Category Archives: Philosophy

PUA/Game: Life Is a Shit Test

You’ve seen one woman, you’ve seen them all. AWALT. No doubt that world over. Surely it’s in the chromosomes somewhere. Of course they are not all alike in all ways and many differ greatly, but if you have known enough females in life, you keep seeing the same patterns over and over. So in some ways, they are all the same. But so are us men.

Females make us insane, but I don’t think God screwed up when he made them.

Females are like a test. Think of them like high school, the SAT, getting through college, getting a Masters Degree, landing a good job, scoring some tough achievement in life.  That’s what a good woman is like. She’s a tough nut to crack, but it’s not supposed to be easy. You want universities to have hardass standards for advanced degrees, right? Well then you should want hot women to have hardass standards for us men. They pick the best and weed out the rest, just like with all the other examinations/degrees/shit tests/competitive clusterfucks in life. Life’s an odd’s game. Some win, some lose. Even in socialism or Communism, you never get rid of the competition. No matter how much you even everything else out, women will still winnow out the best men. There is no sexual socialism and there will never be any.

So life is an IQ test, but it is many other things too.

First, foremost, and forever:

Life is a shit test.

Once you get that, you’re redpilled for life no matter your economics or politics or anything.

1 Comment

Filed under Gender Studies, Man World, Philosophy, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Sane Pro-Woman

PUA/Game: Freud’s Eternal Question: The Hamster Wheel, Strong Emotionality, Female Self-Delusion – Self-Annihilation Drive, and Feminism

If you start to figure out females, pat yourself on the back. You’re better than 75% of both men and women in that regard. Even Freud could not figure out these endlessly baffling, complex and mystifying creatures.

What does a woman want?

– Sigmund Freud, father of modern psychology.

And yes, the fact that females don’t even understand females is seriously pathetic. Misogynists take note. Here’s one more weapon for your arsenal!

But it’s probably not as bad. Most people are not as evil as their enemies say they are, and the MGTOW’s and redpillers overestimate their opponent, a natural human tendency. Remember the Missile Gap? Remember the SALT Talks? North Korea, Iran, Russia, and Venezuela are current cases. It must be a natural human tendency:

  • Always grotesquely exaggerate the danger and evil of your opponent.

So the charge like so many misogynist beefs is probably false. Actually women probably really do understand women, if they have any sense anyway. No wait. Well, anyways. Moving right along.

Women probably understand women as they understand so many things, but women spend most of their lives blinding themselves to cruel reality because it doesn’t line up with their fairy tale dream of what life is. These self-delusions that women are constantly spinning as, frankly, a defense mechanism, are what is known as the hamster wheels.

So women are not really stupid. More that they are in general self-deluded. The delusions or hamster wheels were created typically by emotions, and women are extremely emotional. So the wild emotions are like your pet rat on the wheel. They’re the fuel that powers the hamstering.

The strong emotions created the delusions (as a defense mechanism) because the truth about life is so awful that many women find it horrific, and they just can’t handle it. Really none of us can handle life (men mostly just fake it), but men are much more like to say, “If life gives you a shit sandwich, eat it whole!” Women shrink back remarks like that, being the Tender Sex. And with their natural tendency towards depression and even annihilation, worldviews like that rapidly tumble them into depression that often becomes suicidal. Almost all women will become suicidal at some point in their lives. Suicidality is nearly a feature of the feminine. I have had enough girlfriends to where I almost wonder if it as an actual drive towards self-annihilation.

On the other hand, we males are born with a drive to annihilate others, so maybe the born suiciders level out the born homiciders and somehow harmony is created.

The takeaway point here is that all the female hamstering and self-delusion is a defense mechanism, probably against depression and suicide. One can hardly fault women for creating defense mechanisms against such things, and there’s an excellent argument that such defenses are necessary.

So they make up the fake reality and call it real. In general, most women cannot tease apart the fake reality from the real reality in all cases, but the best women can tease it apart in 80-90% of cases. These are the women you want in your lives. The more wild hamstering and self-bullshitting with no capacity for reflection at all, and the more problems you are going to have with that women, in my opinion. You will have problems with her if you choose to live in actual reality while she chooses her hamster world.

That’s a recipe for endless fights and outrages. She probably also thinks you are a scum or you’re evil. Women look at men who see life as it is and say, “Wow! Look at how that man thinks! He’s scum! He’s so evil!” This is because in our world people who do not buy the pretty lies about life (usually created by women) are regarded as evil. This is because in the reality of the Hamstering World, the way it is set up is that anyone who refuses to see the reality of Hamster World is simply evil. Hamster World is a nice place full of lots of pretty little lies. Anyone who refuses the reality of this beautiful world in favor of a worldview which is much more evil (even if it is grounded in reality) is seen as having an evil worldview.

People with evil worldviews are bad people. Assholes, bastards, pigs, wankers, creeps. We’ve all been called them all. Being called those names is the price you pay for being a man who sees the world as it is really is – a shitty, lousy, down and dirty rat race dog eat dog jungle full of dangerous apex predators of both sexes. Notice I said of both sexes. This is important. Women call us predators, but all humans are predators. More importantly, all men are predators due to their male imperative. However there is also a female imperative that makes women just as predatory as men. Both sexes are preying on each other. Our prey is our needs. This goes for both sexes. Dog eat dog, and eat or be eaten. I choose to eat, thank you very much.

We see Hamster World in women’s politics first and foremost, such as feminism. Feminism is simply the worldview of women, which is largely constructed of self-delusions created to make the world seem like it is the world women want to live in instead of being the pretty damn lousy world that women really do live in. This is why feminism is so nuts and irrational. It’s also why it is as devious and conspiratorial as the Protocols. Feminism is a philosophy with a based on massive self delusions about how the world works, so it literally cannot be rational, and the psychological drives pushing the Hamstering logic make it crafty, conniving, devious, deeply unfair, and somewhat wicked.

2 Comments

Filed under Depression, Feminism, Gender Studies, Man World, Mood Disorders, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Sane Pro-Woman, Women

A Hypothesis for the “Unifying Theory”

After I spent five decades or so on Earth, I started to notice a curious thing. Humans, life, nature, maybe everything, seems to strive towards balance. You get +2 on one side of the divide, and what to you do, some other process pops up to counter it with just about -2 on the other side of the divide. The greater the extremes, the  more radical measures are implemented to keep them in place. You get +200 on one side of the divide and at first, life is confused. It tries different ways to counteract it, -2, -25, -50, but none of this really works. Somehow life or the mind figures out that the only way to counteract a +200 is with a -200.

+2 + -2 = 0

+200 + -200 = 0

I kept seeing this over and over and it made me wonder.  What’s so great  about zero. We non-mathematicians in Late Capitalism regard zero with disdain. Why would anyone try for that. At worst it’s awful and at best it’s just middling to mediocre. You ever see someone jumping up and down yelling, “I’m a zero!” Of course not. So why the constant drive towards zero? I am thinking maybe the zero is an illusion. It’s not really zero. Maybe it’s stasis or harmony or peace and end to oppositions or something of that nature. The opposing forces have canceled each other out,  and now we can kick back and enjoy, or deal, or whatever.

This “strive towards balance” which I still do not understand, seems to be the goal of most human psychological mechanisms and interactions with other humans.  We’re all trying for the zero, the sweet spot. Not too much and not too little. Just right. Call it harmony. This drive in humans is so strong and seems to be so strongly reflected in actual natural processes themselves (the balance of nature) that one wonders if there is any universal drive or theory driving at least all living things: it is simply the drive for some sort of harmony or balance.

And this interminable and unstoppable and seemingly rooted in the universe incessant and insistent drive for harmony or balance may itself be the closest thing to what to the Holy Grail of the Physicists:

The Unifying Theory

I would add that this physicists’ holy grail, the  “unifying theory” is also what drives all religion, philosophy, and art. I once characterized the goals of all human scholarly and artistic endeavors in all of the sciences, social and physical and all of the arts, as:

The Search for the Perfect Relationship 

And I am thinking just now that the Search for the Perfect Relationship and the Unifying  Theory have some relationship to each other. Either they are the same thing or the one is the search for the other, or the quest is the goal and vice versa. A lot more thinking to do on that one.

Over and out. Over and over and out.

9 Comments

Filed under Philosophy, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Science

Let’s Toss a Coin and Decide

Toss a coin in the air. 50% chance it’s heads. 50% chance it’s tails. Right?

Nope.

Think again.

My motto in life has always been:

  • Heads I win.
  • Tails you lose.

Things just work so much better when you take all the odds out of the human equations, you know?

#drawfirst

Leave a comment

Filed under Philosophy, Science

Strife/Creation Versus Peace/Stasis

You know what the fellow said – in Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace – and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.

– Orson Welles, The Third Man.

It sounds terrible ,but it is true. All creation stems from destruction, all birth from death, all renewal from degradation.

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out, but it helps.

Nature knows no extinction. Nature knows only transformation.

– Werner von Braun

So in a sense there is no death. Energy cannot be destroyed. It can only be transformed into some new form of energy. Hence, the energy structures of live things decay, break down and disintegrate, but they do not disappear. Instead they are simply transformed or recreated, Phoenix-like, into rebirthed forms of new living energy. Old forms create new forms and vice versa.

It sounds cruel, but all of the best theories of creation show that it stems from destruction. The neocons even subscribed to the theory of creative destruction albeit in a a cynical cover for their reactionary Zionism, imperialism and drive for US world hegemony.

After all, how can we create something new? First we must get rid of something old. We swap out the old, retire it, round file it, resign it to the trash heap, or at best consign it to the footnotes and the archives of history. In its place rises creation from the wreckage of the old forms.

We destroy to create. We create to destroy.

I have long felt that the Jews did better in the Diaspora, though conditions were not always optimal. The glorious creativity and genius that sprung from the Jews was incubated, I always felt, in the hothouse of Diasporan strife.

Strife creates energy and action, restless action. Creativity is restless action, a stir-crazy mind with cabin fever working in frenzy to escape from or change some shut-in unpleasantness.

Creativity is nervous energy.

In one of my graduate classes, we discussed anxiety a bit. I suggested to the professor that a bit of anxiety was a good thing. He thought a bit and concurred. A bit of anxiety stirs us to change an unpleasantness or discomfort that we experience. If we are always stoned-happy with everything, we will never change a thing in our lives. Positive change occurs in our lives due to dissatisfaction with something in our present condition.

The always-satisfied are fat and lazy. Stasis sets in, and soon we are glued to our couch, bong in hand. In culture, economics and many other things, this correlates with stagnation. If you’re not busy growing, you’re busy dying.

Why does anything new get created at all? Dissatisfaction, restless anxiety, a feeling that the present is not ok and needs to be bettered. Why do political movements get formed? Restless action. What is the impetus behind nearly all art of all types? Restless action, the notion that things need to be stirred up a bit. Even capitalist economics is grounded in restless action and of course creative destruction.

In strife we grow. Hardship builds character. Human growth occurs as we learn to tolerate and overcome new problems and anxieties that life throws at us a mile a minute. We bear with the new pains and even terrors and horrors, after a bit extinction occurs, and the things that once upset us and drove us crazy no longer bother us. This process is called adaptation, and in its method, it is downright Darwinian. Think about it. Yes, life is an IQ test, but Life is also a Darwinian fitness test. How can it not be?

Through the forge of strife arises bright and shining change, hardened by flames, tempered by heat, ready to weather the storms of a new day.

2 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Culture, Imperialism, Jews, Neoconservatism, Philosophy, Political Science, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, The Jewish Question, Zionism

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.

24 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