Category Archives: Philosophy

Alt Left: In Support of Prejudice

I just found out that prejudice means “dislike for a group of people.” This typically means a racial, ethnic, religious, gender, sexual orientation or sexual identity. Prejudice usually means bigotry of some sort, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, sectarianism, and various forms of ethnic hatred.

For the life of me, I cannot see what on Earth is wrong with not liking some group of people. However, I would argue that this should be limited to dislike, it should not be obsessive and it should not be the sort of hot or cold hatred that hurts a lot of people.

This boils down to a basic limitation of freedom. Saying that prejudice is illegal or immoral or bad in some way is automatically an abrogation of human freedom. Obviously, we don’t have to like anyone. Isn’t that clear? Obviously, we can dislike anyone we want to, for a good reason, a bad reason or no reason at all. That is our right as a free citizen.

We have a right to our preferences. We have a right to have a preference for one particular group or a preference to not associate with some other particular group, although I would hope it would be phrased as,

“You know, I just don’t care to associate with [X group]. I wish them all the best and will work for equal rights for them because as humans they deserve it, but as far as I am concerned, it’s them over there and me over here. I simply prefer not to be around them too much and I do not wish to befriend them. If I have to deal with them, I will be as polite and friendly as possible, but I do not wish to take things any further than that.”

What in God’s name is wrong with such a mindset? Now obviously you cannot incorporate it into law. You cannot use your preferences to discriminate against certain groups in housing, employment, voting rights, etc. (even though such discrimination is rampant even now and is even officially sanctioned by a political party called the Republican Party). Sure, you can’t discriminate. But you don’t have to be friends with anyone. You don’t have to make the acquaintance of anyone. You don’t have to hang around with or associate with anyone.

I happen to have a certain dislike for some groups of people.

I am not wild about gay men, though I have a few online gay friends who I am very fond of. Friendships between gay and straight men are impossible in my book and fail every single time. How do I know this? Personal experience. I have also had a lifetime of bad experiences with gay men, and I just do not wish to deal with them anymore. I’ve had enough of gay men for one lifetime.

On their other hand, I support full rights for them, and I even work on their political campaigns! I support most of their political causes and in general think it should not be legal to discriminate against them.

But it’s still them over there, me over here, and never the twain shall meet. In my life, almost all straight men I have known have had little or nothing to do with gay men. I cannot think of anything more bizarre than straight men have gay friends, and the men I have known who befriended gay men almost always reported a catastrophic experience, bearing out my concerns. But then, I am Old School.

I don’t like Gypsies very much. In fact, I do not like them at all. I don’t hate them because they are not worth wasting my energy hating. I have met five Gypsies in my life. Four of them stole from me, and one just got out or jail. All were female. Based on that, I do not wish to meet anymore Gypsies in  this lifetime.

I’ve met plenty enough Gypsies for one life. As far as racism against Gypsies, it’s not something we deal with in the US, so it’s not an issue. It’s a nonexistent problem, so I have no opinion about it.

I don’t like Nigerians or Africans period very much, especially West Africans. I am done with them. Almost every African I met on the Net behaved horribly, and almost all of them tried to steal from either me or my friends.

We had a Yahoo group once and we let a lot of Africans, mostly Nigerians, into the group.

All except for one or two tried to steal from us.

A few others were trying to scam a White wife so they could get into the US. We called them wife-scammers and considered them to be about as low as the thieves.

The rest of them were always trying to chat with the women in our group. When the women would go talk to them, these men would have their cams on and would always be jerking their big Black cocks at these women, almost always White women. A number of our women got very upset by this, and some were out and out traumatized.

We threw almost all of them out of the group for stealing or trying to steal, wife scamming, and flashing and jerking off at our women without permission. We then put in a totally racist and discriminatory rule banning all Africans from joining the group.  We got accused of racism for this, and a lot of group members defected to go hang out with those wonderful Africans.

I suppose you think that because I am not fond of Africans, I dislike Black Americans. Actually, I have no particular opinion about Black Americans, and mostly I try to just not think about them, which I think is best. This is one group of Americans that I would say the less you think about them, the better.

Yes, we banned Africans from our group, but we also had a lot of Black Americans, men and women, in the group. Only one was banned, and he deserved it. The African ban did not apply to American Blacks. Why? Because they were not doing any of the things the Africans were doing! They were not stealing from us, wife scamming or jerking their dicks at our women.

In fact, the behavior of the US Blacks in our group was orders of magnitude better than the Africans! It was almost like we were dealing with two completely different races of people. This is why I think it is wrong to lump US Blacks in with Africans. Behaviorally, they are dramatically different, and US Blacks are much better behaved than Africans. I am not sure why this is, but I have some theories. As  you can see, theories of genetic race and behavior do not make much sense here, as US Black genes are not much different from African genes. What’s different? How about culture? How about 400 years of exposure to White culture here in the US?

I don’t have any particular preferences about any other groups of people, although to be completely honest, I suppose I am most comfortable with my own White people. I know that I am most comfortable with White women. I think it is just that they are most similar to me in many different ways. Also White women are far more likely to like me and want to get involved with me than are women of any other race. Why that is, I have no idea, but perhaps when it comes to dating and relationships, a lot of people simply prefer their own kind.

Which brings me to another type of preference. Why in God’s name can we not have racial or any other type of preferences when it comes to dating!? So you don’t want to date Catholics, or Arabs, or bisexuals, or transwomen, or Gypsies, or Gentiles, or atheists, or Nigerians, or, Hell, Midwesterners, or redheads, or people with blue eyes, or Republicans, or insurance salesmen, or banksters, or…anything or anyone for any reason or no reason?

I cannot think of anything more personal than dating, relationships, love, sexual behaviors, intimacy, and sex itself. The idea that we cannot have preferences or even actively discriminate in this area is absolutely insane, but we are starting to hear this now from the Cultural Left.

Apparently we men have no right to discriminate against transwomen in dating. As for me, sorry, I don’t date trannies. Real women are enough of a headache, believe me. I don’t need to deal with some chick who used to be a dude, sorry, I’m out as far as that goes.

Apparently, we White men are no longer allowed to say we prefer not to date Black women. We also cannot say that we do not find Black women attractive (a common belief among White men). I guess we have no right to have standards when it comes to attraction! The Cultural Left now says it is always racist for a White man to prefer not to date Black women, and it is always racist if a White man says he is not attracted to Black women.

I keep telling you that these Cultural Left freaks keep getting crazier every year. I think they are on some runaway Crazy Train. Apparently the nature of the Cultural Left is to get weirder and crazier every year, continually upping the ante and making more and more extreme demands. We meet a few of their nutty demands, and they don’t even bother to say thanks before they move the goalposts again and start making new even nuttier demands. It’s like a football field that stretches far off into the horizon with no end in sight.

23 Comments

Filed under Blacks, Civil Rights, Cultural Marxists, Culture, Discrimination, Homosexuality, Law, Left, Nigerians, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Roma, Romantic Relationships, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, Whites

Robert Stark Interviews Pilleater about Psychosocialism

Just listened to this. It’s from May, four months ago, but I just got around to listening to it now. Psychosocialism is not about socialism or any economic doctrine. Instead it is about Erik Erikson’s psychosocial stages of development, which is similar to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs that so many are familiar with. I like Maslow’s hierarchy, and I like Erickson. This is about the psychology of human development through the lifespan. It’s not about economics.

I never could understand what Heidegger was on about with his Dasein stuff. Maybe someone can help me out here.

I have heard of Alain de Botton, but I am not sure exactly who is or what he writes about. I believe he is an author.

Paul Fussell’s book or books on the American class system are classics that ought to be read by everyone, including me, even though I haven’t gotten around to that yet. I had an ex who was really into that book. I imagine you can never understand US society well until you start to get a handle on our class system that permeates everything in our land and every moment of our existence whether we want it to or not.

I cannot recommend Roger Devlin’s short work Sexual Utopia in Power highly enough. The document I have is a pdf that’s only ~35 pages. It shows so well how feminism has ruined the West and Western women and furthermore how feminism has dramatically changed the sexual marketplace. People love to hate Game and the Game/PUA crowd, but the truth is that this movement was forced to develop the way it did due to the realities of how feminism changed the sexual marketplace, and yes, it is a marketplace, trust me on that one. So the feminists really created Game and the PUA jerks. Reap what you sow, ladies! The PUA/Game philosophy is ugly, but the point these men are making is that this nasty project is the only thing that is going to work nowadays given how feminists have turned the sexual marketplace upside down. You either learn Game and go along with at least some of its postulates or you lose out with women. The choice is that stark.

I do not know much about Andy Nowicki other than that he is one of these new writers out of Chip’s new publishing house, which also features Ann Sterzinger. I am told that both Nowicki and Sterzinger are excellent authors who have produced some fine novels, but both are associated with the Alt Right for some crazy reason.

It’s hard to imagine Ann as a racist, so I have no idea why she tied herself up in this mess. I do know that Ann hates the Left, whatever the Hell that means to her, but I have no idea why she hates it, I mean us. She blasted me recently for being a Leftist. I guess that some evil or horrible thing somehow.

Andy’s different, and his motivation may be racial, but I do not know enough about him. Andy also hates the Left and liberalism, but I have no idea what he means by that either.

Given how much Ann and Andy hate the Left, which means me (keep in mind that that Alt Left is definitely a Left movement, as odd as it may be), I am wondering if I should even bother to read them. Why read my ideological adversaries? I hear enough of that swill as it is.

A lot of people who didn’t seem very racist seem to be aligning with the Alt Right for some weird reason. These folks are mostly Gen X’ers, often embittered, cynical and nihilistic ones. Even Matt Forney, formerly pretty agnostic on the race issue, has gone over  pretty seriously to the race project of the New Right. He also ferociously hates the Left to the point of becoming a strong advocate for the Republican Party. 

I am thinking a lot of these young hipster types have gotten tied up in this Alt Right stuff simply because it is the latest groovy rebellious or even revolutionary trend. At this point, the PC/SJW Cultural Left is the Establishment, so going Alt Right is a way of rebelling against the Establishment. It’s a new counterculture, if you will. A lousy counterculture, but a counterculture nonetheless.

This is what it means to be a hipster nowadays? Support Trump and the Republican Party of all things? The mind boggles. The 1960’s is calling. They want their Revolution back. And so do I.

I like Pilleater a lot. He has been identifying himself as Alt Left for some time now, though recently he has been modifying that to Alt Center. The Alt Center is the newest political project kid on the block. I am not sure exactly what it is. It’s the Alt Left minus some of our Left views and with a lot more of the Alt Right added in instead. I suppose you could call it an ideological marriage between the Alt Left and the Alt Right. What I have seen so far is not that bad other than support for Trump. They are not particularly racist. It’s not my cup of tea at the moment, but I am not opposed to it. I have to check out this Alt Center a lot more to see what they are on about.

Here.

Robert Stark and co-host Pilleater discuss Erik Erikson’s psychosocial stages

.Topics:

Psychologist Erik Erikson’s life and philosophy.
The psychosocial stages of development.
Pilleater’s article Erik Erikson’s Psychosocialism: An Introduction.
Martin Heidegger; Who and What is Dasein?
Cultural expectations that one must achieve certain goals by stages in life.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.
Situational losers vs. genuine losers; “I deserve better”.
Arrested psychological development.
How Psychosocialism shapes our political, economic, and cultural system.
How won must adapt or win at Psychosocialism.
Psychosocialism as a political doctrine.
How to restructure society to solve these problems; Smart Socialism.
Does a High IQ Nearly Guarantee Riches?
Paul Fussell’s A Guide through the American Status System.
Alain de Botton: Status Anxiety.
LARPing as a psychosocial coping mechanism.
The Bobo doll experiment.
Roger Devlin’s Sexual Utopia In Power.
Andy Nowicki’s memoir Confessions of a Would-Be Wanker.

Leave a comment

Filed under Conservatism, Feminism, Gender Studies, Left, Liberalism, Man World, Philosophy, Political Science, Politics, Psychology, Racism, Republicans, Sociology, US Politics

The System of Nature: or The Laws of the Moral and Physical World, by Paul Henri Thiry d’Holbach

I have never heard of this early French philosopher, nor have I heard of his monumental doorstop of a book, quoted in the title.

The prose below is from 1773, and I doubt if anyone can write better today. I think this shows that our brains are about as smart now as they were in the times of the Revolutionary War at least in terms of raw IQ or brain speed. In fact, some studies have shown that Victorians had dramatically faster brains than we do (by reaction time). So the suspicions of us cynics may be true after all – of course we are getting stupider. Just look around you. How can it not be so?

Knowledge is one thing and intelligence is another. Intelligence is probably defined best as a measure of raw brain speed. The faster the brain, the more intelligent the person is.

Knowledge is another matter altogether and is more related to culture. For instance, we are much smarter now than we were in 1773 in terms of knowledge. We know so many more things and we understand the world so much better! We can make so many fancy things and solve so many difficult problems now solely on account of our accumulation of knowledge. So while we may be dumber than Victorians in terms of raw intelligence, we are much smarter than Victorians in terms of knowledge. The latter may well compensate for or even overwhelm the former. A fast brain is not a worth a lot if you barely understand the world around you.

It’s also useful to note that knowledge has nothing to do with intelligence necessarily. For all we know, cavemen may have had very fast brains. Brains in 1770 may have been even faster than in the Victorian Era. No one knows. We have always been an intelligent species. But while men in the Middle Ages and Dark Ages may have had brains that worked about as fast as ours, they were nevertheless not able to figure out the world very well.

Knowledge is more a matter of luck than anything else because ideally it is cumulative. With each generation or at least with each century or millennium, man has increased his knowledge and has managed to figure out the world better. Nevertheless, at the beginning the process is quite slow. Look at how long we lumbered along in comparative ignorance, even with presumably fast brains. This shows us that intelligence needs knowledge to be worth much of anything. Intelligence minus knowledge does not add up to a hill of beans. How impressive is a fast brain if it has the worldview of a caveman?

As I noted, knowledge ideally is cumulative. This is not always so, and there have been shocking histories of actual cultural and knowledge loss. The Tasmanians were separated from the mainland 10,000 years ago and afterwards they seem to have lost the ability to make fire and craft fishing hooks among other things. They may have also forgotten how to sew. So Idiocracy is nothing new. It’s been going on somewhere for at least 10,000 years.

Nevertheless, knowledge throwbacks are an anomaly because knowledge tends to be cumulative. It is also interesting to note that there seems to be some critical mass at work here. As knowledge gains, the acquisition of new knowledge seems to speed up somehow. Critical mass may well have been reached perhaps 100 years ago. Since then the leaps of knowledge have been spectacular. We now learn more in decade now than we did in a millennium.

Nevertheless, when it comes to the basics, we are hardly more competent now than we were in 1773.

Modern writers have not superseded the prose below; in fact, many cannot even achieve this 1773 level of competence. When it comes to certain things like the ability to write down our ideas, all of our knowledge seems to hit a roadblock. All of the massive knowledge we have piled on in the last century has not enabled us to craft better prose than the prose of 250 years ago.

I seriously doubt if your artistic skills have improved either. We now paint better than Michelangelo or Leonardo da Vinci? Really?

What about music? Are we really better musicians now than Bach or Beethoven? Really?

It’s doubtful that our psi skills have improved much.

Are our social skills really better now than they were in the past? Are you sure?

Are we better able to achieve psychological health than in the past?

Do we know any more about the mysteries of life such as the soul and death than we did then?

Has our philosophical knowledge actually improved? We still cannot surmount Plato and Aristotle.

Anyway, check out this awesome prose:

The source of man’s unhappiness is his ignorance of Nature. The pertinacity with which he clings to blind opinions imbibed in his infancy, which interweave themselves with his existence, the consequent prejudice that warps his mind, that prevents its expansion, that renders him the slave of fiction, appears to doom him to continual error. He resembles a child destitute of experience, full of ideal notions: a dangerous leaven mixes itself with all his knowledge: it is of necessity obscure, it is vacillating and false:–He takes the tone of his ideas on the authority of others, who are themselves in error, or else have an interest in deceiving him.

To remove this Cimmerian darkness, these barriers to the improvement of his condition; to disentangle him from the clouds of error that envelope him; to guide him out of this Cretan labyrinth, requires the clue of Ariadne, with all the love she could bestow on Theseus. It exacts more than common exertion; it needs a most determined, a most undaunted courage–it is never effected but by a persevering resolution to act, to think for himself; to examine with rigor and impartiality the opinions he has adopted.

He will find that the most noxious weeds have sprung up beside beautiful flowers; entwined themselves around their stems, overshadowed them with an exuberance of foliage, choked the ground, enfeebled their growth, diminished their petals; dimmed the brilliancy of their colors; that deceived by their apparent freshness of their verdure, by the rapidity of their exfoliation, he has given them cultivation, watered them, nurtured them, when he ought to have plucked out their very roots.

Man seeks to range out of his sphere: notwithstanding the reiterated checks his ambitious folly experiences, he still attempts the impossible; strives to carry his researches beyond the visible world; and hunts out misery in imaginary regions. He would be a metaphysician before he has become a practical philosopher. He quits the contemplation of realities to meditate on chimeras. He neglects experience to feed on conjecture, to indulge in hypothesis.

He dares not cultivate his reason, because from his earliest days he has been taught to consider it criminal. He pretends to know his date in the indistinct abodes of another life, before he has considered of the means by which he is to render himself happy in the world he inhabits: in short, man disdains the study of Nature, except it be partially: he pursues phantoms that resemble an ignis-fatuus, which at once dazzle, bewilders, and frighten: like the benighted traveler led astray by these deceptive exhalations of a swampy soil, he frequently quits the plain, the simple road of truth, by pursuing of which, he can alone ever reasonably hope to reach the goal of happiness.

The most important of our duties, then, is to seek means by which we may destroy delusions that can never do more than mislead us. The remedies for these evils must be sought for in Nature herself; it is only in the abundance of her resources, that we can rationally expect to find antidotes to the mischiefs brought upon us by an ill directed, by an overpowering enthusiasm. It is time these remedies were sought; it is time to look the evil boldly in the face, to examine its foundations, to scrutinize its superstructure: reason, with its faithful guide experience, must attack in their entrenchments those prejudices, to which the human race has but too long been the victim. For this purpose reason must be restored to its proper rank,–it must be rescued from the evil company with which it is associated. It has been too long degraded –too long neglected–cowardice has rendered it subservient to delirium, the slave to falsehood. It must no longer be held down by the massive claims of ignorant prejudice.

The System of Nature: or The Laws of the Moral and Physical World

– Paul Henri Thiry d’Holbach, 1773.

As an aside, while reading this, I kept thinking, “This describes just about everyone I know.” Although Holbach may have been thinking about other types of ignorance and another type of reason, the passage still rang a bell. After all, look who we just elected President. The triumph of ignorance over reason right there. Look at our entire political culture. It’s all based on cultivated ignorance. Where’s the reason? There is none.

The only reason or logic that Americans follow is the logic that leads them to making more money. If it makes me money, it’s true. If it loses or costs me money, it’s false. That’s the reason by which most Americans live their lives. Obviously this leads to a lot of irrational if not insane decisions because the thing that costs you money is often a more rational decision than the decision that makes you money.

Guess what, Americans? I got some news for you.

Money does not equal truth.

Loss of money does not equal falsehood.

That’s a most peculiar moral philosophy we have set up for ourselves in this idiot Yahoo Country.

I know few people who want or try to challenge their core beliefs, which I believe is what Holbach is ultimately getting at above. The original purpose of this site – “If I Am Not Making You Mad, I Am Not Doing My Job” – was not to troll the world but instead to force readers to throw more of their beliefs up for grabs. I was out to challenge just about everything you believe in. Why? Because that’s what you need to do. You need to throw as much of your beliefs as possible up for grabs, as painful as that is. It’s very hard to do, so most just don’t bother.

About the book, this looks pretty cool. It was originally written in French, so that translation looks really cool. I am not sure if I could handle 993 pages of that prose though!

15 Comments

Filed under American, Art, Culture, History, Intelligence, Modern, Music, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Sociology, Writing

Theological Question

Is redemption possible in Hell?

Standard Christian doctrine would say no. When you’re in Hell,  there’s no hope. The Catholics devised Purgatory, but that was for people like me who were not quite bad enough for Hell but were definitely not Heaven-bound. In Purgatory, it’s like an exercise regimen for that roll of flab around your belly – you’ve got to work it off. Sure, the tortures are horrible, but if you survive then, you get the Manna. Plus as awful as Purgatory is, it pales compared to the never-ending horror movie you will be starring in in Hell.

How about some radical Christian thinkers?

If you read enough Dostoevsky, he believes redemption is possible in Hell, and that’s just one of the great things about him. For instance, see Grushenka’s tale to Aloysha in The Brothers Karamazov (p. 340) when she tells the story of the woman in Hell who was offered an onion by her Guardian Angel as a ticket out of Hell. This is similar to Ivan’s tale of Mary’s visit to Hell, where Hell can abide both mercy and punishment.

In a conversation between Ivan and Aloysha (p. 259), the two discuss whether there is forgiveness for the worst of men, the torturer. Both agree that if there is universal harmony, then there will be forgiveness for the worst of men. However, Ivan says that there shall be no forgiveness for the torturer and therefore this is no universal harmony. Instead of agreeing with him, Aloysha says that “Christ can forgive everything, all and for all, for he gave his universal blood for all and everything.” In other words, the Kingdom of God is not complete until there is forgiveness for all, including torturers. Aloysha believes that no one is outside of redemption. Obviously, this must include people in Hell.

This doctrine is clearly absent from the OT and NT, but if you make your way through the wondrous Apocrypha, you will stumble upon. The little known Gospel of Peter is quite clear that there can be redemption in Hell. It’s a lot clearer about it than Dostoevsky. That’s what I love about the Apocrypha. Such wild and near-fantastic tales and even doctrine in there. The Apocrypha seem to be stretching Christian theology to its very limits or even beyond, but that’s part of why they are great. It’s almost as if they are applying a nascent scientific method to the Bible, to figure out what’s really lurking back there behind it all. It’s Fringe Theology, but the fringe is OK. Many of the finest discoveries in science came from Fringe Science and were derided as pseudoscientific at the time.

In any process of discovery of knowledge, from the prosaic to the sublime, the best results are found by pushing your inquiry to the absolute limits or beyond. The only real limit in any exploratory inquiry is the limit of your own imagination.

Why be rigid? Rocks are rigid. If you are rigid, you are basically a rock. And once you decide to go rigid, you are locked in ore forever more, and for what purpose? Peace of mind? How weak. That’s no way to be an ubermensch. Go up and beyond. Rise above. Transcend. The sky’s the limit.

References

Connolly, Julian W. 2013. Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.

Gibson, Andrew Boyce. 2016. The Religion of Dostoevsky. Wipf and Stock Publishers.

14 Comments

Filed under Catholicism, Christianity, Literature, Novel, Philosophy, Religion, Science

Shitty Pretentious Thought of the Day

The purpose of life is not to live in reality. The purpose of life is to escape reality. Dammit.

Screw all that grab life by the horns crap. The Hell with reality.

Think about it. You just know I’m right.

If you’re a man with a pretty face and a dash of bad boy debonair, get your head full of a bunch of shitty pretentious thoughts like that, corral a comely female with a smile near you, put a few drinks in her, turn on the Game/Magic, and start rattling off aphorisms like this. Add a dash of delicious twinkle in the eye and an air of lofty, omnipotent, devil may care gravitas.

Watch her eyes dance in the lights with every word. Listen to the tinkle of her laugh. Marvel at the toss of her hair.

Catch that music. Follow the dancing ball. Now that you’ve got the rhythm, you can’t go wrong.

And now you rule the world. Don’t lie. You know you do.

No matter who or where you are, you will not sleep alone tonight.

And so this piece, which began with one shitty pretentious thought, doth end with yet another.

See you in the Morning of No Regrets!

1 Comment

Filed under Philosophy, Romantic Relationships

Okay, So I Don’t Have a Problem with Gays—in Fact, I’m Friends with a Few—but I Think Being Gay Is Unnatural, and I Don’t Support It. After All, Why Would I Support Something That I Am Not? Is This Bad?

Answered on Queera, I mean Quora. Good God, that site is gay. That must be one of the gayest sites on the Net. Full-on SJW on steroids, support for every bit of sexual and gender weirdness, perversions, deviants or weirdness. And then fanatically pro-Israel. That’s liberalism now. Fanatically pro-SJW to the point of insanity and then pro-Israel, ultra-reactionary on foreign policy and support for settler colonialism, imperialism and one of the worst countries on Earth.

The only thing SJW’s are liberal or Left on is their SJW bullshit. They’re not necessarily Left on anything else, especially foreign policy. I sure see a lot of Humanitarian Bomber Liberals among these SJW clowns.

SJW on Culture, neoconservative on foreign policy. Good Lord that is like the worst of the Left combined with the worst of the Right.

As a straight male, I understand that you are repulsed by male homosexuality. Most straight men experience revulsion at the thought of male homosexual sex. This is a perfectly natural way to feel.

Do you realize that the vast majority of males who openly identify as gay had absolutely no choice in the matter? Do you realize that there is no cure for male homosexuality? We have tried everything in the lab, and it cannot be fixed. We can’t even move men 10% in either direction after age 15. Male sexual orientation is set in stone by age 15 at least.

Look. These guys had no choice when it comes to being gay. They had no more choice than a blue eyed person chooses their blue eyes. And no matter how much they hate being gay, they will never be able to be straight or even bisexual.

I believe most straight men are homophobic at least in the sense of strong revulsion at the idea of gay sex. That’s completely normal. On the other hand, we have to be kind. Even if we are revolted by the idea of gay sex, we straight men must realize that these men did not choose to be gay, and there is nothing on Earth that can make them straight or even bi.

How can you hate someone over something they had no choice over? It’s like hating blond haired people for being blond.

Male homosexuality is indeed unnatural. There are about zero cases of preferential male homosexuality in the animal kingdom. There is no corollary in the animal world to males who are exclusively into males and not into females at all. Occasional homosexual dabbling which occurs in many species is absolutely not the same thing as purely gay human males. No comparison.

Male homosexuality is probably caused by hormonal fluctuations in utero. Sure it’s unnatural, but so are similar things like abnormal fingerprints, left-handedness, etc. We can handle it if ~3% of men are gay. The sky won’t fall.

Even though it is unnatural, these men did not choose this orientation. Therefore, even if it is unnatural, we straights have to accept these men fully and wish for them as happy and healthy of lives that we wish for ourselves. We don’t have to associate with gay men, make friends with them, or even talk to them. But complete rejection and blatant animus seem immoral for most any perspective of moral philosophy and from the doctrine of many religions. How many religions say you should hate people for things they cannot control? We must support them, even if from a distance.

You don’t have to jump up and down and cheer for gay men. But I think you ought to grant gay men full rights, all of the rights that you wish for yourself.

Here’s hoping you read this.

5 Comments

Filed under Civil Rights, Colonialism, Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Ethics, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Imperialism, Israel, Liberalism, Man World, Middle East, Neoconservatism, Philosophy, Political Science, Regional, Religion, Scum, Settler-Colonialism, Sex

Hurricane Harvey – Apocalypse Now

Apocalypse Now – Pay Later

This hurricane tonight is going to be very bad. It is due to slam into Texas with Cat 4 force. The last time we heard warnings like this was in 2005 when Hurricane Katrina hit. The National Weather Service is warning that some areas may be uninhabitable for weeks or months afterwards. Here we go again.

Global warming anyone? I can’t figure out people cannot put two and two together and get four on this subject.

The problem with humans is that once their minds are utterly made up to believe something, no amount of evidence can ever shake their belief, even if it’s the Biggest Lie of Them All. People have personal and egotistical reasons for believing whatever they believe. The joke about the Science Fundamentalists is that most humans don’t think even remotely scientific most of the time.

The Logic Trap

Furthermore, logical-only thinking, which is what Science Fundamentalists allow only as they disparage all Intuitive Thinking as anti-scientific, is itself a huge trap. I see people trapped in the Logic Trap all the time, more and more of them as society does admittedly become more scientific.  The problem is that pure scientific thinking and logical-only thinking will only ensure that you keep getting the wrong answers a lot of the time.

The only way to solve many questions of science is via thinking with your heart and not your head. This is because science is simply wrong about all sorts of things. There are many things that are true, but science is determined to say that they are false simply because science does not want to admit these things are true. This is why I call the Science Junkies Scientific Fundamentalists.

Mommy Science

Science doesn’t know everything any more than your Mom does, and it’s about as wrong as she is. Science Junkies are great big babies who have to run to Mommy Science to tell them what to believe because they can’t figure out obvious things on their own. They’re overgrown children. A purely scientific society is a society of over-educated 6 year olds.

Come to a real understanding of the quote blow and you’ve got half of life down hard, shoes in cement hard. By the way, the quote below is a profoundly unscientific statement, and in part that is why it is true. Figure out what that sentence I just wrote means, you are on your way to Liberation. Bon voyage!

The heart knows things that the mind will never understand.

– Rene Descartes

3 Comments

Filed under Hurricane Katrina, Hurricanes, Mother Nature, Philosophy, Psychology, Regional, Science, Social Problems, Sociology, Texas, USA, Weather, West

Soft Rock from the 1970’s: Gilbert O’Sullivan, “Alone Again”

Great music from 1971! This is the original version from Gilbert O’Sullivan. Dig that hair. My hair used to look a lot like that, or more like Tony Orlando from Dawn actually. Everybody laughs when they see it now but really long hair on men was a big deal back on this days. My hair was very curly and it was near Jewfro but not quite. More like this guy’s. Women and girls went nuts over long hair back then, especially long curly hair. They were always grabbing me and trying to rub their fingers through it “just to see what it feels like.” Yeah sure.

Apparently the song is about suicide, death and other things, but I never knew that until today.

I always just thought it was a great song, just a sad song is all. But so what? Some of the best music is sad, face it. Life’s half sadness anyway, and that’s on a good day. Don’t believe me? Ask any Buddhist. They figured this out a long time ago.

Once you figure out that some of the beauty of life is in its gloriously catastrophic sadness, now you’ve got it. There’s the road to Satori, stretching out right in front of you. All you gotta do is take that first step. Come on, you can do it. Don’t be chicken.

Take a deep breath and dive right into the black fathomless pool of life. Who knows what’s down there? Who knows if you will come up or not? Who cares?

Just say, “The Hell with it and I’m going to do this anyway. If I die, I die, ok, so be it.”

This is one of the secrets to life. You have to keep diving into that pool over and over, dammit.

Otherwise you will never live. You will have one foot in the grave your whole life until someone shoves you all the way in to that very familiar hole of yours at the end. Death-in-life is no way to live. Why be a Zombie? Look around you. The world’s full of them anyway.

Choose life, dammit! Dive in! Live dangerously!

Here’s the lyrics.

In a little while from now
If I’m not feeling any less sour
I promise myself
To treat myself
And visit a nearby tower
And climbing to the top
Will throw myself off
In an effort to
Make it clear to who
Wants to know
What it’s like when you’re shattered

Left standing in the lurch
At a church
Were people saying,
“My God, that’s tough
She stood him up
No point in us remaining
We may as well go home”
As I did on my own
Alone again, naturally

To think that only yesterday
I was cheerful, bright and gay
Looking forward to
The brutal new
The role I was about to play
But as if to knock me down
Reality came around
And without so much
As a mere touch
Cut me into little pieces
Leaving me to doubt
Talk about
God in His mercy
Oh, if he really does exist
Why did he desert me
In my hour of need
I truly am indeed
Alone again, naturally

It seems to me that
There are more hearts broken in the world
That can’t be mended
Left unattended
What do we do?
What do we do?
Alone again, naturally

Looking back over the years
And whatever else that appears
I remember I cried
When my father died
Never wishing to hide the tears
And at sixty-five years old
My mother God rest her soul
Couldn’t understand
Why the only man
She had ever loved had been taken
Leaving her to start
With a heart so badly broken
Despite encouragement from me
No words were ever spoken
And when she passed away
I cried and cried all day
Alone again, naturally
Alone again, naturally

2 Comments

Filed under Buddhism, Music, Philosophy, Religion, Rock

Hobbes Versus Rousseau

Check out the video of a rather typical day in a large Yanonamo village as captured by legendary anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon. I read the book he wrote about these people, The Yanonamo – The Fierce People.

A massive whirlpool of sheer Cultural Left nonsense has swirled around Chagnon and his work with the Yanonamo. Turns out these were noble savages after all, and these evil White men went into their peaceful villages and stirred up a bunch of trouble just so they could make lurid films and make a White Supremacist  point about the inferiority of non-Whites.

None of the charges against Chagnon were true. All lies. But the toilet bowl of Cultural Left bullshit swirled around this poor man for many years. He was nearly tossed out of the American Anthropological Association over this.

Anthropology, after all, is one of the most Cultural Left-poisoned fields of them all. Linguistics, a close cousin (there is actually a sub-field called Anthropological Linguistics), is not far behind, right on the tail of the Students of Men.

So we come to Rousseau versus Hobbes. The field of anthropology is now on the side of Rousseau, and Hobbes is the man whose name must not be uttered, the Leviathan in the living room that everyone pretends is simply not there. Let’s look at the evidence based on this video.

Rousseau

Noble? Are you kidding?

Savage? You got it.

Rousseau is 1-1. Now let’s see how Hobbes scores.

Hobbes 

Short? Yo.

Nasty? Damn straight.

Brutish? Oh yeah!

Hobbes wins of course, 3-0, clean sweep.

Anyway, I don’t think this video has anything to say about superiority or inferiority of Whites or non-Whites. The Yanonamo are simply what humans are like in their raw, native condition once you take off the fake civilizational veneer. This is us – you, me and everyone else. Killers, born killers. A bunch of Goddamned animals. As if you needed reminding, we humans are indeed animals, giant two legged monkeys if you wish.

Hobbes redeemed once again.

14 Comments

Filed under Amerindians, Anthropology, Brazil, Cultural, Cultural Marxists, Left, Linguistics, Philosophy, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, South America, Venezuela, Whites

Newsflash: Many Surgeons are Controlled Sociopaths

A new trick among surgeons is to take one operation and chopping it up into four smaller operations and double their money. There are actually popular seminars for surgeons showing them exactly how to do this. What a sleazy ripoff!

However, many other physicians frown on this scummy behavior. A physician who does this can lose their hospital privileges and get sued. When I worked as a paralegal, most of my time there was spent working on the defense of a sociopathic lowlife physician who did exactly that, and that was exactly what was happening to him. Local hospitals had revoked his privilege, and a number of his former patients were justifiably suing his crooked ass. And I was getting paid to legally defend this guy. It was morally trying to make a living defending slugs like this, but the money was good, and I sloughed off the guilt. Doubt if I would do it again though. Some jobs actually cause moral injury, in my opinion.

This arrogant dirtbag was suing the hospitals who had revoked his privileges! And we were helping him do that, and getting paid from his unlimited money supply in the process. The arrogance. I see narcissism, and it looks like some sociopathy too.

It’s not well known, but many physicians are controlled psychopaths. The field of surgery is full of them. And you wondered why so many surgeons have the reputation of being the worst arrogant physicians of them all. These professionals have learned to channel their sociopathy into quasi-legal avenues in order to become “legal criminals.” But these folks do a lot of damage. Look at our politicians corporate executives? Just how many are not controlled psychopaths?

4 Comments

Filed under Ethics, Health, Law, Medicine, Mental Illness, Narcissism, Operations, Personality, Personality Disorders, Philosophy, Psychology, Psychopathology, Scum, Sociopathy