust on the bed?
From Caustic Logic‘s page:

And as some discussion on Twitter helps me decide (no expert), chlorine gas does not stain things the color that it appears. The color you see is from the optics of the gas molecules in light, not from a dye it contains and can leave behind. Rather, what it touches is affected however. At least in the presence of moisture (which is common all over), it’s hit with corrosive acid. The materials get oxidized, burned, bleached, damaged, rusted, or unfazed, depending. It doesn’t turn pale yellow green like an airbrush with that color of dye in it would do. I’m pretty sure this has to be a fake scene. (credit: Orbi, Kobs, McIntyre)

Chlorine does not turn everything light green or yellow as in this pic. This photo must be faked. It looks like they sprayed some green or yellow something on the bed.

Could that be put in a chlorine tank? Easily, if one has the sarin to start with. Is that what killed people? Not that girl who can be handles with no gloves and no repercussions. Not the people who lack cyanosis, much of the SLUDGE syndrome, etc. This isn’t chlorine or sarin, but something else, likely done somewhere else.

Look at two photos of the dead bodies. Whoops! The second one has a dead baby on top! Looks like someone decided that that photo would look better with a dead baby on top of it, so they threw one on there!
Information at this link shows that the victims could not be victims of a chlorine or sarin attack, there was no sarin attack because girl is handled with no gloves, and there was no attack by sarin or chlorine either because the victims lack symptoms of poisoning by either agent.

The “chemical weapons” bomb photographed at the scene does not look like the shells that Assad for his chemical weapons arsenal. They all had a certain look and were designed to be shot out of artillery. Furthermore, that bomb appears to be unexploded and it is hard to see how any chlorine could have come out of that shell.
Look at those two photos. The “chlorine gas” stains on the bed are brown in one photo and green in another? What?
Look at that huge hole in the roof. That bomb made that huge hole in that roof and then landed on that bed. But that bed is completely intact. It would have been smashed all the way through, right?
Now look at the bomb. It’s completely intact. We cannot see any breaks in the bombs’ seals at least from this view of the bomb. Now look at the cylinder. That cylinder is closed. That is where the chemicals would have had to have come out of if this was a real chemical weapons shell. Look at that guy with the gas mask. Not only does he have a staged expression on his face but he is wearing an old Soviet era gas mask. My understanding is that these gas masks that the rebels have aren’t even functional anymore:
This is from the Khan Sheikhoun fake attack. First of all, those photos are from a rebel field hospital base five miles from where they said the attack took place! Second of all, they are not using proper gear to handle those “sarin attack victims.” They are handling them with their bare hands! If that were a real attack, you can’t do that. The people handling the victims will get poisoned by the weapon themselves.

It looks like the rebels caught onto their lousy theater and tried to remedy some of it. This video is from the same location as the previous film showing the canister on the bed. Now it’s on the floor. Why? What happened? Did it move on its own? Now look it. It looks quite damaged and part of it is even burned. So they heard that their shell looked fake, so they damaged it and burned it some or substituted another canister. Only one canister hit that building supposedly.
Assad’s forces were advancing right in the area of the attack at the time. They have no gas masks or gear. Any forces advancing into a chemical weapons hit need that gear. A Russian TV video with a Russian reporter embedded with the Syrian Army. They were interviewing soldiers who said they were advancing into the area at the time of fake attack and you can’t use chemical weapons when your own army is advancing unless they have gas masks, etc. Maybe someone else can find it.
There is no way that a chlorine bomb hit killed 80 people and wounded no one. Chlorine is not even very lethal. I remember Al Qaeda used to use chlorine shells in Anbar during the Iraq War. Typically they would get 5 killed and 1,000 injured, something like that. It was always a figure like that.The stuff hurts you but it generally does not kill you, and you get rapidly better. It is more of a nuisance weapon than anything else.

“Backing the Ghouta Media Centre’s claims, SAMS alleged that a second attack with “mixed agents”, including nerve agents, had hit a nearby building.”
(note: it’s mixing sarin and chlorine in one weapon that would not work. This is what they allege killed many).
Because if they were allegedly used together in one weapon or one attack, the sarin part would largely be cancelled out by the chlorine, depending how well they mixed.

There are claims that sarin and chlorine was mixed in a bomb. However, if you do that, you chlorine cancels out the sarin and makes it not work, so there’s no point in adding sarin to a chlorine bomb as it works as well as a pure chlorine bomb. It’s a waste of sarin.
This link shows that chlorine gas not toxic enough to explain death toll.
Even a nerve agent attack less toxic than mustard still has only 2-3% kill rate. And it is so subject to varying wind and weather conditions for proper drift that it is best used just before dawn. Also when they are finding any sarin at all as in Ghouta 2013 and Khan Sheikoun 2017, the doses are very low. In Ghouta some had sarin in their blood, but the levels were too low to cause harm. In Khan Sheikhoun, very low levels of sarin were found in the area but not in any humans.
I believe the rebels released their bathtub sarin in both cases. The MI6 determined that the sarin used in 2013 was the bathtub sarin that the rebels had been making, and they said it did not match samples of Syrian government sarin that they had. This was relayed to the CIA, who informed Obama. This is the real reason the 2013 attack was called off – the CIA told Obama that Assad didn’t do it. The CIA did not assign blame to anyone – they simply said that Assad did not do it. See Seymour Hersh’s recent article which had to be published in Germany because not even the London Review of Books would dare publish his findings.

External Relations of Japanese and Apache

Jason Voorhees: YEE – There is some similarity between the language of an Apache and that of the Japanese for example.
Yee: That seems far fetched. My ancestors moved from Central China, but I can’t understand any of their dialect now. Language is easy to lose

Actually this is not correct. Apache does have external relations in the new Yenisien-Na Dene family (already under fierce attack by splitters), and in a larger sense to Chinese but not Japanese. But there is no similarity whatsoever between Japanese and Apache, other than that probably all human languages are related at some distant level. There is no clear or obvious relationship between Japanese (really Japonic) and any other language. Japanese is not one language. It is a group of languages called Japonic. Most of the Japonic languages are spoken the Ryukyu Islands (Okinawa), where there are 5-6 separate languages spoken. These languages still have many speakers, but they are in very bad shape as the Japanese have been waging war on them for some time now. Most of the speakers are middle aged or older and transmission to the young is at a low level.
However, it is clear to me that Japanese does have external relations. The most obvious external relation would be with Korean. Even some of the hardest-core anti-Altaicists agree that there is a good chance that Korean and Japanese are related. Looking at the larger picture, Japanese and Korean are both related to Turkic, Tungusic and Mongolic in a superfamily called Altaic. Mainstream linguistics has refused to accept Altaic although the evidence for its existence is striking.
The evidence for the existence of Altaic is just as good as the evidence for Austroasiatic,l and that is a universally accepted family. Worse, people who believe in Altaic are attacked and ridiculed mercilessly to the point where if you believe in it,  you might actually have a hard time getting a professorship.
Of course, Altaicists are accused of being anti-scientific because “science” has not yet shown that there is any relationship. Adults who think like this are children. Science doesn’t know everything and science is flat out wrong about countless things. That is because many theories are simply true that are presently rejected by science due to so-called lack of evidence.
Having to go ask Mommy Science whether everything you encounter in the world is true or not is like what a child does. A child is always running up to Mommy asking is it is true that so and so etc etc. Mommy says yes or no and the kid is satisfied. The are adults who are still tied to their mothers apron strings who never learned to differentiate themselves as mature individuals. Hence they have to run the Mommy Science and ask whether something is true or not instead of sitting down and looking at the evidence and deciding for yourself.
Not all things that are true have been accepted by science. If you are going to learn anything in life, it should be that right there. Time to cut the apron strings, babies.

Glaciers Are Sexist

Glaciers, Gender, and Science

A Feminist Glaciology Framework for Global Environmental Change Research

  1. Mark Carey
  2. M Jackson
  3. Alessandro Antonello
  4. Jaclyn Rushing

Mark Carey, Robert D. Clark Honors College, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, USA. Email: carey{at}


Glaciers are key icons of climate change and global environmental change. However, the relationships among gender, science, and glaciers – particularly related to epistemological questions about the production of glaciological knowledge – remain understudied. This paper thus proposes a feminist glaciology framework with four key components: 1) knowledge producers; (2) gendered science and knowledge; (3) systems of scientific domination; and (4) alternative representations of glaciers.

feminist glaciology, feminist political ecology, feminist postcolonial science studies, folk glaciology, glacier impacts, glaciers and society

No, seriously, this is not a joke. See here.
Apparently, according to science, glaciers are sexist. Who knew?
I would say they are also racist. I mean come on, they are lily White! Ever seen a Black glacier? Ever seen a MexicanT glacier? Me either. So glaciers exist in a de facto Jim Crow/apartheid segregated environment in which Black and Mexicant glaciers are excluded from existing via pure glacier racism.
Future strategies to combat this injustice may include busing (busing glaciers from one place to the other via glacier buses to relive glacier-caused inequity, forced integration by the creation of alternate forms of glaciers such as Black glaciers and Mexicant glaciers in order to increase much needed glacier diversity, and affirmative action by promoting more diverse glaciers in the literature which is dominated by boring and oppressive descriptions of “dead White glaciers.”
The Cultural Left has been bordering on self parody for some time now but recently they have gone so full retard that you literally cannot tell the difference between actual Cultural Left stuff and their enemies sarcastic attempts to make fun of them.

Kundalini Binaural Beats

This stuff is pretty trippy. Scientists poo poo it, but I believe there is something to it. The binaural bets are set to mimic various brain waves: Alpha waves, Beta waves, Delta waves, Gamma waves and Theta waves. Of course you have all of these waves in your brain. So you put in Theta binaural beats and you get more theta waves supposedly. The same with Alpha, Beta, Delta, Gamma, etc. It sounds like a reasonable hypothesis anyway. This stuff is called brain entrainment because supposedly it actually changes how your brain works (via manipulation of existing brain waves).
They also work with your chakras. Chakras are an Indian medical theory. Supposedly you have chakras in your body that do various things and you can mess around with these chakras to achieve desired ends. A lot of yogi types swear that they are true and a lot of folks who listen to these beats have had experiences suggesting of chakras.
For instance, people who listen to the Kundalini beats report that they feel a warmth at the bottom of their spine that goes all the way up to the top of their spine. These people who report this have no idea that this is one of the things that Kundalini is supposed to do.
It is called Kundalini rising because it supposedly turns on the energy levels in your body. The Kundalini is said to be like a snake that moves up and down your spine. It’s all pretty wacky and insane, but who knows, maybe there is something to it. I have no idea if chakras exist or not either but I would not take the word of modern scientistic medicine about whether there is anything to this stuff. There are supposedly dangers that can occur when you awaken Kundalini, but I am not sure about that either. If it’s all nonsense, how could it have ill effects?
I put this Kundalini stuff on very low and then I go to sleep in the other room. I put it on so low that you can hear it but only barely. I also have a fan in my room and often have windows open so there are other noises. I try to make sure that the other noises are louder than the binaural beats. Nevertheless you can sense them if you listen hard because it feels like the whole room or apartment is vibrating in this strange way like the hum you hear of highway workers at night or an electric plant that is nearby.
One thing I noted is that I crash hard as Hell with that stuff on. I sleep maybe five hours and I wake up and think I slept for 18 hours. I get up and feel like a slab or wood or concrete, but that feels very good. It reminds you of the feeling of whenever you had some very good hard sleeps. It’s like as hard as the hardest crash you have ever had.
I also noticed that some of the pains I have in my neck and back diminished after that very hard crash. In addition, the first few nights I had this stuff on, my dreams changed.
It’s a bit embarrassing, but I had sex in my dreams! I know you are thinking so what, but the thing is, I do not know if it is a hangup or what, but I never or almost never have sex in my dreams. Even when I have a girlfriends and we are going at it for hours a day, I still never have sex in my dreams. And with this Kundalini stuff, I had sex in my dreams for maybe four days straight. That’s pretty weird right there.
This stuff might effect you more than you think it does.

An Approach towards a Unified Theory

What is the world made of?

  1. Matter
  2. Antimatter
  3. ?

What are the principal force(s) in the world?

  1. Energy
  2. ?

How do these forces manifest?

  1. Electricity
  2. Magnetism
  3. Chemical/molecular bonding
  4. ?

What is the direction of these forces?

  1. Heirarchical evolution/building blocks
  2. Entropy

What are the purposes of these forces?

  1. Bonding
  2. Persistence
  3. Chaos
  4. Disintegration
  5. ?

What are the central laws of existence?

  1. Thermodynamics
  2. ?

Commentary: The world’s ingredients can only be matter and antimatter, no? What else do you need?
The force of the world is energy and nothing else. Other than energy, there is no force at all.
The force manifests as electric current, magnetic pull and especially bonding of elements. Like Einstein said, everything’s a force field.
The purposes of the force are creation/progression (hierarchical evolution), attachment (bonding), scattering (chaos), and annihilation (disintegration).
Casting all distraction aside and boiling what’s left all down, the underlying rule of existence seems to be thermodynamics. Getting down to brass tacks, what else do you need other than thermodynamics? It’s the base law of them all. Strip it all way, and only thermodynamics remains. All else is dross.
Now that we have solved some of the major problems of the universe, I think I will go lie down for a bit.

Heidegger, Feynman and a Bird

You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you’re finished, you’ll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird…So let’s look at the bird and see what it’s doing – that’s what counts.
– Richard Feynman

Sounds like Feynman is channeling Heidegger here. Heidegger is pretty damn hard to understand, but I do understand some of his ideas.
In Being and Time, he talks a lot about meanings. He differentiates between surface meanings and deep meanings.
Surface meanings are like those 6,000 words for the bird. As a good general rule, the name or names of a thing (what we call it) tells us little or nothing about that thing. Imagine that we had no language, but we were as smart as we are now. We would see birds flying about and doing their thing all the time. We would observe those birds and we would form a lot of ideas about what that bird is and what it does. We would do this even if we had no word for the bird whatsoever. Follow?
So what we call the bird or object does not mean a whole lot or even tell us much if anything about what the object is. The name of the bird is the surface meaning of the object that is that bird. Surface meanings, as I mentioned, don’t mean a whole lot. They are more a means of classifying objects in our brains so we can think about them more easily and quickly and so we can communicate about them with other humans.
Many objects have more than one name and actually have many different definitions. Some of the definitions that we have of objects not only don’t tell us much important about the object, but in some sense, while they are technically correct, they are often wrong because they sort of give a false meaning to the object and distract us from the meaning that makes them important.
There is a difference between objects and what I call essences. Often we think of things not in terms of the names or (often lousy) definitions of them but instead we think of these objects in terms of what the essence of the object is. The true meaning of an object lies in its essence, not in any surface definition we give to it, which in a lot of cases is no more important than a “tag.”
We have objects that we can “tag” in all sorts of different ways according to whatever definitions the object has. But those definitions are just tags and some are even contradictory as an object can be two contradictory things at once when it has a surface definition or tag of one meaning but has a deep meaning or essence of the opposite meaning.
This is why definitions are inherently problematic. We studied Semantics a bit in my Linguistics studies. One of the main principles of Semantics is that the definitions we give to words are in many cases incomplete. In other words, it is often impossible to give a full definition of a word that describes the meaning of the word perfectly.
Getting back to Feynman here, all of those words for that bird probably do not tell us a whole lot about the bird. They are just “tags” or surface meanings so to speak that we use to categorize that bird in our brains so we can store information about that bird in our brains better. In other words, Feynman says, who cares what the damn bird is called! It’s got 6,000 different names all over the world world! As I noted, objects can have more than one surface meaning or tag. In the case of this bird, it has 6,000 different tags on it, none of which tell us much about the bird!
If we wish to understand the bird, Feynman notes, we forget about whatever it is called (its surface meaning) and instead focus on what it is doing – let’s observe the behavior of the bird. By observing the actions of the bird, we can come to understand it better by uncovering its deep meaning, or essence. This is what the bird really means and what it is really all about.
This seems a bit long-winded, but this is very important to know. Don’t pay a whole lot of attention to what something is named. Particularly in politics, things are often given names that are the exact opposite of what they are. Forget about what surface definitions people give to objects, actions or events because they are often misleading and even flat-out wrong. Instead, pretend that you have no word for the object, action or event and try to understand the deep meaning or essence or what something is or what happened. If you put these Deep Meaning googles on, the world starts to look like a very different place, and you can think about the world in a completely different, and better way.
I will have a bit more on this later on. This should be plenty for now. This was a bit of a mouthful here.

Football Is Inherently Dangerous

There’s apparently no way whatsoever to make the game safer. They have tried everything at this point, and nothing works. The only way to make the game safer is to not play it in the first place. They are talking mostly about head injuries. No matter how they make the helmets, football players still get head injuries. And those who play it for a long time apparently end up brain damaged, just like boxing. There’s new data on this just starting to come out now.

Prevalence of Sex Acts Among Gay Men

These figures are extremely controversial, and in fact, the man who accumulated them is one of the most vilified men in the West. However, all of his conclusions are from legitimate peer reviewed medical journals and books. The people who jump up and down and yell so much about these findings are encouraged to go out and come up with some figures of their own.

These figures appear to be good at least for this particular time period. One argument might be that gay men’s sex practices have changed over the past 30 years, and therefore, these figures are no longer viable. That is an interesting hypothesis, but it remains to be seen if it is true or not. Those who claim that these studies are outdated are encouraged to go out and find some more updated studies so we can compare them to these older results. My gut feeling is that gay men’s behavior has not changed very much.

I am not sure why I am putting this stuff out there, but it’s nice to know such things. It’s also a good counterpoint to the “Gays are just like straights except for the PIV (penis in vagina ) sex.” Obviously that is not true at all.

You can do whatever you want to with this figures – I have no particular agenda here except to disagree with the SJW’s who insist that homosexual sex is the greatest thing since sliced bread. This is clearly not the case.

                Ever  Last yr. Last mo. Last 6 mos.

Sex acts

Oral-penile      99.5  92      67
Anal-penile      93    94      97
Oral-anal        87    63      79       60
Public/orgy sex  82 
Fisting/toys     39
S/M B/D          37
Urine sex        26
Minor sex        23.5
Enemas           11
Shit eating       6   

Based on six different surveys conducted from 1977 to 1991 in the US, Denmark, London, Sydney. The surveys were done a while back – the median year for the surveys was 1984.

It is true that these figures come from the reviled Paul Cameron. Cameron is very much a homophobe all right. The PC crowd and the SJW’s have trashed his figures to Kingdom Come. However, all of Cameron’s figures come from peer reviewed studied studies in medical journals and books (see below). The SPLC in particular has trashed all of his findings, and the American Psychological Association has disassociated itself from Cameron and thrown him out of the organization. All of this apparently because he is coming up with the wrong conclusions.

As usual with these types, it is put up or shut up. While they have completely trashed Cameron’s findings, they have never shown how or why they are wrong, and worse, they have never shown any newer findings that indicates how Cameron is wrong.

Until further studies indicate that Cameron is wrong, his figures must stand.


Beral, V. et al. 1992. Risk of Kaposi’s Sarcoma and Sexual Practices Associated with Fecal Contact in Homosexual or Bisexual Men with AIDS. Lancet.

Biggar, R. J. 1984. Low T-lymphocyte Ratios in Homosexual Men. Journal of the American Medical Association. 7/18/91. Wall Street Journal, p. B1.

Elford, J. et al. 1992. Kaposi’s Sarcoma and Insertive Rimming. Lancet.

Jaffee, H. et al. 1983. National Case-control Study of Kaposi’s Sarcoma. Annals Of Internal Medicine.

Jay, K. & Young, A. 1979. The Gay Report. NY: Summit.

Quinn, T. C. et al. 1983. The Polymicrobial Origin of Intestinal Infection in Homosexual Men. New England Journal of Medicine.