Category Archives: Higher Education

On Brett Kavanaugh, “Gang Rape,” and High School Girls Pulling Trains in the 1970’s

Regarding the sexual misconduct charges detailed against Brett Kavanaugh below, I am proud to say I’ve never done anything of these things or anything close to them. I’ve done a lot of bad things in my life but I have never raped a female or even come close to doing it. I like to sleep well at night and I have to look myself in the mirror every morning.

This horrible man is now facing a third sexual misconduct charge.

The first one involves a charge by a woman, 15 years old at the time, that the then 17 year old Kavanaugh and his creepy friend Mike Judge corralled her into a bedroom at a party while Kavanaugh tried to rape her. Brett threw her down on the bed, tried to rip her clothes off, and put his hand over her mouth to muffle her screams.

His buddy Judge was laughing the whole time. She literally fought him off and thereby prevented herself from getting raped. This was an actual crime called 2nd Degree Sexual Assault, a misdemeanor that calls for 1-3 years in prison. The statute of limitations ran out three years after the crime. I would be inclined to let him off on this considering he was a minor, but I hate him so much that I don’t care what sort of BS they use to hang him from his own petard with.

Of course I have never tried to rip a female’s clothes off to rape her and put her hand over her mouth to keep her from screaming! Good God, what do you think I am?

The second charge, which just came out, is from his time at Yale. Brett was a hard-partying guy, a member of a fraternity subsequently discovered to be a very creepy and rapey organization. This fraternity has been accused of so many sexual assaults that they were actually banned by the university at one point.

Brett was said to be rather shy but could get quite aggressive when drunk. These men are called “mean drunks” and it is a known type. I have known men who were very nice when sober but were quite mean when drunk.

A woman who was a classmate of his at Yale charges that in 1982 there was a drinking party in a dorm. She was there with several young men. Whether there were other men there is unknown. I am going to say right now that she was a damned idiot for going to a drinking party with just herself and five or six sketchy, rowdy college boys. What did she think is going to happen. At least bring a girlfriend along for Chrissake.

Anyway, at one point these boys started whipping out their dicks and pointing them in her face and daring her to touch them. The antics also involved the use of a fake penis at one point. The woman was a good Catholic girl at the time and she said she had never touched a penis before. Well, there’s no time like now, baby! Ah just kidding, sorry.

Anyway she tried not to touch them but they kept shoving them in her face. At one point, they grabbed her hand and put it on their penises. One of the men who did this to her was Brett Kavanaugh. The woman was traumatized by this and confided in some of her friends. This is legally sexual assault, but no DA will prosecute on a BS charge like this. It is a dick move though, and dick moves deserve a punch in the face in Man World.

I will tell you right now that despite extensive experience with more females than I can count, I have never done anything like this. It’s so rapey! Ew.

The latest charge is that Brett, Judge and a group of other boys threw regular parties when they were in high school that involved targeting a girl, feeding her enough drinks to get her completely wasted and then getting her to pull a train or do a gangbang. These are being called gang rapes, but that’s not the way I remember them.

I was around back then. This happened at parties all the time when I was in high school. You would hear this at parties, “She’s pulling a train!” Or they would point to some girl and say she pulled a train at this party last weekend. It was a pretty regular occurrence. My understanding was that all of the girls were drinking of their own free will. I was at many parties like this, and I never once saw boys or men feeding these girls booze. They didn’t need to. The girls went there with the expressed intention of getting wasted on alcohol.

I never participated in one of these train gangbangs. The idea was always frightening to me, and I didn’t have much sexual experience in those days. Plus I had performance anxieties.

A high school girl would get drunk off her ass, then get in bed with some guy. I guess they would ask her if she wanted other guys. Other guys would come in, and the girl would be like, “Bring it on!” These were high school girls who wanted to get gangbanged, so they would get drunk in order to have an excuse to do this without being sluts. I never heard that one of these trains was non-consensual. I never heard that one of them was anything resembling rape or gang rape.

I have heard that if you went in there at your turn in the train you would find some ravenous cum-drunk high school in there, her vagina soaked down to her knees along her inner thighs, panting like a dog in summer heat and flopping around on the bed like a possessed Jodie Foster in The Exorcist. She would be saying something like, “More! More! More cock! I want more cock!” If you got on top of her, she would look up at you and say, “A new one?” And then, “Fuck me! Fuck me! Fuck me dammit!” while flopping around on the bed like a fish.

Females who are this sexually crazed are obviously getting raped, right? Oh Hell no. No female acts like that unless the sex is consensual.

Back in those days, just because some horny as Hell high school was pulling a train in some bedroom, that didn’t mean crap. In no way was it synonymous with gang rape or even a single rape. It was just some high school girl living out her fantasy of getting gangbanged.

Now if these guys were actually targeting certain girls and deliberately feeding them drinks in order to gangbang them, that was sleazy. But that’s not really rape either. No male ever goes on rape for sex with a drunken female. No DA ever files on a bullshit charge like that. It’s only rape if sh’e passing in and out of consciousness, and even then, it’s hardly ever prosecuted. One case that was prosecuted recently was a case like that with a high school girl which was videotaped. The only reason those boys went down was due to the videotape.

If she is so drunk she is literally passed out, yes, it is rape, but hardly anyone goes down on that either because there’s usually no evidence. Sadly, this bullshit happens all the time. Girls and women – don’t drink yourself black out drunk or even worse passed out drunk. You may well get raped and you have no one but yourself to blame for that. This is what the college athlete Brock Turner went down on. 95% of the sexual activity they had was 100% consensual, and it was not sexual assault until she passed out. At that point he was supposed to get off of her.

Also it was sexual assault, not rape, due to digital penetration. That woman was another idiot who got herself black out and then passed out drunk and then got assaulted. She was with Brock at the party for a long time after they left and people said she was all over him, practically screwing him in the main room in front of everyone. When they left and went outside, same thing, she was practically raping HIM.

I’m just saying there is a lot less to a lot of these cases than meets the eye.

On the other hand, Kavanaugh and his buddies definitely did what I would call a dick move by feeding these girls drinks and then frankly preying on them when they were wasted. It’s a dick move, not rape. The punishment for dick moves like that in Man World is a punch in the face. That’s exactly what this creep and his friends deserve for pulling this shit.

Leave a comment

Filed under Alcohol, Crime, Depressants, Gender Studies, Girls, Heterosexuality, Higher Education, Intoxicants, Man World, Politics, Republicans, Sex, US Politics

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

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

Didn’t he get a Nobel? Well, if he did, he is interesting because I suppose that is a threshold effect. But bringing him up over and over to prove some point is dumb.

You must understand that Feynman scored the highest score ever on the Physics entry exam to his university. A number of his other tests in physics were completely off the charts. So Feynman was like a 190 IQ in Physics. Feynman was weak on verbal. People who have access to his notes have observed frequent spelling, punctuation and grammar errors.

So using the Feynman example that “any 125 IQ person can win a Nobel” is just stupid. Can a 125 IQ person win the Nobel Prize? Sure, maybe in Physics. But all you need is a 190 IQ when it comes to Physics. How many 125 IQ people have that? Zero? That’s what I thought.

And it gives false hope to a lot of people while de-emphasizing the importance of intelligence to others. To allow a 100 IQ person to go to university without telling them or at least knowing yourself that they will have to work very hard is irresponsible. To allow someone with an IQ below 115 to even entertain the possibility of getting a PhD or an MD is the height of irresponsibility. I mean it’s hard to tell people these things, but you can always let them go find out for themselves and learn the hard way. But giving people false hope is stupid, cruel, and a waste of time and resources.

The Greeks said, “To know thine own self is the rule.” One of the purposes of life is to know yourself or finally understand yourself, your strengths, your weaknesses, the whole nine yards. Not understanding yourself and always overestimating how good you are at this or that is ridiculous.

Most people I know do not know themselves well at all, even far into their 50’s. This is ridiculous. “I am good at this” or “I am not good at that,” takes a lot of bravery that most folks just don’t have. This is a problem because always overestimating what you can do leads to a lot of time and effort wasted on useless projects and further leads to a lot of frustration and depression when you inevitably fail.

17 Comments

Filed under Education, Higher Education, Intelligence, Philosophy, Psychology, Science

How IQ Limits You in School and Life

Rahul: Robert, there are professors with IQ’s in the 90’s out there. There are scientists too, and many other professions.

You are being very IQ deterministic. IQ does carry some merit, but it’s not the only thing. Also, intelligence can span from many different things. Intelligence is the ability to learn. People with Low IQ’s are very street smart, more so than high IQ folks. Musical intelligence exists too, many low IQ blacks are excellent rappers. Mechanical intelligence, not every high IQ fella can fix shit with their hands.

There’s this article on Grey Enlightenment on illusory superiority. It’s a phenomenal article.

Also, you can increase your IQ, it’s not fixed at all. Just because most people don’t increase it doesn’t mean that it’s impossible. Some people get pretty big gains too.

For a degree, you only need an average IQ.

For a masters too, only an average.

Even for a PhD, you only need average.

Hell, for the Nobel, you probably don’t need a monstrously high IQ either.

There are almost zero university professors with IQ’s in the 90’s. I dare you to show me one university professor with an IQ at that level. With an IQ in the 90’s, you will have a difficult time getting a BA, for Chrissake.

Show me one “scientist” anywhere with an IQ in the 90’s. One.

You don’t realize that IQ is intelligence. By attacking IQ, you attack the very concept of human intelligence itself.

Street smarts, musical and mechanical knowledge alone won’t get you through university or a job as a professor or scientist. As an aside, most very good musicians are quite intelligent. We think Blacks are stupid, but I have read interviews with great Black blues musicians who no one would ever think would be smart, and I was shocked at how smart they were. I read an interview with Miles Davis, and it almost knocked me on the floor. He’s at least as smart as I am.

I am always shocked at how smart auto mechanics are. They’re not book smart intellectuals, but I haven’t met a stupid mechanic yet, and I’ve met more than I can count. We think they are just stupid grease monkeys, and they don’t act all that smart, but those guys are wicked smart. I saw a chart once and I was shocked at how many auto mechanics had IQ’s of over 130. That will literally put you in the gifted program at school.

I met a man the other day whose job was fixing the slot machines in gambling houses. I was stunned at how smart he was. I could tell he was smart very fast just by looking at his eyes, listening to his speech and just seeing how sheer fast he was.

After age 18, IQ doesn’t go up much at all. Nor does it lower much either. IQ is even preserved in alcoholism, believe it or not. It can damage your brain, but IQ is typically preserved somehow.

Show me one person who got an over 15 IQ gain in adulthood. I would even like to see someone who got 15 points. I’ve heard it’s possible, but I’ve never known anyone who did that.

An average IQ of 100 will not get you a BA. You will struggle a lot, and you will simply not be able to understand a lot of the material. Many 100 IQ people will drop out of the university. You need a minimum 105 IQ to get a BA. You need a 110 IQ to get one relatively easily.

I definitely don’t see how you easily get an MA with an average IQ. I have known people who seemed to do it, but they were schoolteachers getting more or less bullshit Education MA’s, the easiest MA’s out there. And this woman that I knew had to have her attorney mother write most of her papers for her, otherwise she would never have passed.

I was in a Master’s program and there didn’t seem to be a lot of average IQ folks in there. Some of them were smarter than I was, or at least they were better at the material. For a Master’s, you will ever struggle at a 105-107 IQ. You won’t understand a lot of the material, and you will have a high likelihood of dropout, assuming you can even get in anyway, as you have to pass the GRE, and it is hard to pass the GRE with average intelligence. I would want a 115 IQ to get a Master’s degree, and even then it will be hard.

You need a minimum 115 IQ to get a PhD, and even then, you will not understand a lot of the material and you will have a high tendency to flunk out. You want a 125 IQ to get a PhD. If you have an IQ below 115, in all likelihood you will simply not be able to get a PhD unless you have an extremely lopsided IQ.

Most Nobel Prize winners have IQ’s of over 145. They’ve been studied.

19 Comments

Filed under Alcohol, Blacks, Depressants, Education, Higher Education, Intelligence, Intoxicants, Labor, Music, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Science

All the Ways That IQ Is Relevant to Society

Intelligent Mouse: By “relevant for society” i meant relevant for economics. IQ can matter for many reasons, like for example just being interested in any form of scientific rigor in understand behavior could make it relevant to an individual as the person would seek for all (or at least most) alternatives in models.

But lets investigate some of the potencial usage of intelligence meassurments and see how IQ tests meassure up.

Measuring potential school performance:

Some small amount of years in school will already give the teachers or parents ample information about their prospects, but also traits that make IQ more productive in synthesis:
https://books.google.se/books?id=SCyEAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=Layzer+(1973:+238)&source=bl&ots=9Rf9sy0Jd6&sig=WjWMXZsLTGLGy7SS7JSZQ9RLmNE&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjl0q7t78fdAhUQpIsKHXb7AFsQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=Layzer%20(1973%3A%20238)&f=false

Job performance:

Well, IQ correlates around 0.3 with job performance, but the measurement is subjective so it might capture some things that correlate with social-class and therefore IQ.

Eugenics:

Pleitropy and polygenic structures makes eugenics by swapping SNPs impractical. Breeding programs can only do so much without further molecular biology knowledge. Twin studies seem kinda ridiculous:

Twin Studies, Adoption Studies, and Fallacious Reasoning

And i also agree with:

Behavior Genetics and the Fallacy of Nature vs Nurture

and (which is what GWAS interested behavioral geneticists like Steven Hsu agree on):

Height and IQ Genes

making eugenics very hard. If we already knew the mechanisms behind

Testing mental health:

This is actually the best use of IQ, as decreasing IQ is indicative of loss in brain stuff.

Criterion validity and correlation:

I also think that IQ´s criterion validity lies on shaky grounds when its founded on correlations that are only tested in narrow environments, essentially just creating the same correlation again and again without testing the methodological validity by testing the correlation appropriately. to test correlation appropriately would find anomalies in the pure environmentalist approach (or any level of conviction to environmental explanations) or finding causal IQ relationships (which Environmentalists have done).

I’m not really an IQ denier though, i think there probably is an range of IQ that any given person can inhabit, but the fact of individuals sticking around the mean makes it hard to know who could be where, especially in such large and genetically similar groups like economic classes and races. Some people are obviously extreme, but as previously stated, we don’t need IQ tests to know that.

And whats to say that smart people have high IQ? IQ is contingent on G, but all of my criticisms on IQ are pretty much equally (for better or worse) valid against G.

I see no use in IQ if not for future developments. Its an unfinished project at best.

 

I do not think that people realize what they are criticizing when they attack IQ. For IQ is simply the best measure we have for measuring intelligence in human beings. No better test has ever been devised. So when you criticize IQ as a concept, you are actually criticizing human intelligence itself. Do you IQ critics who say IQ is not that important really want to say that human intelligence is not important for human beings? Because that is exactly what you are saying.

You realize IQ correlates very well with all sorts of things, right?

Percentage of country that are college grads. % of college grads rises with rising IQ.

Grades in college, SAT. Good correlation between college grades, SAT scores and IQ.

Wealth of society. As IQ rises, societies tend to become more wealthy. As IQ falls to a low level, you can end up with extreme poverty, a lot of crime and chaos, rampant disease, and sometimes even a failed state.

State of the infrastructure of society. Infrastructure of society improves as IQ rises. People and society are more likely to maintain things. When IQ falls to a low level, people often do not know how to fix broken infrastructure and there is a tendency to jerry rig or do temporary quick and dirty fixes to problems that last for a bit but then fail again.

Civilizational level of society. As IQ rises, societies appear more civilized. As it drops to a low level, countries can appear downright barbarous.

Crime rate of society: As IQ rises, the nation’s crime rate falls.

Whether or not you will go to jail or prison and how long: As IQ falls,  you are more likely to be imprisoned and for longer.

Whether you will go on welfare programs. As IQ falls, welfare use increases.

Whether you will get an advanced degree. As IQ rises, advanced degrees become more common.

Income (up to a certain level). Income rises in tandem with IQ up to 125-130, after which it falls

Accident rate. As IQ falls, people get into many more accidents, some fatal. Includes car crashes, recreational accidents, accidents at home, etc.

Hospitalization rates. As IQ rises, people are hospitalized less often.

Rates of alcoholism and serious drug abuse. As IQ rises, rates of drug and alcohol abuse fall.

The environment you create for your children. As IQ rises, parents create better environments for their children.

Stability for chaotic nature of your surroundings. Even if you look at it on a neighborhood level, as IQ rises, the neighborhood becomes calmer, sometimes nearly to the point of being boring. Yet only three miles away, a large group of apartment complexes housing many low wage workers has a lot of noise, a general chaotic atmosphere, frequent police calls, a lot of yelling and screaming coming from homes, more frequent and more chaotic parties, more violence, more residential crime, and more drug and alcohol abuse.

Domestic violence rates. Domestic violence falls precipitously as IQ rises. Men at the highest IQ levels seldom beat their wives. As IQ falls down to a low level, domestic violence becomes commonplace to the point where most men are beating their wives.

17 Comments

Filed under Accidents, Alcohol, Biology, Corrections, Crime, Culture, Depressants, Economics, Education, Eugenics, Genetics, Health, Higher Education, Illness, Intelligence, Intoxicants, Law enforcement, Psychology, Science, Social Problems, Sociology

A Look at the Chinese Model of Communism – Market Socialism

You are starting to see a lot of articles in the capitalist press bashing China now, saying their economy is not as good as they say, that it cannot be sustained, and that it is headed for crash. They base this on a comparison to other Communist countries, but those economies fell behind far before China’s did.

China has sustained Communism under various forms, including presently under market socialism, for 70 years now. That’s as long as the Soviet Union, and the Soviets started stagnating a long time before that. China is an example of a smashing success for a Communist country, and the capitalist press is freaking out because that shows that their anti-Communist propaganda has been crap for all of these years.

Incidentally, Deng Xiaoping emphatically stated that he was a Communist. Deng’s idea was to create “a rich Communist country.”. In an interview in 2005, a top party official was asked if China was still committed to spreading Communism all over the world.

“Of course,” the minister beamed. “That is the purpose of the Communist party (CCP).”

Incidentally, China still has 5-year plans and the whole economy is planned. The business sector has to go along with the plan, and if you do not go along with it, they can confiscate your business. A party committee sits on the board of all large corporations. The government owns every inch of land in China. The state invests an incredible amount in the economy and also overseas where it makes vast investments. This is because some Chinese government companies are very profitable. A number of Chinese government companies are on the list of largest companies in the world.

Capitalists in the US openly complain that they cannot compete with Communist Chinese government  corporations, crying that they get subsidies so it’s not fair. So here we have US corporations openly admitting that they can’t compete with Chinese government Communist state-owned companies.

45% of the economy is state owned and it is very profitable. 87% of all investment in the economy is made by the state. This figure includes all Chinese private investment and all foreign investment.

Much of the state sector is owned by small municipalities, and this works very well. Further, cities compete against each other. For instance, City A’s steel mill will compete against City B’s steel mill, and both will compete against a private sector steel mill, if there is one. Successful enterprises bring in a lot of money to the city, which it uses to upgrade the city, which results in more workers moving there, which grows the economy more with more workers and more demand.

There are also still a number of pure Maoist villages in China that are run completely on a Maoist line. Everything is done as it was right out of the Mao era. I understand that they do very well, and there is a huge waiting list to move to those villages.

I did a lot of research on China recently, and the party is literally everywhere you look every time you turn around. The party itself still runs many enterprises all over the country, especially in the rural areas. There are party officials in every village and city, and they take a very active role in developing the municipality in every way, including culturally. They have an ear to the ground and are typically very popular in the villages and cities.

Party officials lobby the state to try to solve any urgent problem in the area. The government is always spending a lot of money all over China on public works, on fixing various environmental problems, or on really any societal problem or issue you can think of. This of course includes economic development, which tends to be state-led. I read synopses of many dissertations coming out of Chinese universities, and most were on how to deal with some particular societal problem or issue. Many others dealt with technology and industry. So a lot of the research on technology and industry that is driving economic development is coming straight out of state universities.

Instead of leaving it up to the private sector to deal with the problems in society, create public works, and even plan the economy, the government does all of that. Incidentally, the way the US leaves the planning of the economy, such as it is, up to the private sector is insane. All sensible economic planning in any nation will always be done by the state with a view towards allowing the country to prosper. Capitalists have no interest in whether the country profits or not, so they engage in no economic planning at all. Leaving economic planning up to the whims of the capitalists is economic malpractice.

There are 1,000 protests every day in China. Yes, there is corruption and there are government abuses, but if protests last long enough, the party usually gets alarmed and tries to do something about the problem because they don’t want serious unrest. This is party that does everything it can to serve the people and try to remain popular with citizens by giving them as much as they can and doing as much for them as possible. The party spends every single day of its rule literally trying to buy off unrest and keep its citizens satisfied.

It’s illegal to be homeless in China. If you end up homeless in China, they will try to put you in a homeless shelter, or if they cannot do that, they will send you back to your village because most homeless are rural migrants who moved to the city. The state is now investing a vast amount of money in the rural areas because these places have been neglected for a long time. The state still wants to own all the land because they want to keep the rural areas as a secure base where rural migrants to the city can always return if they fail in the city.

How can a government in which 45% of the economy is publicly owned, 87% of investment is done by the state, and every inch of land is owned by the state possibly be called as capitalist country? No serious political economist anywhere on Earth considers China to be a capitalist country. The only people who say that are ideologues and liars, which includes almost all political conservatives and most businessmen.

The state spends an unbelievable amount of money on public works all over the country all the time. Many projects that in the US have “conclusively proven” to be too costly to be implemented have been done in China quickly and easily. And China’s per capita income in less than 10% of ours.

Most ethnic minorities are still allowed to support their culture, and in most cases they are allowed to have education in their native language. In these areas, the native language is co-official with Mandarin.

In recent years, the Chinese government has begun to support a lot of the Chinese dialects, of which there are over 2,000 main ones, many of which are actually separate languages. Cantonese is still an official language in Hong Kong, and it is widely used in Guangdong. The other major Chinese languages or macrolanguages still have millions of tens of millions of speakers. Lately the Chinese government is telling people they can preserve their dialect as long as they also speak Mandarin. Many schools now have classes in the local dialect.

Cheap medical insurance is available and it covers 85% of costs. State medical centers are still very good. However, if you have a serious medical condition in China, you will quickly run out of money with no recourse.

This is a serious problem but it is much better than earlier in the Deng Era when millions were dying from lack of health care. However, the state still need to cover everyone. They got away from universal coverage  when they moved away from Maoism early in the Deng era. In addition, tens of thousands of schools, many of which were built during the Cultural Revolution, were closed early in the Deng era.

The introduction of a market had a lot of problems in the early days. The capitalist press was cheering wildly as thousands of schools were closed all over China, medical care was cut off from or reduced for hundreds of millions of people, while millions of Chinese died from lack of medical care. This was all cause for celebration! Isn’t capitalism wonderful? What’s millions of humans dying from lack of health care as long as a few rich people can buy ridiculously expensive, useless items that they don’t even need?

A recent good survey done by a Western polling firm found that 87% of the population supported the Communist Party.  The excesses of the Mao era, especially the Great Leap and the Cultural Revolution, have been widely discussed and the party has admitted that many errors were made and resolved not to do this again. These excesses are being blamed by the party on what they call “ultra-Leftism.”

The economic model of China is called Market Socialism and a lot of modern day Leftists and even Communists support it and agree that this is the way forward for the left and Communist movement. Like all words, the word Communism has no inherent meaning. It means whatever people who use it say it means. So the definition of Communism can clearly change with the times as Communists update their definitions of what the word means.

China cannot be called capitalist in any way. Their model is far more socialist than anything in any European social democracy. It also goes far beyond the US in the New Deal and of course beyond beyond the social liberalism and its more left analogue in Canada, not to mention beyond social democracy in Australia or New Zealand.

Interestingly, Japan is not a capitalist country. They don’t have neoliberalism. That country does not operate on the capitalist mode of development. Instead the resemblance is, I hate to say, to Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany also did not have a capitalist mode of development. I’m not sure what you call it, but it’s not capitalism. For instance, in Japan, the commanding heights of the economy, including almost all of the banks, is owned by the state.

The state still plans the economy. They plan the economy together with the business community and the state allocates a lot of funds and loans to areas of the economy it wishes to develop. There is probably a similar model in South Korea, which also is not capitalist and instead operates on a series of monopolies that are owned currently by large corporations and the government. The South Korean economy is also planned, and the plan is worked out by the government and the business sector working together.

Leave a comment

Filed under Asia, Canada, Cantonese, Capitalism, China, Chinese language, Corruption, Economics, Education, Europe, European, Fascism, Germany, Government, Health, Higher Education, History, Japan, Journalism, Language Families, Law, Left, Liberalism, Linguistics, Local, Mandarin, Maoism, Marxism, National Socialism, Nazism, NE Asia, Neoliberalism, North America, Political Science, Politics, Race Relations, Sinitic, Sino-Tibetan, Social Problems, Socialism, Sociolinguistics, Sociology, South Korea, Urban Studies, USA

Alt Left: Intersectionality Is Itself a System of Power

An absolutely essential piece by Ernest Everhard from the Alternative Left website sums up perfectly an Alt Left position on SJWism, Intersectionality or Intersectional Feminism. It’s a bit hard to read, but I understood 90%+ of it, so maybe you can understand a lot of it too. This is us. This is really us. This is an immaculate summary of exactly what the Alternative Left is all about. Please feel free to comment on this: this is a very important topic in this great movement we are trying to build here.

Intersectionality Is Itself a System of Power

Intersectionality is itself a system of power. It upholds the status quo and protects the powerful and privileged.

Recognizing this is the key difference between the alternative left and other current forms of political thought.

A fan of the Alternative Left Facebook page recently posed this question to me:

Have you considered that you might be postmodernist? The actual meaning of the term, not Peterson’s ridiculous conflation and confusion of it. It seems as if a lot of your philosophy relies on the rejections of meta-narratives.

At a glance, this seems an absurd question. Isn’t rejection of postmodernism integral to the alt-left? Doesn’t all that deconstruction and bafflegab distract from the hard and real work of class struggle? Isn’t a return to some semblance of economic realism, if not historical materialism, what we’re all about at the end of the day?

Not so fast. While I don’t think postmodernism is a tenable philosophy long term, it does make some good points. It’s like nihilism and other forms of radical skepticism. They’re nice places to visit, and doing so is a sign of intellectual growth, but you wouldn’t want to live there.

My quarrel with postmodernism is how it tends to be cherry picked by the intersectional left, the feminist theorists in particular. They’re quite good at using deconstruction to pick apart the texts of their opponents, and will exploit other postmodernist concepts such as “the death of the author” – the idea that textual interpretation by authorial intent is flawed – to license their tendency to simply read their own narrative into ideas that threaten them.

They use such notions as science being a western, patriarchal “way of knowing” as a legitimizing excuse to handwave otherwise proven claims of some biological basis in gender differences, for example.

Deconstruction, cognitive framing and other advanced linguistic concepts are devastating ideological weapons against those who are not aware of them. Intersectional theorists get a unique education in these concepts in the academic institutions wherein their views dominate. Institutions that are not cheap to attend and require significant baseline intelligence to be successful in. They’re therefore able to win debates against their less privileged opponents simply through framing and linguistic and cognitive gimmicks of this nature.

Ultimately, however, feminist theory’s apparent embrace of postmodernism is self serving pretense. Notice how their own theories are presented as if they were eternal truths, universally binding on all people under all circumstances. Cultural relativism is fine when it’s used to impose multiculturalism and diversity upon western cultural spaces, but has a funny way of disappearing when similar demands of tolerance are made of feminist theorists in turn.

Fixed and objective meaning of text based on authorial intent is not authoritative, since the author no doubt lives in a network of socially constructed systems of which he is barely aware. But not so the feminist critic.

Her views, and her views alone apparently, somehow transcend the context of the society that gave rise to them, and so are above questions of this nature and constitute an ultimate authority on par with divine revelation. No one is faster to declare epistemic superiority for their own points of view – standpoint theories so called – than college feminists who’ve studied the poststructuralists closer than anyone. If feminist theory is not a metanarrative, you tell me what is.

Who deconstructs feminist theory, one must ask?

Yeah, it’s a dirty job, but someone’s got to do it.

Herein lies a very central tenet of alternative leftism: that the brands of postmodern critical theory so prevalent on college campuses and that are the underlying ideologies of the SJW’s are actually conservative, not radical. They are in fact themselves systems of power, like the very notions of patriarchy and colonialism they so love to deconstruct.

This is quite naturally a counter intuitive concept when first exposed to it. Feminist theory, queer theory, critical race theory and so on – Intersectionality serving as a kind of one ring to rule them all and thus a useful term for referring to them collectively – is interpreted either as official party line and not to be questioned, in the case of the mainstream left.

Or else condemned as “Cultural Marxism” and taken at face value as advocacy for an artificial egalitarianism, in the case of the right. Neoreaction comes quite strangely closest to the truth in its denouncing of progressive ideology as “the Cathedral” – a vast Matrix like social construct comparable to the Christian church in the middle ages – the state religion to which everyone must pay homage, hence the term.

The Cathedral: It doesn’t challenge the aristocracy.
It is the aristocracy.

Neoreaction’s flaw, however, lies in the irony of its denunciation of progressivism in those terms. Isn’t a medieval form of social organization exactly what they want? The Church of the middle ages, far from being an institution for egalitarian social leveling, had a long history of supporting the aristocracy and running interference on behalf of the status quo, despite a good portion of what Christ actually taught, which may be where the confusion arises.

So it is with intersectionality. Despite its pretenses, and despite what were likely genuinely radical critiques at one time, current year intersectionality does not challenge privilege. It upholds privilege.

Do not misunderstand me, dear reader. I do not condone racism towards minorities, misogyny and homophobia. The left spearheaded the fight against those things for all the right reasons. And not merely because prejudice undermines working class solidarity, thought that is reason enough. To be left is to value equality, to some degree or another, and fair treatment regardless of what one is by accident of birth. Intersectionality itself was intended to be a manner of looking at how various different forms of oppression reinforce one another. This is not in itself a bad idea.

The problem is that intersectionality has evolved into something does not actually promote real social justice. Its lack of tolerance for dissent made it vulnerable to abuse on part of the unscrupulous, who were thereby attracted to intersectional feminist spaces.

They’ve co-opted social justice movements, and used them as tools to oppress people. It’s like Marxist Leninism 2.0 – a popular movement is appropriated and exploited by an elite vanguard professing to represent the interests of marginalized people, and using that to consolidate their own power. Cultural rather than political power this time, but the underlying mechanisms are quite a bit alike.

It’s also quite different from Marxism in one key aspect, and this is often overlooked by those on the right who equate intersectional ideas with Marxian leftism: intersectionality’s lack of emphasis on political economy. It is not merely that they simply don’t care about or are ignorant of the internal workings of the international economy or the political machines of the G7 nations.

Intersectionalists are rewarded by capital for framing privilege in terms of racial and sexual identity rather than in terms of wealth and political power. These rewards include expansion in academia, access to agenda setting mass media and favorable policy service. Ideological systems that truly threaten the status quo do not enjoy universally favorable media bias, moderator bias on major corporate social media platforms and an exalted status in academic institutions.

The state religion does not advocate for the truly marginalized within the polity.

It’s important that you divest yourself of the notion that intersectionalists truly represent the underclasses, including most women and people of color. They occupy a very different world than that of working single mothers or unemployed minority youths in the ghetto, or on their way to prison.

They occasionally will use real oppressions suffered by women and minorities while making the case for an increase in their own influence, but that is the only reason for which they ever seem to do so. If one takes their standpoint theories at all seriously, the plush halls of the academy and major media outlets are not the places we should be seeing credible voices of the oppressed and marginalized. Those voices are kept quite intentionally silent, because their demands will be for redressment of their economic hardships and lack of political representation.

Women who are turned off of men and family as a result of feminism, and men who are turned off of religion, community and nationalism as a result of anti western critical theory find themselves completely atomized and without an identity. This is central to the alt-right’s critique of modern liberalism and the abolition of borders.

But the real question is: who is the real beneficiary of all this? The far right will tell you that this is “cultural Marxism” and is necessary in order to groom the populace for the embrace of socialism.

That’s not what happened. If you do not believe that, observe how neoliberalism increased apace just as this so called cultural Marxism did. The emergence of political correctness coincided with Reagan in the US and Thatcher in the UK. If the idea was for feminism and multiculturalism to precede socialism, they could not have failed more miserably.

Atomized individuals turn to careerism and consumerism to fill the void, and they’re more easily replaced when cheaper cogs for the machine are found. So they’re more obedient and easily used in the workforce and more responsive to consumer trends. When other vectors of identity are removed, do the brands we work for and consume become the way we identify ourselves?

This seems to me to be the triumph of capitalism, and quite in line with the manner in which Marx believed capitalism would progress, abolishing relations based on kinship and reducing all human interaction to commodity exchange, rather than the triumph of Marxism itself that it’s so often described as by reactionaries.

Hard Fact: Social liberalism is the handmaiden of capital, not of revolution. And so capital became socially liberal when national economies became fully saturated and capital had to go global in order to keep up its expansion. The alt-right is hated in the capitalist press because capital must always seek new markets, and it was therefore in capital’s interest to globalize and promote diversity.

Observe one of the methods whereby Intersectionality preserves its hegemony: by seeking to get people who disagree with them fired from their jobs. Often with no recourse or due process whatsoever. In what world does leveraging the power of capital over labor so flagrantly and directly constitute anything that could be at all called left wing?

This is what was done to socialists and trade unionists back in the bad old days of blacklisting. This isn’t to say that removal of an offensive or hateful person from a workplace isn’t sometimes appropriate or necessary, but to use the threat of employment loss as a means of enforcing ideological conformity more broadly is something the left should not be supporting. We can question the rationality of workers supporting conservatism all we want. It won’t seem quite so irrational now that this ugly tactic has been normalized.

Another hard fact: Intersectionality relies on the absolute power that capital has over labor and consumers in order to successfully impose its will on the population, as it’s doing in geek culture, for instance. The capacity for populations to resist cultural and moral relativism imposed from above would be greatly increased if cultural and economic as well as political institutions were democratized and under some or another kind of social ownership.

Intersectionalists are a safe and nerfed form of “leftism.” One that attacks white male “neckbeards” and “dudebros” in places like 4chan while leaving the State Department, the military industrial complex and Wall Street lobbyists unscrutinized.

Activists and even radicals who truly want to challenge the status quo find their anger and vigor channeled into safe outlets that do not truly threaten the powers that be. Offensive statements by white male celebrities are made front page news by an intersectionalist movement that’s presented in the headlines as being radical and subversive – the resistance, so called. Offensives launched by the US military on the other side of the world in defense of petrodollar interests are kept more safely out of the public eye.

Intersectionality is a tool used by an educated elite to police the culture of the underclass, and to undermine the solidarity of that underclass by dividing it along racial and gender lines. We’ve seen this done time and again now: with Occupy Wall Street, with Bernie Sander’s campaign for the White House, now with the Democratic Socialists of America. Most leftist spaces on social media are completely overrun by intersectional dominance, even ones that profess to be Marxist or anarchist.

Intersectional activists have a curious way of coming to dominate leftist spaces, and maintain their power through dividing the left against itself and redirecting popular anger towards other segments of the left. Sometimes the target is white male leftists – brocialists, so called. Sometimes it’s white feminism, or TERF’s or straight feminism. Sometimes straight black males are called the white people of black people.

Sometimes cisgender gay males are driven out of LGBT spaces. Some or another activist has run afoul of the intersectionalist overlords and is publicly shamed, like in a Maoist struggle session or the young kids being banished from polygamous fundamentalist communities for the most trivial reasons.

But the real reasons aren’t so trivial: to maintain the power of the leadership over the flock. Ceaseless purity spiraling destroys the cohesiveness of the left. J. Edgar Hoover and his COINTELPRO could not have done a better job if they tried. Perhaps the FBI still is, and that’s what all this really is.

Like a puritanical religion, intersectionality promotes a guilt based morality that ceaselessly berates its followers for their ideological and lifestyle shortcomings. Theories of inherited privilege based on what people are by accident of birth become a moral burden comparable to original sin. People with a lot of internalized guilt do not take action to challenge their leaders. They punch down, not up.

Nearly any action a person may commit or even a thought they might think can be construed as oppressive in some way or anther. That combined with intersectionality’s taboo on questioning claims of oppression made by its activist leadership – who are above any kind of ethical or moral standards due to their supposed “marginalization” – results in a near cult like atmosphere in intersectional spaces. Not surprisingly, most people want nothing to do with this and thus nothing to do with the left overall. Who does that benefit, in the long run?

As mentioned previously, considerable education is needed to really understand their theories, and the intersectionalists themselves conveniently have a near hegemony within the academy itself. Hence, the relative absence of working class people in these self styled radical movements.

Which in turn makes the whole of the left easy for the right to denounce as “limousine liberals”, “champagne socialists” or the like. No more effective means of turning the working class off of the political left could be contrived. This makes McCarthyism look clumsy and amateurish. People who are rightly put off by intersectionality then defect quite willingly to conservatism as a protest against it. One almost wonders if this wasn’t the intent all along.

The problem is not with education itself, which is perfectly fine and good. But rather with the co-optation of education to serve elite interests. Something that the left was much more willing and able to call out prior to the capture of the humanities and social sciences by intersectionalists.

The ideology of intersectionality itself is constructed to be a closed system of thought, wherein disagreement with it is likened to actual oppressive behavior against a marginalized person. Allegations of racism or sexism – made with the backing of powerful media outlets – against lone individuals without recourse and no due process are effective and currently socially legitimate ways of marginalizing people. It’s a good way of removing someone who’s bringing up facts and ideas that the truly powerful don’t want publicly legitimized.

Far from emboldening the resistance, intersectionality keeps protest culture in line and ensures its continuity as a controlled opposition. One that allows the powers that be to claim that they allow and legitimize dissent – so long as it doesn’t really threaten them. One oligarch or another might get thrown under the bus due to his alleged racism or sexism here and there.

The oligarchy itself is thus made safer, for it submits itself to the appearance that it really is held to scrutiny and made accountable for its abuses. Surely the absurdity of a racist or sexist comment ruining a CEO while his abuse of his workers, defrauding of his shareholders and pollution of the environment as a matter of course going completely unnoticed highlights the absurd nature of intersectionality as a form of radicalism.

With leftism like intersectionality, who needs conservatism? It’s the ultimate metanarrative, and if the postmodernist techniques of deconstruction can be turned against it, that can only be a good thing. An essential thing, as a matter of fact.

1 Comment

Filed under Anti-Racism, Blacks, Capitalism, Christianity, Civil Rights, Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Economics, Education, Environmentalism, Feminism, Gender Studies, Government, Heterosexuality, Higher Education, Homosexuality, Journalism, Labor, Left, Liberalism, Marxism, Military Doctrine, Nationalism, Neoliberalism, Philosophy, Political Science, Politics, Pollution, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Religion, Revolution, Sex, Social Problems, Socialism, Sociology, US Politics, Useless Western Left, Whites

When Victims Rule: The History of the Jews

Ha. Jews don’t play victims. This is truth. Take it as fact. Jews ARE victims.

I know Jews and they are great. I’ve had sex with many Jewish people and I know for certain what they are like.

Yeah. Me too. I had a Jewish girlfriend for 6 1/2 years. She agrees with me 100% about Jews too. Many of my parents’ best friends were Jews, so I grew up around these people all my life.

And I will grant you that Jewish women are good fucks. They just don’t have that Catholic/Christian hangup about sex unless they are Orthodox, in which case their hangups are worse than Catholics/Christians. Assuming that the author means Jewish women when he said Jewish people? Yikes. I wish I could report whether Jewish men are good fucks, but I have no data. Maybe when I come back as gay in a future lifetime I will be able to give you a report.

Jews have twice the per capita income of White Gentiles. Jews are victims!

Jews, 2% of the population, have 28% of the income. Jews are victims!

Jews run Hollywood, the fur and diamond trades, and dominate retail trade, the media and finance banking. Jews are central to Wall Street. 45% of professors at top Ivy League universities are Jewish. Jews are victims!

Jews, 2% of the US, are vastly overrepresented on the Supreme Court and in the House and Senate. 60% of Cinton’s Cabinet was Jewish. Jews are victims!

There’s almost no accepted anti-Semitism in the US and it’s absent from mainstream culture and polite society. No country has ever been friendlier to the Jews. Instead of antisemitism, Americans suffer from Judeophilia, which is about as crazy though not as evil, but is nevertheless very dangerous (see 9-11 attack). Jews are victims!

Jews called neoconservatives run our foreign policy in the Middle East and in other places. Israel is the 51st state or maybe the only state in the US. Jews are victims!

Jews have the fourth largest military on Earth and for all intents and purposes cannot be attacked, invaded or defeated. Jews are victims!

Instead, Jews are an imperial power that dominates, controls and oppresses all of its neighbors, occasionally attacking them, killing their soldiers and government officials, flying over their countries, bombing their countries. It has stolen land from all of its neighbors, so it is also a major colonial power in the Middle East. They have settled many of these lands stolen in Nazi like wars of aggression, so that makes them one of the last settler-colonial states too. They came into the neighborhood and immediately declared war against all of their neighbors and many other nations too and it’s been like that ever since. Jews are victims!

Granted Jews have suffered and been victimized tremendously in the past and in some places, this goes on even today (see France). However, they are not victims anymore. Instead, they are rulers. They rule over the rest of us. Or it is a case of “when victims rule” which more or less sums up the history of the Jews for a long time now.

Whatever you want to say about Jews here in the US, and you can validly say many things about them good and bad, they’re certainly not victims. The very idea that they are at all is comical.

But boy, Jews sure love that victimhood, don’t they? I knew a guy, an older man, who was a critical Jew. One time he said,

Don’t ever try to take away the victim status from a Jew. Nothing is more important to the Jew than his vicitmhood. Most Jews would nearly kill to keep their victimhood status. It’s that important.

2 Comments

Filed under American, Anti-Semitism, Catholicism, Christianity, Colonialism, Conservatism, Culture, Democrats, Discrimination, Economics, Education, Geopolitics, Government, Higher Education, Imperialism, Israel, Israel-Palestine Conflict, Jews, Judaism, Middle East, Neoconservatism, Political Science, Politics, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Religion, Settler-Colonialism, Sex, Sociology, The Jewish Question, US Politics, USA, War, Whites

Game/PUA: No Means No? Not Necessarily

Amidst all the #metoo and the affirmative consent idiocy, we keep hearing that “No means no!” Be that as it may, even that is not good enough anymore. Why? Because women are stupid. They are too dumb or scared to say no when they are having unwanted sex with a man. How’s the man supposed to know she doesn’t want to have sex if she’s not saying no or trying to push him off of her? He can’t!

So women were too dumb to even make “No means no” work, the feminists had to up the daffynition of consent once again. Now there have to be affirmative and enthusiastic consent. I would think that a lot of consensual sex would be considered rape under this standard. At universities now people who want to have sex have to act like two awkward virgins trying to have sex for the first time.

Man: “Can I kiss you know?”
Women: “Yes.”
Man: “Can I touch your boobs now?”
Women: “Yes, um, no, I mean yes, I mean, let me think about it.”
Man: “WTH?”
 
Yeah. Every time we have sex, we are supposed to act exactly like this. If you don’t do this, it’s rape. How many men will actually go along with this “Mother may I?” nonsense? Many women now are openly admitting that men asking for permission like this is a huge turnoff. What is this? Is it a shit test? No Alpha will ever go along with this asking for permission BS.

A lot of Betas and especially Omegas will fall all over themselves asking women permission for everything. They will probably even ask women permission to breathe so they can stay alive. If this is a shit test then women will use this asking permission silliness to weed out the Betas and Omegas. Once a man starts asking for permission, he will out himself as a Beta. Any man who refuses to ask permission may well be Alpha enough. At any rate forcing men to ask will weed out a lot of the Betas.

You will never understand women until you figure out that a lot of their incomprehensible behavior boils down to simple shit tests or fitness tests. Women test men’s fitness all the time.

But back to “No means no.”

Generally no means no, but it just so happens that women say no when they mean yes all the time. If she is saying no but it sounds like she’s having an orgasm when she’s saying it, I generally just plow right ahead. If she’s forceful about it though, I just stop.

In Russia, if you stop when she says no, you will die a virgin. The women there are expected to say no, and the men are expected to just plow through the no’s until she breaks down. How you tell that apart from rape, I have no idea. I suppose eventually she consents after you keep plowing through the no’s. But if you are a male in Russia, thinking no means no means you will never get laid.

1 Comment

Filed under Eurasia, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Higher Education, Lame Cunts, Losers, Man World, Mass Hysterias, Psychology, Radical Feminists, Regional, Romantic Relationships, Russia, Scum, Sex

Most Women Do Not Support Feminism (Only 14% of US Women Say They Are Feminists)

Sisera: A lot of women don’t identify as feminist because of the baggage it carries.

They want to impress men, but actually believe feminist ideology 90%+.

I would’ve thought you were smarter than to take what women say at face value 😉

That’s not true. Do you hang out on feminist pages at all? Well I DO. In fact, for the last few days I have been hanging out on a radfem page. I also hang out on We Shot the Mammoth (WSTM), Blue Pill, and even Jezebel.That’s not true. Do you hang out on feminist pages at all? Well I DO. In fact, for the last few days I have been hanging out on a radfem page. I also hang out on We Shot the Mammoth, Blue Pill, and even Jezebel.

Trust me when I say that your average feminist on WSTM and radfems in particular does not sound ANYTHING like your average woman. Your average woman buys into about 0% of what those feminists want and sounds nothing like them at all. All feminists are crazed SJW’s and most average women don’t care about that. Most average women don’t care about “predator” men, in fact, since they are Alphas, they mostly want to fuck them.

They think boys act awful, but they think it is funny. Feminists think womanizers abuse women, but most women just think they are hilarious and want to date them. Feminists think seduction is evil. Most women laugh about seduction, realize what it is all about and mostly just think it is funny. They are wise and they figure it is just a game where they have to go head to head with men.

Most women don’t care that most guys just want to fuck them. When they get 40-55 in fact, they think that’s pretty awesome. I know 18 year old girls who are very happy that some boy was staring at them in a club. They thought it was “hot.” A feminist would call him a sexually harassing creep. This same girl went to a dance club and did not care that some guy put his hand on her ass. She thought it was a bit weird though.

Most women just think PUA’s are funny if not hilarious. Women tell me that women need a Game for Women. They are fascinated to hear how seducers operate and female friends of seducers will often introduce these men to their girlfriends in hopes of fixing them up with the seducer. His female friends will give him all sorts of seduction tips and will even help him out on dates to try to get the woman into bed.

Most women think seducers are hilarious. This includes females of all ages, even teenage girls all the way up to elderly women.  Even elderly women think seducers are hilarious. Most women know that seduction is a scam but they don’t care will just laugh their heads off if you tell them all the tricks you use on women. Most women will say men are basically just pigs who will fuck anything but that they love men for that. They generally say that men cannot be fixed and just are the way that they are and that’s that. Even women on Jezebel think that P

Feminists say there are almost no good men at all – radfems are especially adamant about this, but your average woman will tell you that she has met many very good men in her life who were very good and kind to her. Most women are addicted to cock and love sex and men. A lot especially radfems have given up on men or gone over to political lesbianism.

A lot of feminists openly admit to hating men and say they have a right to feel this way, I suppose because we are evil. Others like on Jezebel are very angry at us, often furious. That is the difference between feminists and non-feminist women. Most non-feminist women do not say that they hate men. They openly admit that they love men or they even take pride in loving men.

They don’t man-bash and you don’t hear them going on about how bad we are. They don’t even complain about us much. You don’t hear regular woman saying, “Men are always _______!” They just don’t bitch about us much at all. They will definitely bitch about certain men, but they usually don’t generalize it out to all of us. To normal women, there are good men and bad men.

In addition, most normal women do not go on and on about how oppressed they are by men or patriarchy or how victimized they are as women. They don’t think the world is out to get them as women.

Many normal men place very high priority on men in their lives and in fact many revolve their whole lives around men, getting men, dating men, sex, etc. I have talked to women all over the world and it seems to be quite normal for women everywhere to revolve much of their lives around men, getting a man, keeping a man, dating men, sex with men, being in love, relationships with men, etc. It’s all just men, men, men. They may voice some frustration or even laugh at us – one woman I know laughs at us and calls us “silly men.” Another told me that most women think men are idiots. She laughed when she told me that.

Most normal women think sex with men is fun and think men are good at sex. Feminists tend to think men are lousy in bed and sex with men is no fun. Feminists also often say that all of their relationships with men have been lousy. Surely this is why they went to feminism in the first place.

Normal women don’t say that. They often talk dreamily over wonderful love affairs they had in the past, lovers, boyfriends and husbands of the past, sex with men they had in the past. I have had girlfriends who regaled me with wild tales of their sexual exploits, having s ex with their husband’s friends, having sex with two men at once, having sex with a woman, on and on. They smile when they talk about these sexual experiences and have fond memories of them. Feminists often think all of their sex with men has been crap and wonder why they should keep doing it anymore.

There is a deep sense of grievance with feminists. Feminism is a politics of grievance, grievance and revenge. Normal women do not have a deep sense of grievance about them and they usually don’t want revenge. Normal women tend to be pretty satisfied with their lives, while feminists are often unhappy.

Feminists have some crazy prescriptions for men.  Some want to reduce our population to 10% of all humans. Others want to put us in detention camps until we can learn to behave ourselves in society. Others recommend sex-selective abortion to reduce the number of men. I have seen radfems on a forum talking about how much they wanted to murder their sons.

Normal women don’t want any such things. Normal women know very little about feminism. If you ask them about feminism, they act confused and shrug their shoulders. Most normal women say, correctly, that feminists are nothing but a bunch of short-haired man-hating dykes. This is largely true and it is quite unappealing to your average woman. Feminists tend to be deeply unhappy and dissatisfied people. That is why they are in feminism in the first place. Normal women often say that they are happy or fairly happy with life.

Feminists want to ban porn. Normal women don’t care about porn and most even watch it sometimes. If you ask them if they like it, they usually say they do even if they do not like it much.

Feminists want to get rid of prostitution and say all prostitutes are victims. Normal women don’t seem to care much about prostitutes other than that they do not want to be one.

Feminists say that porn stars and prostitutes have horrible lives. Normal women will  say that many porn stars are happy and a lot of prostitutes, especially call girls, are doing what they want and making a lot of money in the process. I have had normal women who  told me they had considered being call girls.

Normal women hardly ever bring up the pay gap. Feminists can’t stop talking about it. Normal women do not talk about getting more girls and women into engineering and math because they don’t care. They don’t care about Title 9 either. These things are the obsessions of feminists.

10 Comments

Filed under Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Higher Education, Labor, Man World, Politics, Pornography, Psychology, Radical Feminists, Romantic Relationships, Sane Pro-Woman, Sex

University Enrollment and Degrees and Affirmative Action

Zamfir: Yeah it’s harder to fudge in math, but it does happen there too. Where I am schools get money to enroll more women in engineering, grades be damned.

Yeah, and will they pass at university level? If they can’t cut it and got in on AA, 100% will flunk out.

Zamfir: But anyway there are millions of people in humanities where all kinds of fudging can be done pretty easily.

I went to university with a lot of people who muddled through with C’s. They weren’t stupid. They had IQ’s of ~100, which is average. But average IQ doesn’t cut it at a good university.

Furthermore, I got a Masters in Linguistics, and it was the hardest thing I ever did. I almost didn’t get it and had to fight them for it. And I have a 147 IQ, which is genius level. 1/1,000 people have a score that high. That’s .1% If there are 1,000 people in a building, I am smarter than everyone in that damned building, and even I had a hard time with that Humanities Masters. 

They were not giving them out like candy; they made you work like a sleigh dog in the arctic to get it. They kicked your ass until you got the degree. They were not letting you out without a fight, and to say they had high standards is to put it mildly.

I resent this idea you have that MA’s are given out trivially, at least in my field. Bottom line is, in my field, if you didn’t have what it took, no way in Hell you got that degree. Not happening. You will flunk out.

Zamfir: Math grad students from Africa. Sure. But look at grades and IQ for Africans versus the rest of the world or Americans. If there really were lots I would be suspicious. There is a big IQ/grade/achievement gap there. Maybe they skimmed off the top of the African population. But why?

There are going to be lots of better qualified White or Asian applicants out there… Suggests some kind of bias.”

Yes, Africans are remarkably unintelligent but their genetic variability is so high that there are many extraordinarily smart Africans. And I have met some of them. One African I knew from Benin is literally one of the smartest people I have ever met. The Africans with degrees I met here in the US are smart as whips. I met an African Linguistics professor at Berkeley, and I hate to be redundant, but once again I felt like I was meeting the smartest person I had ever met. This man was insanely smart, so smart you wonder if he’s from the same planet as you are.

Yes, we are skimming the cream of the crop in Africa. Of course we are. We don’t let in many Africans, and a lot of the only ones we let in are “the Kenyan with a Masters Degree.” We reject 99% of African immigration requests. The Embassy people are all race realists, and they know what these people are like.

There are indeed quite a few brilliant mathematics students from Africa in our universities. This isn’t the first time I have heard of it. There are not lots of better qualified Asian and White applicants, and anyway his school is open enrollment, so no one gets turned down.

African immigrants have the highest IQ’s of any US immigrant group at 110. You never knew that, did you?

And if those Africans can’t cut it, they will flunk out. In math, you will flunk out real fast at university level if you can’t cut it. They don’t mess around.

27 Comments

Filed under Affirmative Action, Africa, Blacks, Civil Rights, Education, Higher Education, Immigration, Intelligence, Legal, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional