We Are All Solipsists and Narcissists

I was recently torn to pieces by some of my enemies (in this case, my PC, gender feminist, political gay and Cultural Left enemies) for stating in a post that I was solipsistic but not excessively narcissistic and especially for admitting that I come first and everyone else comes second.

Although most would think that is a definition of narcissism, instead it is probably better seen as a definition of solipsism. And truth is, to be brutally honest, that everyone cares more about themselves than about anyone else.

There is even a story told by Buddhist monks that goes along those lines. The King’s wife keeps having these terrible dreams where it seems like she cares more about herself than anyone else in the whole world. This disturbs her greatly as she sees herself as an empath. The King advises her to go consult the Buddha to find the answer to her dilemma. She goes to see the Buddha and the Buddha says:


This is true.

We all care more about ourselves than about anyone else in the whole world.

And so the queen goes forth with a becalmed mind.

I tell this story to people sometimes and I often get objections from people, mostly women, who claim that they care more about others than about themselves. They give examples of heroism and whatnot when people risk their lives to save others.

I would argue that while this is noble altruism, it may not be as altruistic as we think. For instance, a lot of us act altruistic not only because we are empaths who care about others and want to help them, but we also do it for another, more selfish reason. I would argue that many of us who behave altruistically do so out of egotism because we expect to earn brownie points as a “good person” either to ourselves or to others. In other words, we do it boost our egos and think better of ourselves. And the hero who risks his life for another does it not only as self-sacrifice but also once again to show himself and the world what a brave, noble and heroic person he is.

The more you think about it, there are few very things that we do in life that do not have some sort of a selfish motive. And that’s ok!

Because I would argue that if there ever exists a person who truly cares more about others than about themselves, that person will soon be dead because such solipsism in humans is part and parcel of a basic survival mechanism. If we are to survive and thrive in a hostile world, we are mandated to put ourselves first if only out of self-preservation if for no other reason.

About narcissism, most psychologists agree that all humans are narcissistic in one way or another. Narcissism is a normal and healthy part of the human condition. When narcissism wanes, you start seeing serious Depression and often suicidal behavior. That’s what happens when you quit loving yourself.

Laypeople often go on and on about the need to love ourselves and indeed, this is important. These same people then turn around and rip narcissism as pathology. But honestly, what else is loving yourself if not narcissism? If you love yourself, you are narcissistic by default. Obviously.

The problem with narcissism and solipsism in humans is not that they exist in some of us and those are the bad people and those of us who have no narcissism or solipsism are the good people. Clearly both narcissism and solipsism are present in all humans.

The problem here, as with so many things, is the Rule of the Mean. Narcissism and solipsism are unhealthy when taken to the extreme.

Pathological narcissists truly do not care about you and have no interest in anything you say or do. They will ask you how you are doing out of politeness and then when you start to answer, 30 seconds into your answer they start looking around the room like they are bored. And they are bored. You are boring. They have no interest in you or your life despite the phony question they asked out of propriety. Pathological narcissists are hard to take.

They are severely damaged people and worst of all, most of them have no idea whatsoever that they are unhealthy and even if can get them to see their narcissism, they will tell you that they like it and that they “don’t want to get better.” Like so many folks on Axis 2, the narcissist gets off on being sick. After all, narcissism is pretty fun. We were all 6 years old once upon a time.

Solipsism too can be taken to the extreme. This is where the person is so wrapped up in themselves that they simply do not have any time or energy to worry about someone else. It can be hard to connect with a self-absorbed person. It is as if they have some sort of a wall or shell around themselves.

In order to truly connect with others, we need to dissolve our shell, walls and physical boundaries to get outside of our bodies and ourselves for once and in some way or another merge with others.

Like a snail out of its shell, we are a bit naked and vulnerable when we do that, so many prefer to lock themselves in. Some even construct elaborate castles and forts of defensive systems that are nearly Rube Goldbergian, with hidden entries and exits, moats, guard towers, mine fields and multiple defensive layers even outside the castle. And this is where we get into the Axis 2 folks or better known as the Personality Disorders.


Filed under Mental Illness, Narcissism, Narcissistic, Personality, Personality Disorders, Psychology, Psychopathology

Russia’s Stupid Opposition

Russia’s dumb opposition is “uniting” apparently to win election and overthrow Putinism. The problem is that even if they all unite, they will not get more than 15% of the vote. No more than 15% of Russia is opposed to Putin and a number of those opposed to him are on the Right.

The Russian opposition, which US liberal Democrats can’t get enough, are sort of the Russian version of the US Republican Party. Their economics program is the same economic program as the Republican Party, although they are liberal on social issues. So it’s Republican Party economics plus the Western Cultural Left, which is more or less the platform of the US Democratic Party now anyway. They are taking the worst of the Right and mixing it with the worst of the Left, so we get the worst of both tendencies.

Much has been made of Boris Nemtsov’s political party. Nemtsov had and has the support of no more than 5% of Russians. Nobody liked him, nobody wanted him. He represented the Western/Jewish/Russian Mafia looting of the country under the radical free market politics of Boris Yeltsin.


Filed under Democrats, Eurasia, Left, Politics, Regional, Republicans, Russia, US Politics, Useless Western Left

The Looting of Russia

The recently assassinated Russian opposition politician Nemtsov’s political party was disliked by probably 95% of Russians. The last time he ran for President, he got a whopping 1% of the vote. Nemtsov represented the Western/Jewish/Russian Mafia looting of the country under the radical free market politics of Boris Yeltsin when a group of carpetbaggers consisting of the West along with cosmopolitan representatives of International Judaism stripped the country bare until there was virtually nothing left to steal. The West stole a lot of the Russian assets, so it is not all down to a bunch of Jews looting the place, however it should be noted that the brain trust behind the looting program was a US Jewish economist named Jeffrey Sachs.

But International Zionism was also a very important group of looters. They used Russian Jewish oligarchs inside Russia (who were helped by many Russian Gentile fellow travelers) to work with a group of rich and powerful Jews in Washington DC, New York, London and Tel Aviv. Some of the money stolen by the West also ended up in Munich. The looters were mostly bankers, oligarchs, billionaires and neoconservative politicians.

The Westerners were motivated purely by greed but also possibly by extreme Russia-hatred due to 70 years of Russian-hating propaganda in the West.

The Jews were apparently motivated by revenge against Russian Gentiles as Russian Jews and Gentiles have been locked into a vicious circle feud for centuries. When Putin finally declared war on some of the Jewish oligarchs, they quickly moved millions of dollars of assets out of Russia right smack into the hands of cosmopolitan International Jew Lord Rothschild.

Jewish neoconservative sociopaths like Richard Perle then used their position in the US government to threaten Russia in a variety of ways, including war. The reason was because Richard Perle is a cosmopolitan International Jew and Putin was going after the assets of cosmopolitan International Jew Khodorovsky. So Perle tried to manipulate the US government into a war with Russia on behalf of the Jewish people.

Now you understand what people talk about when they raise the “canard” of Jewish dual loyalty.


Filed under Conservatism, Corruption, Crime, Economics, Eurasia, Jews, Neoconservatism, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Russia, The Jewish Question, USA, Zionism

The Dual Loyalty Charge Against the Jews

Now you understand what people talk about when they raise the “canard” of Jewish dual loyalty. It’s not a canard! Wherever they reside outside Israel, Jews will always have dual loyalty. The primary loyalty of the Jews is a cosmopolitan one, a loyalty the tribe of International Jews. Loyalty to the land in which they are living will always come second.

This does not mean that Jews are always traitors. Even in World War 1, many Jews fought very bravely for Germany. Jews in the West have supported almost every war the West has waged, and US power Jews mix their loyalty to Jewry with an extreme US nationalism that manifests itself as neoconservatism.

But the notion that the Jews always put loyalty to the homeland second in favor of loyalty to a cosmopolitan tribe of international wanderers without a home is always very disturbing to nationalists of any land where the Jews reside. This is one reason why nationalists of any land with Jews in it typically target the Jews. This was true for nationalists in both Europe and the Arab World. The nationalist always sees the Jew as a traitor, and he is not completely incorrect in that assessment.


Filed under Conservatism, Israel, Jews, Middle East, Nationalism, Neoconservatism, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, The Jewish Question, USA, War, World War 1

We Are Fighting for Freedom and Democracy in Ukraine


Some democracy. They’ve been murdering the opposition since the Maidan. But I thought it was Russia that was the dictatorship and Ukraine that was the democracy. US and British advisors are in Ukraine right now training the Nazi army. Boy, the West just can’t get enough of their Nazi pals, can they?

1 Comment

Filed under Britain, Crime, Eurasia, Europe, Journalism, Regional, Russia, Ukraine, USA, War

The Jewish Languages of the Jewish Diaspora

Sam asks:

Robert I should have asked you this before but I had forgotten it. This post jogged my memory. I read once…somewhere…that all Jewish languages were bastardizations of whatever language they were using at the time. The idea being that they could converse amongst themselves without others knowing what they are saying. Seems also the way they transformed the language was supposed to be a bit tricky so as to make it even harder to understand. Does that sound as if that scenario is true or could be true?

I am not sure if they did it on purpose so as not to be understood or if their versions are bastardizations (a term we linguists do not use) of the native tongue, but in just about every nation in which Jews were living in a large number, the Jews were speaking a different language than the natives. In Europe, the Ashkenazim were speaking Yiddish in the north and the Sephardics were speaking Ladino in the South. In the Crimea, the Karaite Jews spoke Ukrainian Karaim and other Jews spoke Krypchak, both of which are closely related to but not the same language as Crimean Tatar. In other parts of Ukraine and in Lithuania and Poland, other Jews also spoke Lithuanian Karaim, a different language from Ukrainian Karaim.

In the Arab World, in each nation where the Arab Jews reside, they speak a different form of Arabic than the natives, for instance, Moroccan Jews might have spoken something called Moroccan Jewish Arabic instead of Moroccan Arabic. They also spoke their own forms of Aramaic where they were living with a lot of Arab Christians in the north of Iraq, Syria and Iran. The Jewish language often had many Hebrew loans in it and was different in other ways. In each case, Ethnologue regards the Jewish language as actually a separate language from the native tongue of the land.

In Northern Europe, Jews took Palatinian German and fashioned a new Jewish language out of it. In the South, they did the same with Spanish. In Ukraine, the Jews melded Crimean Tatar into three separate Jewish languages. In the Arab Muslim and Arab Christian worlds, the Jews took the common and Arabic or Aramaic languages of those lands and fashioned them into separate Jewish languages.

It seems as though everywhere they lived, the Jews desired to be different and set themselves apart from the rest, even in a linguistic sense.

N.B. Most of these Jewish languages are now in very bad shape and by the year 2100, most will probably be extinct with the probable exception of Yiddish and Lithuanian Karaim.


Filed under Africa, Afroasiatic, Altaic, Arabic, Balto-Slavic-Germanic, Crimean Tatar, Culture, Europe, Europeans, German, Germanic, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Jews, Kipchak, Language Families, Linguistics, Lithuania, Middle East, Morocco, North Africa, Poland, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Semitic, Sociolinguistics, Turkic, Ukraine

How Close Is Yiddish to English?


Yiddish: A matone di ale vos bay zeyere kinder in moyl vet yidish lebn.

English: A gift to all those in whose children’s mouths Yiddish will live

Interlineal translation: I am guessing at meanings, but even where the definitions are wrong, that is not of much importance. For instance, if I read zeyere as their then that is successful bilingual communication on my part, even if zeyere does not mean their. I assigned it a token meaning that works perfectly in this context and communication is all that matters in bilingualism, not perfect definitions:

A matone di ale vos   bay zeyere kinder   in moyl    
A        to all those     their  children in mouths

vet yidish  lebn.
yet Yiddish learn.

Not bad. Notice all the cognates. You can do much the same with any German or Frisian or possibly even Dutch sentence.

Yiddish is only a German dialect, closely related to the Palatinian German language as spoken along the Rhine. It is so close to the Mannheim and Speyr dialects Palatinian that it may be nearly intelligible with them. Yiddish has also incorporated a lot of Slavic and Hebrew loans which complicate matters.

German and English are separated by 1,900 years. So after 2,000 years separation, really there is nothing left. An English speaker cannot understand one single word of spoken German. I know this because I have listened to German speakers and I can’t get even one word of their speech. This is true even though German and English are loaded with cognates. But you can’t recognize the cognates because they are “masked.”

So in the sentence above, the English speaker might hear kinder, moyl and lebn, all of which have obvious English cognates, but they still would not make sense of them because they were not recognize the fact that they are cognates. That is, they would hear the word kinder, but have no idea that that referred to children, etc.

If you can’t sort out the cognates and recognize them and connect them up to some word in your own language, they are as good as useless.


Filed under Applied, Balto-Slavic-Germanic, Dialectology, English language, German, Germanic, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Jews, Language Families, Language Learning, Linguistics, Sociolinguistics

Synonyms in English

Look at all the synonyms for one simple word!

Look at all the synonyms for one simple word! That is quite an impressive list!

Amazing. I knew a young Korean woman once, a friend of the family. She knew Korean of course, and she was learning English and could speak it pretty well.

Once she said that she thought all of the synonyms in English were ridiculous and idiotic and that Korean has few synonyms. The Koreans have the attitude that if you have one word that connotes a given meaning, what is the purpose of having another word, basically a duplicate word, for the same meaning? You now have two words that mean exactly the same thing. What exactly have you accomplished other than to clutter up your language and your brain?

In Semantics there is the notion that there is probably no such thing as a synonym other than for slang words. Semanticists believe that most synonyms have slightly different meanings from each other – that is, they have a tiny shade of a different meaning from the word or words that they are synonymous with.


Filed under English language, Linguistics

Israel’s Dark Future: Democracy in the Jewish State is Doomed


Everything in this article is 100% correct, and the future as predicted in the article looks to be set in stone and there is nothing that can be done about it. Both strategies, that of the Right and that of the Left, are probably doomed. The strategy of the Right is to ignore Israel’s bad behavior and continue to support them come Hell or high water. This will simply embolden the Israeli Right into believing that they can do whatever they want to and there will be no consequences. The strategy of the Left is to punish Israel slowly and by this punishment, they will force Israel to settle the conflict. This also is unlikely to work as the Israeli Right will just dig in their heels and conclude that the whole world hates Israel. They frame this belief on the notion that the whole world is made up of Gentiles and that Gentiles hate Jews, have always hated Jews and will always hate Jews. Gentile hatred for Jews is apparently constitutional. As was said about the Poles, the Pole learns anti-Semitism at his mother’s breast. Israel Jews see Gentiles as nearly emerging from the womb as full-blown anti-Semites.

There is not much you can say to someone who insists that you hate them or that almost everyone hates them. You can continue to insist that you do not really hate the person, but the person will never believe you. You can tell them that most people actually don’t hate them at all, but their mind is already made up. Once the Jews decide that you are anti-Semite, whether innocent or not – and 90% of those accused of anti-Semitism are innocent – you will never be able to argue your way out of it. The Jews will continue to insist that you hate them until their dying day. All contrary evidence will be ignored and the Jews will always dig up old comments to “prove your hatred.” Suppose your friends and lovers were always data-mining your relationships for “proof of your hatred.” Most of us have said nasty things to our friends and especially our lovers. But insults and criticism in a relationship is not proof of hatred. Perhaps it is a sign of hatred; perhaps it is not. In life, many people who love you the most, more than almost anyone will ever love you in this world, will end up saying some pretty awful things to you. That doesn’t mean that they hate you. It just means that they care and that human relationships, friendships and love affairs are not simple things.

Once the Jews decide that the world hates the Jews because the world is made up of ugly anti-Semite Nazis, there is not much the world can do to disabuse the Jews of this delusion. The Jews will simply embrace their pariah state and conclude that the reason for it is simple anti-Semitic bigotry and not Jewish bad behavior. At any rate, many Jews live to be hated and love to be hated. The worst thing you can do to a Jew is take away his sense of victimhood. This is nearly more precious to him than his soul, and the Jew will nearly kill to retain his eternal sense of victimization.

There are logical reasons for this. Once anti-Semitism disappears, the Jews go too. The Jews only exist due to anti-Semitism. And anti-Semitism, as long as it is not too deadly, generally serves to strengthen the Jews by enabling them to circle the wagons, refuse to assimilate or marry out or move to the biggest Jewish ghetto ever created in the Levant. The more you persecute them, the more they get paranoid and hostile and band together against everyone else. And the more you hate and persecute Jews, the worse they act. Anti-Semitism tends to bring out the ghetto in any Jew. And Israel is an example of a modification of the old saw that you can take the Jew out of the ghetto, but you can’t take the ghetto out of the Jew.

At any rate, the future in the land of Palestine/Israel looks utterly hopeless for those who side with justice, peace or the Palestinians. There literally is no future there, or there is only a future that will get worse and worse. I am looking down that tunnel, squinting, and I swear that all I see is black. It’s a black tunnel with no end that seems to go on forever or at least into the forseeable future. Tomorrow – and all of the tomorrows ahead as far as we can see – is looking pretty bleak in the Holy Land.


Filed under Anti-Semitism, Arabs, Britain, Conservatism, Democrats, Europe, Government, History, Israel, Israel-Palestine Conflict, Jewish Racism, Jews, Left, Middle East, Middle Eastern, Modern, Obama, Palestine, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Republicans, Social Problems, Sociology, The Jewish Question, US Politics, USA, War, Zionism

Was Humbert Humbert a Pedophile?

Cahokia writes:

Is Nabokov’s Humbert Humbert a pedophile? Obviously, he’s just a literary figure and the author was extremely resistant to political interpretations of his work. Nevertheless, in Lolita the narrator expresses a clear preference for girls just on the cusp of adolescence.

I say the protagonist is not a pedophile, despite his distaste for older teenage girls and young women. A Lolita based upon a genuine pedo would not have been palatable enough to become a hit.

Humbert clearly is a hebephile. I always wondered about Nabokov. Teenage girl heartthrobs and the older men who are obsessed with them are woven all through his work. I wonder if he was a bit of an ephebephile himself.

  • Preference for minors 12-under = pedophile
  • Preference for minors 12-14 or 13-15 = hebephile
  • Preference for teens 15-19 or 16-19 = ephebephile

Michael Jackson was clearly a hebephile. He liked boys right around puberty, 12-14. I would wager that a lot of so-called pedophiles are actually more properly called hebephiles. A preference for actual children 12-under must be rather rare I would think. There can’t be too many folks like that around.

Note that it says preference for, not attraction to. This is one of the major pitfalls in definitions of these terms. Studies show that even high attraction to girls aged 2-12 is quite common among normal men, as 26% of normal men are aroused by girls 2-12 the same or more than they are by females aged 13+. I assume the vast majority of these men are not pedophiles. They are probably aware of some attraction to girls, shrug it off as nothing and something they do not want to investigate in their sex life, and as long as they have a high attraction to mature females, they just focus on that and forget about the girls.

A true fixated pedophile is obsessed with young girls and has been since an early age, often as far back as they can remember or at least since puberty. They often have little or no interest in mature females, but some are nonexclusive and are attracted to mature females too.

Fixated pedophilia cannot come on later than age 14, as apparently it is not possible to become sexually fixated after that age. Any interest in young girls developing after age 14 would not be the fixated variety and would instead be the “sexual smorgasbord” or “trysexual” variety. These are men who are turned on by just about anything sexual. Let’s just call them perverts. However the vast majority of their interests are experimental or exploratory in nature, are not fixated and can be dropped or changed at any time. These men are developing these interests out of pure choice, which is surely not the case with the true pedophile.

The true fixated pedophile typically states something like,

I don’t know. All I know is that I have been crazy about little girls for as far back as I can remember, and I have been crazy turned on by them and masturbating all the time thinking about them ever since, and that’s all I know. That’s all I can tell you about why I feel this way.

They often use child pornography. Their fantasy life will be rich and often exclusively about young girls. They will spend a lot of time masturbating to fantasies about young girls. In other words, young girls drive them crazy.

As this is something that they love, they are often not particularly upset by it. Instead the relationship is similar to an addiction to say drugs, gambling or pornography. The addict absolutely loves his object of choice, but sometimes they feel out of control and like they can’t control their desires or urges anymore.

Although there is usually little guilt going on with true fixated pedophiles, many report that after they have an orgasm from masturbation, they feel very guilty. This is common to many other paraphilias and deviant sexual interests also. Men who fantasize about rape and murder of women often report intense arousal followed by serious guilt after orgasm. The guilt is often most intense in the early phase of the paraphilia and is particularly common with teenage boys with a paraphilia.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why any man past his mid-20’s would actually prefer a 13-14 year old girl to a grown woman. Sure, some of them are attractive, but are they more attractive than a grown woman? And talk about immature!

I can’t even understand ephebephiles, although obviously ephebephilia must be quite common. You mean you actually prefer teenyboppers to a grown woman? Once again, I cannot fathom any man past 30 feeling this way. It’s ridiculous. Sure you can legally have sex with an 18-19 year old girl.  I will probably never do it again, but I did it many times in the past. But the  main question is what are you going to talk to her about afterwards?

And why would an 18-19 year old girl be better than a grown woman in the first place? At my age, teenage girls are ridiculous, and they seem more empty-headed and silly with each passing year as a man ages. I am ashamed to say that even most college girls strike me as airheads, and it wasn’t always this way.


Filed under Child Porn, Ephebephilia, Gender Studies, Girls, Heterosexuality, Literature, Lolitas, Man World, Novel, Pedophilia, Pornography, Psychology, Sex