The Problem with the Cultural Left: A Focus on Form Instead of Content

From a conversation on the web:

Anonymous commenter: Some of the Left has gone from fighting for real, important issues to fighting for Political Correctness and other absurdities. That’s not all the Left, just the most vocal and strident. I am what people would consider a Leftist (even though my worldview is Indigenous), and I couldn’t care less what someone says. I care about what someone does.

Even AIM (the American Indian Movement) has gone from fighting for tribal sovereignty and against the destruction of tribal lands by industries and corporations, which is still going on, to fighting against Indian mascots! Many people are fixated on words and disregarding actual facts, probably because screaming about words is easier than facing the monster of destruction this global civilization has become.

What you call the Cultural Left is more interested in form than in content…it is more interested in style than substance.

To which I reply:

Getting all upset about someone saying some word that everyone says anyway is ridiculous.

Also the Cultural Left seems to me to have become prudish, Puritanical, Victorian and even sex-hating. They are also uptight, priggish party-poopers. They’re the no-fun crowd, people who see a party and rush in and dump turds in the punch bowl.

These types used to be rightwingers or conservatives, and in this sense the Cultural Left are actually quite conservative or even reactionary and backwards.

Let’s focus on real issues, not some BS about what someone said, especially when they didn’t even say anything bad anyway.

Let’s focus on real job discrimination and especially housing discrimination against Blacks.

Let’s focus on abortion rights being taken away from women.

Let’s focus on ending employment discrimination against gays.

Let’s focus on getting rid of all discrimination against transsexuals.

You know, the real stuff, not the bullshit.

Feminists Don’t Want Equality; They Want to Defeat and Dominate Men

We men have been lording it over women for at least 12,000 and probably far longer than that. Patriarchy was usually the only way to be for any society.

However, in recent years in the West, patriarchy has started to crumble, mostly due to the assaults of the feminists. This is a good thing in most ways. However there are still quite a few battlements in the bombarded fortress which are active and not good for women.

And women have started to institute a matriarchy over men too in some ways. Like the #metoo nonsense. It was inevitable. Most groups fighting for their rights don’t really want equal rights. They want to defeat the people dominating them and turn the tables to where the dominated are now dominators.

So the remains of patriarchy continue to oppress women while the newfound matriarchy now oppresses men. Both sexes are both oppressed and oppressors now.

Narcissism and Psychopathy are on Continua Too

Very good book.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Male and Female Psychopaths: Some Differences

SHI: Just as there are evil men, there are evil women, and it’s very hard for these creatures to disguise their intentions. They should not be shown any mercy or grace. It is usually safer to avoid them, but if you are forced to interact, make it very clear that you understood who they are and protect your boundaries.

In the Medieval Ages, such women were beheaded for sorcery or conspiracies. They are bad news and have no soul.

Basically evil bitches from Hell! I’ve been running into a lot of these lately. Mostly young women who are gold-diggers. To sum up, they are basically trying to steal money from me. They are worse than whores because at least whores give you something in return for your money. These monsters just steal your money and give you nothing in return. They are almost all young women. I think it is because I am an older man.

I lost $80 to one of these harridans not long ago. She was 1/2 Black, 1/4 Hispanic and 1/4 White. She was pretty ghetto, was basically a whore (prostitute), and had the personality of a The Whore (the worst female personality of them all).

I am convinced that she was a female psychopath. Indeed, 45% of female prostitutes are psychopaths! A lot of strippers, cam girls, porn stars, sex workers, etc. have this same personality and a lot of them are female psychopaths.

When a woman goes psychopathic, she basically turns into a whore and a thief. She can be very psychologically and spiritually violent, but not physically violent because women are just not like that. Physical violence is a trait of men only. These women are about as bad as a woman gets – a whore and a thief – typically both at the same time.

However, male psychopaths, while not usually whores (except for gay men, and yes, a lot of gay psychopaths are gay whores when young), are typically thieves, and they can get a lot worse than that. That is because the male psychopath is often physically violent, and that is downright menacing and dangerous as Hell.

Females, even female psychopaths, are just not violent. It’s simply not in the character or soul of the female to be like that. Women almost seem to have an inborn physical revulsion towards physical violence, like the very thought of it physically repulses them and makes them nauseaous.

The most evil women I have ever known definitely drew the line at physical violence. I have heard evil women discussing how they are going to get back at their enemies, and the subject of homicide came up, and every one of those women would draw back and put a line in the sand, “Well, wait. We can’t kill them. We just can’t do that.” Any other evil women within earshot would nod their heads.

If you think about it, it’s not adaptive for females to be physically violent. For one, she might kill her own kids! The trait’s not going to get passed down that way. For another, think back to caveman days to those Alpha Psychopathic Caveman who were monopolizing all the women with harems while making sure via terrorism that most men were not able to breed.

Picture one of these maniacal cavemen if you will. Now think of whether these caveman psychos would put up with any physical violence from the women they were lording it over. Hell no. Any physically violent women back then would probably be promptly murdered by those dangerous men.

And as SHI notes, physically violent or murderous women were killed as sorcerers, witches, or conspirators by men back in the Middle Ages when humans were not nearly so civilized and kind-hearted as they are now.

You can have society with murderous men, and we have exactly that all over the world. But you can’t have a society where 100% of the population is physically violent and murderous. That society’s probably not going last long before they all simply kill each other.

To Live Outside the Law, You Must Be Honest

Well, the moral of the Street is something called “Paybacks are a bitch.” You wrong people on the street like drug dealers or other Street-type people, and they have a tendency to get their revenge on you, and it can be pretty serious.

And the police probably will not get involved to protect you, as word will get out that you were badly wronging people, and they took revenge on you. Cops figure you’re a scumbag who wronged some other scumbags, and they see these crimes as “NHI”, or No Humans Involved. If you got paid back, cops figure you’re a scumbag who wronged people and got what you deserved.

People on the street do not let wrongs so unanswered. That’s why actually most Street-type people like users and dealers, especially of the soft stuff like pot, are downright honest people. There a code of honor among Street people. Dylan sang, “If you live outside the law, you must be honest,” and I swear it’s true.

This Code of Justice has a tendency to keep most low level Street type people (as long as they are not too bad) quite honest if only out of fear if nothing else. Another moral of the streets is “The Street Knows Everything.”

Street people know everything about everyone, all the underground types out there. You can’t really hide secrets from these people. Anything significant about you gets found out, and word of mouth travels like lightning. They even know who you are hanging around with, dating, or sleeping with.

So if you think you can do crimes against Street people and not have anyone figure it out, you are probably wrong. And when they get back at you, they will generally commit some sort of low level crimes against you when doing so, as most forms of revenge tend to be illegal.

Even if it’s only kicking your ass, it’s still against the law. You go to the cops because people took revenge on you, and now you are a snitch or a narc, the worst sort of snitch actually, the kind who wrongs people, gets revenged on, and then goes running to the Mommy Cop to whine about getting his much-deserved reckoning.

The person who got revenged on and his friends typically won’t got to the police because they are probably low level criminals too and criminals, especially drug dealers, simply don’t go to the cops because they don’t want to get caught themselves.

Another thing is that if other Street people find out that you revenged on some guy, as long as you didn’t kill him or something like that, most of them either nod their heads gravely or break out in a big smile, and in both cases, they say, “I won’t say a thing.”

You might be thinking, “Don’t these Street People worry when committing crimes to get revenge that  they might get caught and go to jail? Well, let’s face it. Street people are already criminals for the most part! They almost all committing at least some low-level crimes.

You think criminals worry about going to jail? Hell, they’re already making a career out of breaking the law. I mean they don’t want to go to jail, but criminals are usually a lot less afraid of jail than law-abiders, and

Women Who Live to Beat Up the Men in Their Lives

SHI writes: “Women respect integrity…”

There are douchey women with absolutely no integrity whatsoever. I think they share every bit of contempt for good honest men as their douchey male counterparts.

If you want to score with them, you have to be a sick perverted man and lie through your teeth. They absolutely hate a man with integrity because in a relationship, such men would not satisfy their whims. The pesky moral conscience gets in the way.

These asshole women are like gold-diggers but not all of them are after money. They simply gain pleasure out of controlling the men in their lives, through sex or whatever. It is important for them to be the abuser in the relationship while playing victim to the hilt. These bitches are promiscuous and easily get bored of their husbands.

Being an ASSHOLE is a choice, not restricted to any specific gender.

I’ve had some girlfriends like that! I swear some women are just sick. They look for men who they perceive as weak or soft so they can beat the Hell out of them, mostly verbally, in the relationship. They insult you and have a sadistic gleam in their eyes when they do it. They insult you in front of groups of people. They insult you when they first meet you.

When they first meet you, they will laugh in your face, insult you, and then basically proposition you by asking you to come stay with them for a couple of weeks! It’s a bit jarring, like “Does this crazy bitch like me or hate me or what?!”

I still meet women like this to this day on dating sites. I met one a while back. She was arguing with everything I said and shooting down all my comments as “inappropriate” or “immature.” I basically wasn’t allowed to talk about anything, as I guess everything I said was not proper somehow. She was almost laughing while she was talking to me.

These women are very condescending towards the men in their lives. I have a pretty soft voice and generally come across as a pretty soft-spoken, soft sort of man. I’m not a wimp at all, but I am not the most masculine guy in the room, and a lot of people mistake that for wimpiness.

However my Mom pointed out that wimpy means a man who won’t fight back, and I absolutely fight back. In fact, I fight back so hard that I am quite proud to call myself a psycho. I don’t attack, rape, rob, and kill innocent people, but you mess with me and you’re going to be awful sorry! You screw with me and I’ll kill you is my attitude.

These bitches make a beeline for me, and their eyes light up when they see me. When they talked to me, it seemed like they were almost laughing under their breath the whole time, making fun of me.

Unless you are some crazy masochist who likes to get beat up by his woman, you need to avoid these women at all costs. They’re sick. They’re basically sadists.

The American Injustice System

County jails used to be very easy-going here in California before the 2011 Realignment which shifted a lot of prison inmates into local county jails with disastrous affects.

Now California county jails are downright dangerous places and in addition, the conditions are often horrific. Cops and guards beat the Hell out of arrestees and inmates all the time and nothing ever happens to them.

You wonder why I don’t like cops too much. Well, they beat the living crap out of some of my best friends for doing nothing at all or for protesting jail conditions. We used to say back in the day that they want to beat up everyone they arrest. It’s just part of the arrest procedure. We’ve had quite a few lawsuits here in California to stop these maniacs from beating people up for no good reason, but they’re still doing it all the time.

I also have a very low opinion of jail guards and even the nurses who work in jails, as most of those people are either out and out sadists (the guards) or cold as ice with zero empathy (the nurses).

I basically hate the whole system, most laws (which are stupid and should be abolished), cops* in general (act like they hate me, beat me up a few times, hassle me  to this day, abuse their authority, lie in court, etc.), guards (see above), jails (see above), prisons (see above but a lot worse), courts (the heart of the wicked system), judges (mostly hanging judges), prosecutors (the worst of them all, generally with zero morals – basically super-cops), and bailiffs (mean as Hell).

The whole system is garbage and I hate every bit of it. I realize we need cops, courts, DA’s, judges, jails, prisons, etc. but the system is completely unfair, messes with way too many people, punishments are far too harsh, jail conditions are Medieval, and cops and guards are sadistic maniacs.

We need a judicial system but not like this. It’s got to be dramatically reformed. We have way too many laws. The cucks, women, cops, narcs, and police state types have succeeded in making just about half of life illegal. Seriously. Half of crimes should just be abolished because they’re chickenshit offenses.  For a lot of that stuff, just let people settle things among themselves.

The Street is a sort of living being constituted of the sum total of all of the minds of all of the people on the Street. It is actually extremely intelligent, even brilliant, in a street smart sort of way.

It is also very honest and moral. There is a Street Code of Honor, and you break it, and you’re going to be sorry. Be cool, be honest, don’t rip people off or wrong people, and for the most part, it’s all good. Start messing people around, and things are going to get ugly real fast.

*A lot of cops don’t like me and for some reason, for decades now, they act like they hate me on sight, something I never understood. But some cops are nice to me, and I like them. A lady cop came up to me in a  coffee shop recently and she was extremely friendly. I was almost wondering if it was a come-on. But she had met me before a few times around town and always acted like she hated me.

I’ve been a crime victim before, and cops are very, very nice when you are a victim. They act like angels. I’ve also worked with police a bit on some investigations. They called me in to interview me about suspects and crimes. These were detectives and at these times these detectives were very nice and friendly. I like detectives a lot more than cops really because they’re far smarter than ordinary cops and have a relatively relaxed moral code.

I mean homicide cops just want to solve homicides.  They don’t care if you smoked weed or even sold it. You’re there to help them solve a homicide or attempted homicide and the low level dope stuff is simply not important or germane to what they need.

Paybacks Are a Bitch

I told you I’m nuts. Just be cool to me and everything will be fine. Screw me over and you may well regret it. Now you are dealing with a maniac.

Some people wronged me badly and I fought back so hard that they basically surrendered and told people that they never wanted to see me again. I forced one man to move! He lived across the street from me and was my mechanic.

He got mad partway through a job when my other friends said they would finish it for free while he charged money. Well, he came over to my house in the middle of the night and switched every wire that could be switched and then turned on the engine. Well, that blows up the engine. I towed the car to my mechanic, and he told me exactly what had happened.

A few days later, I went over to the guy’s house in the middle of the day with a baseball bat and smashed his door in!  Then I calmly walked home. The cops got called but my neighbor the cop convinced them to not take me. Supposedly they wanted to arrest me.

The cops called me up and were a bit sympathetic to my predicament: “Getting your pound of flesh out, eh” they laughed. Then they said, “Hey look, we don’t really like to get involved in this stuff, these feuds between individuals where one person has seriously wronged another. They think it’s a personal matter between a couple of citizens and it has no effect on keeping the streets safe for innocents, which is their job.

But then their tone changed and they said that they didn’t like vigilantism. And then they acted like smashing the door in was seriously psycho behavior, and I was maybe kind of a dangerous nut. They just thought it was a crazy thing to do.

We all agreed I would pay to fix the door. It only ended up being $10. Well, I was still mad so I terrorized that guy and launched guerrilla war against him with the help of my friends, who saw themselves with me as sort of a neighborhood gang with a “We own this neighborhood!” attitude. I could go into all the stuff I did but I won’t.

Mostly I declared war on his house and also I waged phone terrorism on him. We made a bomb out fireworks and a softball (I could show you how to do it), and threw it on his lawn in the middle of the night. It’s more properly a “firebomb” as all it does is detonate, but there’s no shrapnel.

That sounds bad but all it does is burn a hole in the lawn.

Eventually his parents forced him to move and I ended the war. But that’s an example of the type of stuff I do if you really screw me over.

My friends and I were drug dealers (pot dealers), and this guy was a cokehead who got ounces of pot fronted to him by us, sold them for cocaine money and shot it up his arm, then came back and put out the word that he wasn’t going to pay any of us back. So he was going around ripping off dealers.

We had made a similar bomb earlier to the one above earlier, and attached it to the car of on his windshield by his wiper, lit the fuse we made on it, and ran back a ways to watch. It was a huge explosion and it blew up his front windshield.

It’s a safe bomb though because it’s just a “firebomb” as in there’s no shrapnel. It’s like a massive firecracker or M-80. All it does is detonate and shatter the windshield while leaving it intact, and the glass doesn’t fly everywhere. It puts a very tiny hole in the windshield and blows a tiny amount of glass in the car, but it goes off within one minute after lighting it, and you do it in the middle of the night, and no one will be in the car, so no one gets hurt.

We also went out to this guy’s car one night, slashed the tires on his car with a knife, and ran away.

And we engaged in some phone terrorism against him too.

Later we got together with a bunch of other guys and someone lifted up his car and turned it upside down! There were some different people involved this time, as he ripped off lots of people, not just my friends and me.

And this is what happens if you rip off dealers on the Street. Don’t do it!

How to Not Raise Wussy Male Bitches/Female Bitches

How you do this involved the fact – these people have to be told – from a young age, that this behavior isn’t appropriate – and there has to be high-character role models.

However, modern U.S. society cannot do this, generally, because the parents are not high-character role models.

Now, of course, kids do go thru trying times, like the teenage years, but honestly, high-integrity parents can still deal with decent kids.

Different Types of Bad Kids:

  • The Rebellious Teen Girl  (way more likeable and lovable, but not desirable)
  • The Little Princess Bitch
  • The Wussy Male Princess Bitch  (Many are even masculine, like the bullies on the original Karate Kid movie.)
  • The Rebellious Teen Boy (another likeable sort, but probably needs to be done away with)

Anyway, the bitches (not rebellious ones) listed above are nightmare scenarios – cause I cannot stand those types!  They seem untreatable, unlike the others in the group.

Apparently Facts Are Racist Now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So my statement is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PUA/Game: Nice Guys and Bad Boys: The Final World

RL: LOL I dunno man. Women say they hate liars but they themselves lie their fool heads off all day long. And they love to hook up with extremely dishonest bad boys who cheat on them all the time.

Jason: But why are these guys stuck with “bad girls”? It’s because they have no integrity! And now the bad girls are hypocritically demanding integrity from these “losers in life”(sarcasm).

Bad boys can get any woman they want, pretty much. They get the hottest women of all. And they don’t care if they get bad girls or nice girls for the most part. Why would they care about that? They’re jerks. Why would jerks care about the integrity of the women they are with? Only decent men care about things like that. Bad boys probably like bad girls because they realize that bad girls are somewhat sociopathic just like they are. Peas in a pod.

Honestly, I think women are sick. There’s something wrong with them. They’re masochists. They actually want to be treated like crap by bad boys.

I don’t necessarily blame them for this, as I think that they can’t help it. Actually I do not blame women for most of the things I complain about them because I think they can’t help being bad like this. I think the badness is hardwired in.

Women are too decent to go out of their way and choose to be wicked. I mean sure, there are females who are anywhere from somewhat to completely psychopathic, and I do blame them for being pond scum. But face it. Women are the gentle sex, the sensitive sex. They’re basically kind-hearted and compassionate, and we men sure as Hell are not.

Instead I think it’s got to be wired in from caveman days. If you think about it, only 40% of men bred back in those days. So 60% of men had no kids. And almost all women bred. So back then there were harems just like in tribal Sub-Saharan Africa.

These arrangements typically mean that the worst, baddest, cruelest, and most evil men defeat all the other guys and rule over the defeated by terror while keeping as many women as possible for themselves. The rest of the guys are standing around with their dicks in their hands saying, “Duhhhh.”

So back then, the mean and sociopathic cavemen had these harems of women, and they were so mean and nasty that the rest of the men, possibly being less aggressive, were kept from taking these guys’ women by sheer force.

Look at Elephant Seals for an analogy in the animal world. Actually in much of the animal world, only a subset of males breed, and most males do not breed.

You can see that a setup like this might not only select for sociopathy and bad boys in men, but it might also select for the women liking these cavemen bad boy sociopaths and even putting up with being mistreated, as these caveman psychos were probably pretty mean to their women. So women who were not into being treated like crap by some maniac simply never bred and died out. It’s a just-so story but it’s as good as any.

Anyone got a better theory?

There isn’t any better theory.

The only alternate theory is the feminist theory. The feminist theory as usual is a complete lie because everything feminists say is a lie. Feminists simply say that it is a big lie that women prefer bad boys, are basically masochists, and hate nice guys.

Instead they say that women hate nice guys because deep down inside, nice guys aren’t very nice! They’re actually mean! As usual this makes no sense at all, since why would women pass up the nice guys for being hidden mean guys while flocking to the jerks who by all measures are not only openly vicious but are dramatically more mean and bad than any nice guy.

Feminist liars also say that women reject nice guys because nice guys are just being nice and hanging around women pretending to be their friends in hopes that the woman will eventually have sex with them. Oh noes! That’s terrible! Those evil men! How dare they try to get laid! Those poor virginal damsels in distress! Feminists come rescue them!

So nice guys are actually evil harassing, assaulting, raping scum! #Metoo! And the bad boys who are far more harassing, assaulting, and even raping than any nice guy are the ones they pick! That makes no sense at all, like anything any feminist ever said about anything.

It’s pretty simple. Women like masculine man. They go for bad boys because bad boys are masculine. The caveman residue alluded to above might also factor in. Nice guys? Well, they seem like wimps, and women hate wimps because they’re not masculine. Wimps are too feminine and most straight women are not into dating male lesbians, except the ones who go out with me.

And this is coming from a guy who has dated maybe 200 females in my life, so I’m not some loser whining, “Women only like bad boys! They don’t like nice guys like me!”

Plus I am a bit of a bad boy myself. But why do you think I do this? Part of it is I am just a rebellious motherfucker who doesn’t believe in fathers, bosses, rules, or laws (especially the first and all the subsequent ones follow from that one). But also I have been running Bad Boy Game my whole life because I know women love it. It’s all just a way to get women.

Women don’t like nice guys because they think they are wimps, pussies, and fags! That’s the truth of it. However, when they grab a Beta Provider to settle down, marry, and have a kid, it seems like a lot of the time they want a nice guy for a husband and father as long as he is not too much of a pussy.

It seems like back in the Day I was a pretty nice guy though, although I have always been a hardcore inveterate cheater. But I have usually had open relationships with women. I used to just lay it out right away that this was an open relationship, and I would say, “I don’t care what you do. I don’t care if you date other guys. I just don’t want to hear about it. What I don’t know won’t hurt me. And vice versa.”

This was back in the 70’s and 80’s when people were promiscuous, and crabs was about the worst STD you could get. It was groovy and cool to be polyamorous although no one ever called it that. A lot of the women and girls back then seemed like they liked being in open relationships because it made them groovy, cool, hip people.

I had girls who would go around bragging to our friends that we had an open relationship. I had a girlfriend recently put on her Facebook page that she was in an Open Relationship (with me). She acted like she was proud of it.

A lot of females want to be bad girls and break the rules, so to speak. A man granting them the status of an open relationship on their end is very empowering, and females love to be empowered because typically they are not allowed to have much power or agency in this world where they have to spend most of their time fending off the advances of annoying and uninteresting men.

They especially like being given power over the Sex Game because like I said, they are always playing defense, and it gets old after a bit.

But back when I supposedly had the Looks, being a nice guy was not much of a hindrance because I figure Chad can be a nice guy, and no one really cares.

I mean sometimes women would bitch me out right to my face, insult my masculinity, etc. I would just sit there and take it like an idiot and feel terribly hurt, whereas nowadays I would probably throw an object across the room at any woman who talked like that to me.

But soon enough they would go back to fucking me four, five, or six hours a day, so obviously they weren’t too disgusted by my lack of manliness. Looks pretty much trumps everything else when it comes to women. Chad breaks all the rules because the rules simply don’t apply to Chad.

No, it’s still about the integrity!

Well, @Robert Lindsay was explaining that “bad girls” hypocritically demand integrity from their boyfriends/husbands – while bullying them with “pussy”. “fag” accusations – if they don’t!

However, the question remains, “Why don’t these guys get some good girls, ones that won’t cheat?”.  Well, the fact is – they can’t!  They never had the integrity to attract one.  But I can’t explain where integrity comes from – what it takes to be a real man.  It’s just something men have to discover.  Anyway, for guys with a bad environment, it’s going to be tough!

Of course, there are other obstacles for guys.  Some of them are what society considers ugly (a subjective thing).  Others have disabilities, one that probably predominates these misogynists is autism.  Many have chronic shyness which means  they avoid social gatherings, opting for porn instead – further fueling Ted Bundy/John Gacy personalities.

Anyway, though, the fact remains is that masculinity – as Roosh is explaining it – is bullshit.  It’s not needed to get women, though some of it is emotionally helpful for men.

Well, masculinity – actually has nothing to do with it.  The fact remains for various reasons, some of which are a type of victimization – a lot of males have not developed the ideal character.

Well, isn’t that what we see in the black community? But it affects other ones also.

O.K. myself, I went thru a phase – in middle school, lol – where I fantasized about being Hitler – but I grew out of it.  I mean, come on, guys still into these fantasies – are simply immature boys to be honest.

“Black a Block” is not Condescending Benevolence

Well, nobody likes being around people who talk “condescending” to them all the time.  I mean, obviously, Palestinians and South Africans had their fill of asshole high IQ folks around the corner.  In fact, also among whites, the “redneck ones” would rather vomit – as be near the cultural left.

However, though, the idea of spreading out blacks among the population – to where it’s sort of like in Appalachia or Portugal isn’t this thing.

No, the condescending benevolence – is more like what you’d see around Knoxville, TN, in the suburbs of Chicago or New York – stuff like that.  In other words, it’s not really benevolence – but frustration.  You simply have a white population – often far, but sometimes in or near – the black population – and they’re always bitching about the blacks.

Why would we even think it’s benevolence?  Well, some of these idiots actually try to help people they hate – but it’s more along the lines of being bossy bitches – cause simply the hate is just too severe.  Also, some in their own “fantasy” world – think they are helping blacks “in their heart”. Oh, what a joke!

Men’s Rights Movement – A Load of Despicable Creeps

Who are we kidding here?  I mean, these guys wonder why they can’t get laid – and finally come to the conclusion, with the help of Roosh, even @Robert Lindsay, that they aren’t masculine enough.  So in this case, they Roosh out to become the biggest misogynist, racists as possible.

But as mentioned in the below article:

Women Respect Integrity, not Masculinity

It’s all about the integrity, not the masculinity.  In fact, these guys were rejected by women – at first (probably) – because they’re seen as having no integrity, being a bitch, being weird (a big give-away).

But how can we prevent this dilemma with men – and at the same time – massively reduce public shootings?

Well, it’s certainly a tough deal – because the rise in one-parent homes, pornography, dating sites – ensure that a lot “guys with no integrity” will be produced.  I mean, a sure way to get a “wussy son” – in the true sense, is having a mean bossy/un-respectable mom – in either a home where either, the dad is gone or is pussy-whipped beyond recognition.

Note: Some of these guys do get girlfriends and get married at some point.  However, the point being – they were always dooshes to begin with – because they never came on the scene with integrity.  In fact, I’m sure they would have landed things – a whole lot better – if they weren’t so fucking weird.

Women Respect Integrity, not Masculinity

@Robert Lindsay, disagrees, but obviously women only complain about masculinity – after you’ve lost integrity. It’s  kind of a way to “rub it in” on guys they don’t respect.  I mean, you take a guy with integrity – and probably he gets away with being more “woman-like” than other guys.

Well, proof of the matter – is look at all the guys women love who are actually androgynous!

But of course, “mans-sphere” sites like Roosh etc.. rub in the fact men are supposed to act like stereotypes from The Village People – but actually doing that is a – comic waste of time. I  mean, feel free if you want, but it’s unnecessary work – and if you have no integrity – the woman will hate your pussy-ass anyway!

Note: Along with integrity – another thing is social reputation. If you get the rep of “being a bitch”, women won’t like you – along with men.  In that case, you will get a “rubbing it in” from women again.

Effeminate Straight Men Practically Don’t Exist

Responding to parts of the comment referenced on this post:

It’s mostly people who are well off that prefer skinny women and effeminate men.

I would call those men soft or feminine but not effeminate because so few straight men are effeminate like a gay man is. While 70% of gay men are effeminate (act like a woman), only 3% of straight men are.

Most straight men who people call effeminate are not effeminate at all. They might be soft-spoken, quiet, shy, unaggressive, passive, or wimpy and like to read, write, and cook, have good taste in clothes, and spend time on their personal appearance. However none of those activities are for women only.

On a gay forum, one gay men pointed that effeminate straight men don’t exist (I think they do but they are rare), while soft or feminine men are much more common. He also pointed that these feminine men often have a “soft masculinity” about them.

I thought this was absolutely brilliant. No straight man or woman would ever recognize that soft masculinity. It takes a gay man to see it.
The most intelligent things I have heard about subjects like this, including masculinity, were from gay men.

Straight men and women have such poor understanding of masculinity because they simply have too much riding on the question, so they can’t be objective. They’re both right in the middle of the masculinity game, so they can’t see straight. Gay men are not part of this game, and this enables them to sit back at a distance and be completely objective about masculinity, effeminacy, and other related topic.

Straight men don’t know what masculinity is because they tend to have an exaggerated view of masculinity. But straight men are still far better than women. Most masculine men accept and respect me on a certain level on the basis that I “walk the walk and talk the talk.” That’s really all you have to do to get judged masculine in the world of men.

Women are far worse than men when it comes to judging masculinity. They have an absolutely insane idea of what masculinity is. Women think anything less than hypermasculinity is pussy.

Whereas 90% of masculine men accept me on a basic level, at the same time any women in my life would be remarking that I’m pussy or gay. If you want to know who to blame of the toxic masculinity crisis, blame women! Toxic masculinity is 100% the fault of women in my opinion.

Also interesting – ugly or plain women act like they are too good for me and highly attractive women act interested in me.

I get the exact same thing. It’s mostly only attractive or hot women who act interested in me when I am out and about – on dating sites, it’s another matter. When I am out in public, women who are homely or have average looks either ignore me, act hostile to me, or act like they are not interested in me at all. I really don’t understand this.

Why Some Women Prefer Masculine Men

First, my comment in response to a commenter who ridiculed hypermasculinity and described it in a way that made it look like a parody:

“Hypermasculine” or hyper “cartoon caricature of masculine”?

To which I responded:

I live in the hood (barrio). Normative masculinity here does look like a parody.

Sometimes I get upset with myself for being such a wuss and try to ultra-masculinize myself.

It ends up feeling like such a worst joke of a fake parody of manhood that I am sure everyone must be laughing at me behind my back. Interestingly, no one laughs at me, and a lot of super-masculine White men who never acknowledge me start giving me these respectful nods. Sometimes they even give me “shout-outs” with the nods: Yelling “Hello there!” from their cars.

And that’s the only time these Latinas around here look interested in me. Most of the rest of the time, they seem like they want nothing to do with me at all. The Black women around here are mostly ghetto, and women like that never like me. And the White women around here are working class blue collar redneck Whites, and they never like me either. They all want cavemen, and I’m not a Neandertal.

I get on best of all with White women of a certain type, especially if they’ve gone to university or have a university degree. They want a sophisticated man, not a thug. In fact, a lot of them think thuggish cavemen are gross.

I can also get along well with Asian women, who, bizarrely enough, treat me like I am hypermasculine and even a bit frightening. Asian women treat me like I’m Paul Bunyan.

My conclusion is that not only is masculinity a parody of itself, but I am also starting to think that most folks’ behavior is a parody of itself. And if you want to be successful, act like a parody of whatever behavior you are mimicking. Which is not only absolutely ridiculous but also philosophically interesting.

Here is another man responding to me. I really liked his intelligent response.

Among people who grow up around stressful environments (poor people, war zones, ghetto, hood) the men tend to prefer larger asses and thicker women, and the women prefer more muscles and masculinity. It’s a survival mechanism- I read about this years ago but can’t remember exactly where.

It’s not genetic per se – it’s like a gene turns on when you are subjected to a hard life for long enough. For example, in the Middle Ages, bustier women were considered attractive and skinny ones unattractive.

It’s mostly people who are well off that prefer skinny women and effeminate men. Even if you look at East Europe where there is more poverty than in Western Europe – there men and women are behave a little more like the ghetto stereotype.

As a result I have the opposite issue. Most middle class White women act scared of me or treat me badly. East European, Black, and Hispanic etc. women seem attracted to me. Also for some reason natural blond Nordic-type women who seem to prefer more masculine men. With Asians it’s a toss up – depends if the Asian prefers masculine men, which a lot of them do, but a lot of them don’t.

Also interesting – ugly or plain women act like they are too good for me and highly attractive women act interested in me. I feel if I went to Europe (like Germany, Poland or Russia) I would be pretty successful dating.

I am guessing I am too masculine for the typical overweight easy life middle class White American woman. However, wealth and status are important to most women, and my being dirt poor is a problem even though my poverty derives from being discriminated against, dealing with repeated crime, and corrupt cops etc. rather than some deficiency in myself.

Can You Tell if Someone Has Been to College or Not?

I understand that quite a few companies, nonprofits, and perhaps even government enterprises still advertise for “a degree in anything and will train.”

I believe they are doing this less than when I was job-hunting around 1981, when you saw that sort of thing all the time. In fact, I got a job as quality control in a factory and the man who hired me at the interview said, “We are so happy you have a college degree!” And he repeated that several times, “But you have that degree!” that sort of thing.

Keep in mind that this job I am quite sure did not require a degree because the three women who worked the other shifts – two older women, one White and one Hispanic, and one young Black woman – could not possibly have had university degrees based on my contact with them. They were perfectly nice human beings, but no way on Earth had did they have a degree. Just forget it.

And yes, you can tell people who could not possibly have a university degree.  Among other things, they’re just not very smart or educated. So it should be quite clear in a lot of cases who absolutely could not possibly have a university degree.

Keep in mind that there are IQ limits. You really need a 105 IQ to get a university degree. Your average person with a BA has an IQ of 115. You can get a degree with a 100 IQ, but you will have to work very hard for it, it won’t be fun at all, and you will not truly understand much of the material. So if you can figure out the IQ’s of the people who talk to, you can more or less figure out if they went to university or not.

Now, can you tell who definitely has a degree? Not necessarily because many very smart young people do not have a university degree, especially young men in their 20’s. There are lots of quite intelligent young folks who do not have a degree. Most of them prioritized work or relationships over schooling. I am not sure if there are humans who seem so brainy and sophisticated that they must obviously be degreed, unless you know their job, which isn’t a fair way of determining this.

We have a commenter on here saying, “Why not just hire someone without a degree?” Well, would you rather hire someone smart and educated who knows how to think (a degreed person) or a person who is not intelligent or educated and has a dubious ability to think? To me, that’s a no-brainer.

People Who Shouldn’t Be at University

Degrees are not a dime a dozen, as people like to say. However, 30% of Americans do have a Bachelor’s Degree. But that doesn’t mean they are easy to get.

I knew a number of people at university who were not college material. One was one of my best roommates. Almost everyone I knew like that dropped out. And they tended to get C’s.

If you have an IQ  below 100, you probably should not even be at university. Even a 100 IQ is going to be a problem.

I also knew quite a few people who had moved out, worked quite a bit and were also at university. Almost every  single person I knew who was working significant hours on a job while going to university subsequently dropped out.

Our stupid culture idolizes no-fun workaholics who go to school full-time and work full-time and engage in similar types of self-abuse, but the truth is that statistically, the more hours you work while you are at university, the lower your grades are and the more likely you are to drop out. I think people at university could maybe work up to 20 hours a  week and that’s it.

If you’re going to work a lot of hours while going to university full-time, you probably should not even be at university, as odds are you are going to drop out.

The “Worthless Degree” Narrative Is a Rightwing Meme

People pushing the “worthless degree” narrative so popular nowadays might like to know that this is a rightwing meme.

Rightwingers absolutely hate university education period (or at least want to make it all private or nonprofit so only the rich could get a university education) and beyond that, they hate more than anything else the schools of Humanities which they regard as hotbeds of liberalism, Leftism, and Communism who brainwash the young.

Just pointing out that the liberals taking this point of view are pushing a rightwing meme. Not that that means it’s invalid, but to me it implies that it needs looking at.

I mentioned earlier that Japan was thinking of phasing out all Humanities degrees. Japanese are natural-born STEM nerds anyway, so I can see why they feel this way. This was actually a directive that was issued by the government in 2015.

Perhaps due to criticism, the government subsequently withdrew this policy and issued a statement that said in our modern era, Humanities degrees were absolutely beneficial, but not before ~25% of Japanese universities had gone along with the recommendation, which I suppose means that they eliminated Humanities degrees at their schools.

Can You Tell Someone’s IQ by Talking to Them?

Yes, I can sort of figure out the IQ’s of the people I talk to, especially on the lower end. But it’s better  if you spend some time around them so you can really get a handle on them.

For instance, the average Hispanic IQ is 90. My city is full of Hispanics. After a bit, you get a feel for the “average Hispanic” in my town and just how intelligent they are. So there’s your 90 IQ. Now a 90 IQ? They’re not stupid at all. 85 is when people start appearing dumb. But even though they are not dumb at all, I would describe them as “not that smart.”

Your average White has an IQ of 100. I lived in an all-White working class town for a long time. Once again you figure out how smart the average White person is in town and there’s your 100 IQ right there. A person with a 100 IQ does not appear dumb at all.

Nor do they seem like they are “not that smart.” They are quite intelligent and they always surprise me. But they don’t seem like the type of people who we think of as “brainy” (higher than average intelligence) and most of them give off the impression that they didn’t go to university. A lot of them are doing blue collar or working class jobs and they are quite happy that way.

Now that I have lived in two towns, one with 100 IQ and one with ~93 IQ (most of whom  are ~90 IQ), I can tell you right off the bat that the difference is absolutely remarkable.

I was driving around with a friend the other day and he noted that there was sort of a general decline in this Hispanic city compared to an all-White town.

I told him, “That’s the difference of 10 IQ points you are seeing.”

It’s hard to see much intelligence difference at the individual level between average level IQ’s, but you can definitely see cumulative effects when you have two cities, both with  average IQ’s, which are 10 points apart.

The decline is hard to describe in words as it encompasses a lot of things. But at that level the town looks somewhat fallen apart, decrepit and has a  general lackadaisical, don’t give a damn attitude about it. Now mind you the decline is not great. I hate to say it but it’s nothing like the decline when a city from White to Black. But it’s definitely there.

A city going from White to Hispanic definitely undergoes somewhat of a decline and it’s absolutely noticeable.

“Extreme Polarities of Game in Nabokov’s “Lolita”” by Dana Sala

If you all wonder what I do in my spare time, well, I like to feed my brain and work out my brain, mostly by reading things that I find very hard to understand. The harder it is to understand, the more I like it.

Here is an article I read recently. It’s Literary Criticism. Some of this stuff is extremely hard to understand. In fact, it is some of the most hard to understand stuff out there. Some people say that that is because it’s all nonsense, but I think a lot of it is just really thick and hard to figure out. It’s operating on a higher plane that most of us are.

I’m honestly not sure if this article is nonsensical and full of crap or if it actually means something. I think it probably means something, but I’m just not smart enough to figure it out. I’m not sure if Literary Criticism is full of nonsense yet. For some reason I doubt that it is.

Anyway, if you want to see the sort of thing I spend my days reading, here you go. And by the way, you are welcome to try to understand it yourself.

Extreme Polarities of Game in Nabokov’s “Lolita”

by Dana Sala

Abstract:

An aesthetician in the sense of Kierkegaard, Humbert wants to savor life without being limited by moral rules. Any writer might find himself reflected by the myth of Don Juan, identifiable with the eternal seducer of the reader. Lolita is a real presence, not a Humbertian alter-ego. Humbert the Seducer yearns to be seduced.

His existential game can furnish things for analysis to Humbert the Casuist provided that he has a counterpart – the game of Lolita, less spiritualized, less intellectual, but closer to the generic notion of game.

Fluctuating between life and death, the game of Don Juan longs to explore the other type of game, the active one. The game that resents reality (the imaginative game) is challenged by the game that
bravely assumes it (active). A perennial Manichaeism between these disjunctive components renders the necessary tension to any game – ultimately a result of two extreme polarities playing against each other.

Key words: casuistry; innocence; seducer or seduced; active and imaginative game; Nabokov; Lolita; Kierkegaard; seduction of literature; nymphets; kitsch; the ineffable; Narcissus; art and gratuitousness.

Fatally enslaved to innocence, Humbert Humbert cannot escape casuistry, as it offers both a compensatory means of transcending an undesired reality and a way of exploring it. Lolita is frantically desired and perverted during Nabokov’s discourse not by granting her money in exchange for her dearness but because of Humbert’s turning into a casuist.

Innocence cannot be re-found by analyzing a self already schizoid. Humbert can vaguely sense again the innocence in the company of a nymphet, of every nymphet (that’s why his ceaseless hunting of nymphets, even if he must have been satisfied with Lolita, is an impulse of living, not a sign of perversion). Humbert’s real perversion lays in his casuistry.

Another perversion is to be so refined in the art of seducing the reader. None of Don Juan’s acts of seducing could be accomplished without gratuity. An aesthetician in Kierkegaard’s sense, Humbert wants to savor life without being limited by moral rules. Innocence grants both Johann the Seducer (in Kierkegaard’s writings) and Humbert Humbert a life lived within the aesthetic stage of existence.

Paradoxically, Lolita is a consumer without any remorse of what Humbert (and this time Nabokov either) hated most: the stereotyped society, sterile imitation, commercial kitsch. In this respect, Lo is not individualized but conventional, as conventional as a nymphet could be. The difference between Lo as a nymphet and a stereotyped woman (any from Miss Opposite to Charlotte Haze) is that Lolita does not live according to these clichés.

Her life may be governed by them, she is gravitating around them, turning them into commodities, but her nymphic glimpse makes her incorporate all these consuming goods. Thus they are made her own.

Humbert’s narcissism lays in the fact that he is more eager to know the inner world rather than the outer one. The paths of exploring the world go through the inner self. Loving Lolita becomes an act of a 20th Century Narcissus. We are very far from the commonsensical situation when a powerful male personality transforms the beloved one into a reflex of his own self.

Humbert could be a perfect illustration of the Narcissus myth not because he loves himself in Lolita but because he wants to set in permanent forms the beloved image.

Any writer might find himself more or less anamorphotically reflected by Don Juan’s myth, identifiable with the eternal seducer rather than the ceaseless lover. The exertion of demiurgic valences of an author, generically speaking, could be equated with a Don Juanesque temptation to construct a suffocating intrigue around the victim since the authentic Don Juan will never disrelish demiurgic enticement.

In order to be perfectly overlapped, both writer and seducer must be possessed by the demon of the intellectual game. In Nabokov’s Lolita and Kierkegaard’s The Diary of the Seducer Don Juan is not only an archetype but also the main character, seductive as narrating self, seduced as character.

For Nabokov, fiction is a game and a contest with the reader:

I want my learned readers to participate in the scene I am about to replay. (Nabokov, Lolita: 13).

Like every other bit of existence in this book, game has in turn its right to Siamese twinning. Therefore, an essential distinction in Nabokov’s fiction would be that between the two facets of the twofold game.

One is the imaginative game; the other is the active one. A perennial Manicheanism between these disjunctive components renders the necessary tension to any game – ultimately a result of two extreme polarities playing against each other. Nabokov, the writer who suffered a second exile, a linguistic one

paved the way for the truly postmodernist novels that were to follow

M. Couturier, 1993: 257

The imaginative game is high-minded, aware of its own uncertainties, and non-finite because of its endless combinations of virtual realities. This is the game of fiction, the authorial game, the Humbertian one, the contest of minds with the reader. Humbert is playing this game with the other Humbert, and Nabokov is playing it against Humbert and Quilty, by whom Humbert might be written.

The imaginative game means perpetual replacement and recreation of realities. The so-called active game is the one engulfed by reality. This game resents the non-finite reality of mind, preferring the genuineness of the conceivable world. Humbert Humbert’s game is centripetal; Lolita is centrifugal.

The active game is attempting to find a way of real manifestation. For the fictional game, the outer world is too suffocating, whilst for the active game, the inner world is too broad. Lolita’s playing with Humbert, Lolita’s disclaiming virginity to Charlie Holmes, the nymphic games integrating an immobile Humbert – these all belong to the active nature of the game.

By means of imaginative game, “reality” (one of the few words which mean nothing without quotes) is transcended to the aesthetic level of being. Humbert shares with Nabokov the appetite for autoscopic game. A sample of the authorial imaginative game is the intrusion of a preface teller illustrating the conventional moral view point, telling us what we must not understand from the novel.

Dr. John Ray Jr. would not be able to recognize himself mocked – as a exponent of a certain category of people – since the capacity of reflection, of playing dangerously with your double, cannot be understood by all readers.

As a case history, “Lolita” will become, no doubt, a classic in psychiatric circles. As a work of art, it transcends its expiatory aspects; and still more important to us than scientific significance and literary worth, is the ethical impact the book should have on the serious reader; for in this poignant personal study there lurks a general lesson; the wayward child, the egotistic mother, the panting maniac- these are not only vivid characters in a unique story: they warn us of dangerous trends; they point out potent evils.

“Lolita” should make all of us – parents, social workers, educators – apply ourselves with a still greater vigilance and vision to the task of bringing up a better generation in a safer world.

Nabokov, Lolita: 5

Both Nabokov and Humbert Humbert’s fictional games have no expressed target.

It would be inappropriate to see it as a mere justification of a murder or of a pervert.
Fluctuating between life and death, Don Juan’s game longed to explore the other type of game, the active one. The game that resents reality (imaginative) is challenged by the game that bravely assumes it (active).

Humbert the child was probably playing active games with Annabel Leigh (disclosed later as Annabel Lee with a frankness borrowed from or mimicking nymphic behavior). That must have happened before he was assaulted by two barbarian intruders who actually raped his androgynous clumsiness.

This moment coincides with the implicit revelation of the postponed fulfillment and with the intermission of an irreversible personality split:

My world was split. I was aware of not one, but two sexes, neither of which was mine; both would be termed female by the anatomist. [ … ] Taboos strangulated me. Psychoanalysts wooed me with pseudoliberations or pseudolibidoes. The fact that to me the only objects of amorous tremor were sisters of Annabel’s, her handmaids and girl-pages, appeared to me at times as a forerunner of insanity.

Nabokov, Lolita: 18

While Humbert underwent the inexorable metamorphosis into a mature schizoid, Lolita,
although twofold nature herself, presents the extremes of vulgarity and innocence fused
together. Her personality is not painfully split. Humbert the Casuist admits that Humbert the
Seducer will be lured by the genuineness of a nymphet that refuses to be shaped.

A Humbert, the first or the second, we will never know, is the mirror reflection of the other one. That is why the first Humbert can charge the second Humbert with abominable features, while his true desire is to be seduced by innocence.

Lolita arrived in her Sunday frock, stemming, panting and then she was in my arms, her innocent mouth melting under the ferocious pressure of dark male jaws, my palpitant darling! The next instant I heard her – alive, unraped – clatter downstairs.

Nabokov, Lolita: 66

Lo as a nymphet means a permanent resuscitation of Humbert’s erect attention, as this erotically un-evolved widower will always run away from fulfillment. For Kierkegaard, the happy marriage or happy love is inconceivable. In the same spirit, “Lolita” illustrates the doctrine of Eros Kosmogon, saying that Eros, as a daimon, as a mediator of two principles, exists as long as these two principles fail to unify (see J. Evola).

Therefore the moment of coupling coincides with the annihilation of Eros itself, viewed as longing of the being to be coupled with the non-being.
Nabokov and Kierkegaard’s casuistry reveal the dramatic condition of the overlucid Don Juan endowed with an ontological contempt of the stereotype of femininity.

Don Juan accepts only an equal partner who rejects becoming a mere reflex of his own self. Thus the myth of Pygmalion is reversed. The aesthetic pleasure is not given by the act of engulfing the feminine presence into the male self. On the contrary, Don Juan is attracted only by the ineffable type of women, respecting the noumenal part of femininity.

In this way, Lolita is a real presence, not an Humbertian alter-ego. Humbert the Seducer yearns to be seduced, as his existential game can furnish things for analysis to Humbert the Casuist only when he bumps into a corresponding replay – Lolita’s game, less spiritualized, less intellectual, but closer to the generic notion of game.

As Huizinga stated, game is beyond good and evil. Vladimir Nabokov’s seducer and Kierkegaard’s Don Juan can be looked on as aestheticians, belonging to the first level of being in Kierkegaard’s term.

For Kierkegaard the essence of a man is defined as aesthetic, and this represents the first stage of being. Consequently, the aestheticism is not necessarily the artist but someone who has discovered in pleasure the purpose of his life, denying the presence of good and evil. The
aestheticism’s act of living is achieved through the aesthetics of his self.

Every aestheticism lives so that he could voluptuously respond to all desires commanding him. Moreover, his quest tends to reveal more and more yearnings to be fulfilled. How the outer world reacts to this has no relevance for the aestheticism.

Humbert’s perversion can be seen in his attitude to the reader rather than in his pedophilic propensities. It is the demoniac glimpse which differentiates a nymphet from any other adolescent and helps Humbert Humbert localize her. Humbert’s intention is in fact to suspend the instant and isolate it.

Now I wish to introduce the following idea. Between the age limits of nine and 14 there occur maidens who, to a certain bewitched travelers, twice or many times older than they, reveal their true nature which is not human, but nymphic (that is, demoniac); and these chosen creatures I propose to designate as “nymphets”.

Between those age-limits, are all girl-children nymphets? Of course not. Otherwise, we who are in the know, we, lone voyagers, we nympholepts, would have long gone insane.

Nabokov, Lolita: 17.

Humbert Humbert’s aversion to stereotype makes him an unreliable narrator. Craig Raine remarked that

“Nabokov’s galère of unreliable narrators (Hermann in Despair, Kinbote in Pale Fire) represent unreliability in its extreme form. They are reliably unreliable. They get nothing right.”

Craig Raine, Afterword: 322

A twofold nature himself, a paragon of exactitude and a miracle of meticulousness fused with “hallucinative lucidity,” Humbert Humbert abhors the Hollywood stereotype of a woman. Lolita is a consumer of the same type of clichés, but this does not diminish her seductive potencies. She would prefer a Hamburger to a Humburger.

Hummy has striven all way to find an equal partner, double-natured. Vulgarity can coexist with shamelessness and purity. By the end of the novel, Humbert wholly regrets not having taken the angelic line of conduct at the “Enchanted Hunters.” He sees himself now as a maniac who has deprived Lolita of her childhood. Lolita, neither saint nor slut, but a complex mixture.

And neither is she the fragile child of a feminine novel.

What drives me insane is the twofold nature of this nymphet – of every nymphet, perhaps; this mixture in my Lolita of tender dreamy childishness and a kind of eerie vulgarity, stemming from the snub-nosed cuteness of ads and magazine pictures, from the blurry pinkness of adolescent maidservants in the old country and in the very young harlots disguised as children in provincial brothels.

And what is most singular is that she, this Lolita, my Lolita, has individualized the writer’s ancient lust, so that above and over everything there is – Loli ta (Nabokov, Lolita: 44).

Annabel was meant to be the vanished angel. Lolita as her reincarnation outdid the prototype, as she had an extra demoniac glimpse and a twofold nature. On the other hand, Humbert Humbert attempts to analyze the ineffable nature of the nymphets, as he will always long for his androgynous state with Annabel:

My little Annabel was no nymphet to me; I was her equal, a faunlet in my own right, on the same enchanted island of time.

Nabokov, Lolita: 17

Unable to seduce Lolita, who acts physiologically, defying any metaphysical concepts, Humbert seeks compensation in seducing his readers. Humbert the pervert, comparable with Johannes from Kierkegaard’s The Seducer’s Diary, attempts to detect the resort of innocence and fails, perverting it.

Their supreme refinement is the fact they try to do so in writing. Losing virginity coincides with the revelation of the end, of the finite. This is valid for Humbert who becomes from that moment Humbert Humbert. Reaching enlightenment, Humbert Humbert cannot ignore or deny knowing.

It is impossible for him to pretend that the sense of his quest has not changed irreversibly. For Lolita, the Charlie Holmes experience is just a childish game. Her authenticity has not been endangered, and the world has not changed its coordinates.

Lolita’s innocence belongs to the category of “ignorant innocence”. Humbert Humbert, now that he knows the world is limited and love subdued to Death, is fascinated by this type of innocence, totally devoid of shame. All his strategies of seducing Lolita reveal in fact a surprising timidity. Humbert Humbert does not exactly plan how to make Lolita love him but how to derive small satisfactions without her approval.

Recomposing his identity is a playful way of guaranteeing the subjective truth. This attitude is preserved in approaching the nymphet. The greatest Humbertian joy now is to let the nymphic nature fully manifest itself and recompose all these images in silence so that the White Widowed Male could “blissfully digest” the “rare drop of honey”.

In a way, Humbert has the intuition that the besieged Lolita is able to surprise the hunter and turn it into a “Hunted Enchanter”. Her natural way of becoming her stepfather’s mistress is the climax of her nymphic manifestations:

The hollow of my hand was still ivory-full of Lolita- full of the feel of her preadolescently incurved back, that ivory smooth, sliding sensation of her skin through the thin frock that I had worked up and down while I held her. [ … ]I felt proud of myself.

I had stolen the honey of a spasm without impairing the morals of a minor. Absolutely no harm done. The conjurer had poured milk, molasses, foaming champagne into a young lady’s new white purse; and Lo, the purse was intact. Thus I delicately constructed my ignoble, ardent, sinful dream; and still Lolita was safe – and I was safe.

What I had madly possessed was not she, but my own creation, another, fanciful Lo1ita –perhaps more real than Lo1ita; overlapping, encasing her; floating between me and her, and having no will, no consciousness- indeed no life- of her own.

The child knew nothing. I had done nothing to her. And nothing prevented me from repeating a performance that affected her as little as if she were a photographic image rippling upon a screen.

Nabokov, Lolita: 62

Had Lolita remained Humbert’s only in his imagination, she would have perfectly replaced Annabel, and she would have belonged to Humbert’s own reality. But Lolita has a life of her own, a self-sufficient existence that makes no room for moral dilemmas. She needs to be more than a prototype for Humbert’s recreation of another Lolita.

Humbert considers pathetic his hypostasis as a nymphic purity protector. This would be
the only possible way to fix Lolita in eternity, to set her unchanged. But Humbert can do so
only on the realm of arts. Art reconciles and stirs Lolita and Humbert’s games and destinies.

Don Juan is innocently seduced by innocence. The twofold nature of Humbert the Don Juan and Lolita are heaven and hell, life and death:

This is my story. I have reread it. It has bits of marrow sticking to it, and blood and beautiful bright-green flies. At this or that twist of it I feel my slippery self eluding me, gliding into deeper and darker waters than I care to probe.

Thus, neither of us is alive when the reader opens this book.[… ] I am thinking of aurochs and angels, the secret of durable pigments, prophetic sonnets, the refuge of art. And this is the only immortality you and I may share, my Lo1i ta. (Nabokov, Lolita: 309).

The beginning is given new valences. Trying to seduce the illusion of Lolita, Humbert has engulfed the real one so deep inside that he can take her out only for the sake of his autoscopic view: “Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul.”

Works Cited :

Baudrillard, J. (1979) De la séduction, Paris, Galilée.

Couturier, M. (1993) Nabokov in Postmodernist Land, Critique, 34(4): 257.

Evola, J. (1993) Metafisica del sesso, Edizioni Mediterranee.

Jenkins, J. L. (2005) Searching High and Lo. Unholy Quests for Lolita, Twentieth Century
Literature, 51(2).

Kierkegaard, S. (1997) The Seducer’s Diary, with a foreword by John Updike, Princeton University Press.

Nabokov, V. (1995) Lolita, Afterword by Craig Raine, Penguin Books. Copyright The Journal of Humanistic Studies, 2009

Hey Feminists: Men Don’t Actually Hate Women

It is a feminist article of faith that all or most all men hate women. This statement is repeated endlessly and has been stated over and over by all of their biggest heroes and scholars. On feminist sites, the notion that most all men hate women is repeated ad nauseum on a daily basis.

I always found this view odd because I know men pretty well. And over six decades, I have not commonly met men who objectively hate women.

On the other hand, I have met many sexist females who think that men are quite inferior to women. In fact, this is exactly what almost all feminists believe. Feminism is simply female sexism against men. They’re female chauvinist pigs, they’ve been this way from the start, and they’re this way to this very day. I don’t think they’ll ever change because the very notion of feminism is predicated on notions like all men hating women and men being quite inferior to women.

If we men really hated women, you would hear it all the time. I would have been hearing it my whole life. I know this because men don’t hide things like this. If men hate hate something or someone or some group, they just come right out and say it. Men are not embarrassed or ashamed to admit that they hate this or that person(s) or thing(s).

In fact, hating is a very masculine behavior and it is quite encouraged in male society, provided you hate the right things. Men who are incapable of hate are regarded as wimps and pussies who will not stand up and fight for themselves. Cowards, in other words. We think they are pathetic.

Most men absolutely do not hate women. I should know. I’m a man. Now whether we treat them as we should is another matter.

Of course, there are men who hate women, and I have met some of them. It’s not cool in male society to say you hate women. People will call you gay if you do that. In other words, straight men are supposed to love women. If you hate them instead, this means you must be homosexual.

What you do hear is men saying they are done with women, they are over them, women are too much trouble, etc. But that’s not hate. And most of them are not serious because you meet the same guy later on and he’s dating or he’s got a girlfriend or wife. And many women say the same thing about men. You often hear this from members of both sexes after the age of 40. You don’t hear it much before that.

What many men are though is sexist. Sexism is not hate. It’s completely different.

It’s this idea that women are a somewhat inferior form of human. They’re not really on our level. Sure, you love them, but they’re just not on the same level as we are. Sort of like how we feel about kids and our pets. Your cat and your young child are in a sense below you, right? They’re just not on the same level. And in a lot of ways, they your cat and your kid are inferior, at least at the moment. But that’s not hate.

All of these feminist women who insist that men hate women are completely out of their minds. It’s been a mass delusion of feminists ever since day one that men hate women. Feminists want to believe this. They want to believe that we hate them because it’s necessary for their crazy, victim-addicted point of view. It’s the biggest lie of them all.

Another big fat lie is Patriarchy. Yes, men have lorded it over women and kept them down for thousands of years, and even for most of American history. But that’s lifting now. Feminism has succeeded in more or less dismantling patriarchy in the US, and they have instead assembled a Matriarchy in its place which of course oppresses men.

There are still some of the remains of the fortress of Patriarchy left, but a lot of the fortifications have been destroyed by the feminists, to their credit. Get off the paranoid “Patriarchy is out to get you” trip, women! It’s crazy nonsense.

These are just two of the insane lies that feminism peddles. Go study feminism sometime. It’s constructed on a house of cards made up of mostly flat out, straight up lies. Feminists are hostile to science, truth, and facts because it doesn’t back up their stupid lies that they have constructed their entire ideology on.

Say no to feminism. If you’re a woman and you love men, it’s time to stand up and say no to feminism.

Letter to a Boy, 2019

Growing up a boy in the 21st century is not easy. The unhinged ideology of feminism has stifled many aspects about the very nature and essence of being a boy, and it is not right.

– You will be told nothing good about your gender because apparently there is no pride in being a boy.

– In society you will experience a system that is tilted against you by branding you a young offender just for typical male behavior.

– Your female peers will be encouraged in every stage of their educational journey and you will not.

– You will be blamed for the oppression of women by just being alive because it contributes to the «upholding of the patriarchy».

– You will be told in university that you’re a rapist in waiting, and you will be forced to attend consent classes.

– Your natural love and affection for women will be described as something awful, making you afraid to even say hello to a woman. One inappropriate remark or a single accusation of making one can destroy your reputation forever.

– If you try to speak out against these injustices, you will be persecuted by rabid mobs of politically correct lunatics.

But despite all of this, young man, I am not worried for you. Because you are a male. We males have overcome impossible obstacles before, and I trust we will again.

But until that day comes young man, you’ll have to live through all of this. And for that, I am sorry.

A Person with a “Worthless Degree” Will Be a Better Employee Than One with No Degree

Jason Y:

Well, I guess a person could work themselves up to management – but they could have just hired someone with no degree.

It’s not worthless. Because the person theoretically now is a well-educated citizen (important to society) and has the ability to think critically (important to society, to himself, and to his employers).

You would be much better off hiring someone with a degree for any position that requires any sort of brains.

Look below:

           IQ   CT   Grit DG   R    WH   TT

Degree     115  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes 
No Degree  ~95? ?/N  ?/N  ?/N  ?/N  ?/No ?/No

CT = critical thinking
DG = Delay gratification
R = Responsible
W = Works Hard
TT= Tried and Tested

If you take 1,000 people with a university degree and 1,000 people without a university degree, the degreed people with have a much higher IQ (20 points!), would have better critical thinking skills, would show more ability to delay gratification, would be more responsible, would work hard, and would be tried and tested.

For those who did not get the degree, sure, some might be able to think critically, perhaps if they were autodidacts. Some would have a good ability to delay gratification. Some would be quite responsible. Some would work very hard. And some might be tried and tested in some other way.

But it’s a crapshoot. With the degreed people, you know that they can think critically, can delay gratification, are responsible, will work hard, and have been tried and tested at university.

With the undegreed people, you really have no idea. Maybe they will have these qualities, and maybe they will not, and you don’t have much of a way of knowing these things.

If you’re a betting man or an employer, the degreed person is a much better bet for any position that requires any sort of brains. In fact, I might even prefer degreed people as baristas at my coffee shop or as clerks in my retail outlet. You show me two applications, one with a degree and one without, I will hire the degreed person.

But not necessarily to drive a truck, work construction, pick crops, be an ironworker, lay concrete, or be a welder. People in those jobs typically never had degrees and for all we can tell, they never needed them. In fact, a university-educated man might not fit in well in the macho environment of a workplace like that.

But for anything else, sure. Statistically speaking, the degreed person is going to be a better bet.

Holocaust Denying – Theory # 2

The 2nd theory, considering that “zombie environments” produce the worst in people – and some Holocaust deniers can’t deny that (might be the reason), states that the chaos around World War II stopped “well meaning Germans” from giving Jews proper care – leading to the genocide, well, the unintentional genocide.

Well, this line is also used by Cuba and North Korea to explain problems in their society. In other words, in their cases, the US blockade is causing food shortages – and in the case of North Korea – actual starvation and disease.

Trusting Your Betters

Well, we should always be distrustful of what seems are good intentions.

Twilight Zone Episode Spoiler

I mean, I remember this Twilight Zone episode where these aliens solved all human problems – but the catch was – they were simply farming people to bring them to their home planet (to eat them)!

[collapse]

Anyway, I see this scene all the time.  Smiling people lying in your face – like the O’Jays song (Backstabbers),  Everything is a scam to cheat people.

What happens in zombie environments?

Well, in cases of disaster, the worst in people comes out, not the medium or best.   For instance, look at the Rwanda Genocide.  Look at the attempted crushing of the Haitian Revolution (1792) or the black side of the matter.

Yet, despite this evidence, WNs insist The Holocaust Never Happened.I mean, how many times have we heard this?  Well, it just seems to be a convenient way to explain away something – which obviously gives them, such a bad image, that nobody wants to be a WN.

In fact, I have heard the whole Civil Rights movement in the US came about – simply because racism etc. was on the down-swing – because of the Holocaust and World War II.  

Anyway, another argument against Holocaust deniers – is simply the obvious fact that downtimes in Europe’s history have always lead to Jewish persecution (generally). In fact, The Holocaust is just another savage pogrom.

Deleting Stormfront and The Daily Stormer

It’s illegal – but would someone smirk if some “third party” deleted their websites – with no backup to recover it?

10 million users (or whatever) down the toilet and good reddens (Push the button. nuked, gone! Bye bye.)!

I mean, what good were they to humanity?   But you can’t destroy an idea.  It’s kind of like killing Bin Laden to eliminate radical Islam.

But then again, is Germany different now, compared to 1933.? Did total annihilation change things?