Category Archives: Ethics

The Alt Left on the “Right to Judge”

Jason Y writes:

I don’t really like flaming behavior, but I’m not God, just an ordinary nobody. Also, I don’t have the time to police behavior.

Didn’t the Bible say we should work on our own faults before judging others?.

Can I ask you something? What is wrong with “judging?” The Cultural Left and it seems a lot of this PC-addled young generation are all against “judging.” A woman I was dating was basically an alcoholic. I call her out on her drinking shit. I’m “judging.”

A female friend is being tormented by her alcoholic male roommate who for all intents and purposes is sexually harassing her (either you fuck me, or I throw your ass out on the street). She puts up with this Hell for a long time, and then next thing I know, she has had sex with the idiot a few times.

“Why’d you do it?”

“I dunno. I felt like that.”

“That sucks. You should not fucking that idiot. Bad idea. Plus he’s been treating you horribly. You basically caved in to a sexual harasser. Plus he sucks. He stinks, and he doesn’t even take showers.”

“Stop judging!”

So in other words, every time I don’t like something, I’m “judging.” We have to jump up and down and cheer and yell and scream for every idiot, perverted, sick and deviant behavior that comes down the pike? What for?

Why don’t we have the right to not like things?

Most straight men don’t like the idea of gay sex? That’s “judging?” Bull.

Most straight men are not even really keen on the idea of gay men. At least they don’t want to be around them too much, and most straight men have no desire to have a gay friend. That’s “judging?” Why?

Most straight men do not like sissy, faggoty, flaming, strongly effeminate behavior in men. Guess what? A lot of gay men don’t like it either! Why do we have to like it? If we don’t like it, why are we “judging?”

And the most important question of all is, what in God’s name is wrong with judging? We have a right to like or dislike anything on God’s green earth. We don’t have put a stamp of approval and jump up and down and start screaming and yelling about every weird behavior that humans engage in.

In a larger sense, this is one of the core principles of the Alt Left: “The right to judge.”

Because this is one of the core ways the Cultural Left has destroyed modern society – it has promoted the notion that no one has a right to disapprove of anything. This is behind cultural relativism and really the whole crazy ball of wax. This is why liberals and Lefties scream that I have no right to blast India on here they way I do – I have “no right to judge.” Black pathologies – the wreck call the ghetto? No right to judge. Islam backwards, woman-hating, homophobic, regressive and just anti-liberal and reactionary? Hey, stop hating. Don’t like Hispanic culture all that much, or maybe you might like to criticize it even for being hyper-Catholic, anti-abortion, morally backwards, regressive, reactionary, stupid, racist, patriarchal, misogynistic, violent, wife-beating, idiotically hypermasculine or deliberately ignorant? How dare you judge them!

Happen to notice that Gypsies are a race of thieves, in addition to being probably the worst ethnic group on Earth. How dare you judge those poor people! Why, they’re just victims! Africa a Hellish swamp where human values go to die? How dare you criticize those people. They’re just poor! If you were poor, you might act like a depraved animal yourself! Nigerians are a race of thieves in a continent of wickedness and base behavior? Hey, leave those people alone! Those are sun people! They have black skin so they can soak up the godly chemical melanin. How dare you icemen criticize us sunny melanin-enhanced superpeople?

As usual, every time someone says you are “judging,” there are aggressive, even violent screams and even threats of racism. “Sexist! Racist! Homophobe! Bigot! Regressive! Conservative! Reactionary! Nazi! KKK! White supremacist! Jew! Zionist! Pakistani! Transphobe!”

Nowadays, these are just fancy ways of calling a human being an evil person.

There are a lot of other typical feints. The usual one is, “You do it too.” Want to criticize Blacks or the ghetto mess? Whoops, you can’t! Why not? Because it turns out that all of things we accuse ghetto Blacks of, we Whites do them too! So we have no right to talk, see?

Want to criticize India? Can’t! Americans do it too! Although I am still waiting for someone to show me how a typical American city street looks anything like what you will find in New Delhi. Calling out a nation for being corrupt? Whoops! Can’t do that! Why not? We Americans are corrupt too! But…aren’t there degrees of such things, I mean, a little bit corrupt to real corrupt to stark raving crazy off the charts corrupt? Nope. It’s all the same. Citizens United = all the corruption in India.

This is the rhetorical poison that liberal rhetors have foisted on us in the past several decades. What started out as a liberation movement turned into:

apologism for the worst of human behaviors, to put it mildly,

a ban on critiquing any and all human behavior above the level of the individual,

the obviously insane notion that all cultures are equally good,

the profoundly dubious, even on its face, notion that all of the races are created equal (a misreading of the Founding Fathers, by the way),

a torrent of hatred, rage, abuse, discrimination and career-wrecking against anyone who tries to argue from a point of view of higher human values or achievements to criticize another human group on the basis of lower human values or achievements.

What they are trying to accomplish is two things.

1. Apology for sin. I guess there’s no such thing anymore. Except racism. And sexism. But only White males can be that way. And wait. Rape. But only when White men to do it. And sexual harassment – you know, when straight men try to have sex with women? They need to be castrated!

Bottom line is that the Left has decided to apologize for just about every sinful, depraved and wicked behavior on Earth, as long as it is engaged in by some protected class. And in many cases, the Left has turned former sins into virtues. The homosexual who takes 100 penises and a dozen fists up his anus a year while sampling the entire Pharmacopeia and living a life of utter, base depravity is now the pinnacle of human virtue. Incredible. Protection of the bad, and the inversion of sins into virtues.

2. Assault on the good. When people try to suggest that Gypsy thieves, Nigerian internet grifters, Black rapists, welfare mothers with 75 IQ’s and 10 kids, murderous gang members, petty criminals, venal and corrupt people, perverts and deviants, people who set widows on fire and treat other humans as “untouchable” and in general, crooks, thugs, maniacs and more commonly liars, cheaters, thieves and even more trivially, base, degraded, vulgar, apathetic, morally vapid humans are acting like bad or at least somewhat lousy people, then those good people who called out the bad people are now attacked, assaulted, abused, fired, fined, sued, and generally ruined for the crime of favoring the good over the bad.

So while the Left now protects and even extols the bad, it condemns the good and again inverts morality, in this case turning virtue into sin.

This post has been a bit long getting to the point, but if you have followed this far, I think you catch my drift. Suffice to say that the Alt Left is opposed to the trends of the Cultural Left elucidated above.

33 Comments

Filed under Cultural Marxists, Culture, Ethics, Left, Liberalism, Political Science, Scum

Man Shoots Dog; Dog Shoots Man – Film at 11

Here.

Who knows? Maybe karma exists after all.

10415665_777299849006560_2182811311565326712_n

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction? Maybe so, and maybe that’s a damn good thing sometimes.

I am convinced that God has set aside a particularly nasty slice of Hell particularly for animal abusers. And they probably have to have a wall of around this area to keep the other denizens of Hell from killing them again and again.

Bad people have more morals than you think. It’s often not so much that they have “no morals” but that they have their own peculiar and perverse moral hierarchy. But a lot of bad people definitely believe in the concept of transgression, and they don’t like those they call immoral one bit. In fact they hate them far more than we do. They hate the violators of their own moral code so much that they will out and out murder them without a care in the world, while few of the rest of us would stoop that low.

3 Comments

Filed under Animals, Dogs, Domestic, Ethics, Florida, Philosophy, Regional, South, USA

Nice Guys, Friendzoning and the Redpill View of the Basic Nature of Women

I found this on Quora, and the author is a former commenter on this site who left. This person did write a very good post coming from a rather Redpill manner on Quora. This is still a brilliant fellow with a lot of great insights into human nature. It’s really sad, but almost everything this guy says is straight up true.

Also I do not know if he is an MRA per se, but I believe he is a masculinist, and I think we should form a masculinist movement as counterpart to the feminist movement. We can try to mirror them if we wish. If it’s progressive, hip, groovy, and right-on and hipster for women to advocate for their rights, then we think it ought to neato, right-on, boss, cool, and progressive to advocate for men’s rights. Because we men need our rights just as much as the women need their rights. Women want to advocate for their rights? No problem! Let them. But why should we men not do the same thing?

The Masculinist Movement will make alliances with any sane feminists out there, and I believe there might be a few. In general, women think that “Men’s Rights” means all out war on them. This is zero-sum thinking, and furthermore, it is just wrong. You want and need rights for women, and we want and need rights for men. Neither gender likes being screwed over. If it’s right for them, it’s right for us too.

I recently checked out the resurrected Men’s Liberation Movement on Reddit, and it is a disaster. You are not allowed to attack feminism!

I would instead identify with some of the more radical wings of the Masculinist Movement who broke away early on. Interestingly, some of the most prominent among them were gay men. Gay men have always been an integral part of the Men’s Movement, and we need to welcome them with open arms.

After reading several of these threads about the “Friendzone” and “nice guys”, I’ve come to realize that the discussion universally ignores two very important things:

1) lying

and

2) age

Within my comments below is the direct answer to the question “Why do girls reject guys who are good to them…”.

1. LYING

Women lie.  Compulsively. They say they want to be treated kindly, with respect, by a nice smart guy who knows how to be a gentleman blah blah blah. But, more often than not, they’re lying. They usually do not respond positively (i.e. with attraction) to kind, respectful treatment from nice smart guys.

They respond positively to bad boys, punks, criminals, sleazy pickup artists, motorcycle gang members, drag-racers, rock band members, trash-talking rappers, jocks, and other guys who they find exciting. They respond to guys who put them on an emotional rollercoaster, up and down.

They often respond positively to guys who abuse them or treat them like shit. Not because they like being treated like shit, *per se*, but because being treated like shit, and then being sexually ravaged, (i.e. ultra-cold, then super-hot), is exciting, thrilling, highly attractive, and emotionally addictive.

There’s nothing wrong with any of that. There’s nothing wrong with liking what you like, and being attracted to what you’re attracted to. What’s wrong is lying about it, which women do all the time. And the lying, understandably, confuses men something awful.

They think that the women are telling them the truth about how they want a nice guy who will treat them with respect, open doors for them, buy nice things for them, and all that. Then, when the guy gives them those things, the woman responds with indifference and “lets just be friends”. WTF?! – says the guy, understandably.

This is where all the crap about “entitlement” comes from. Very few guys actually feel entitled to sexual attraction or engagement, but they are terribly confused about why it is not happening after he takes her at her word and gives her what she says she wants.

And who can blame them? Well, actually, some morons do blame them. There’s a whole lot of man-hating and -shaming going on in this discussion, I’ve noticed, rooted in the failure to see that men’s sometimes-inappropriate reactions are occasioned by women’s chronic lying.

2. Age

What I wrote above about what women positively respond to in a man,  applies largely to women in their prime years, approximately age 18 through 30. Those are the woman’s years of sexual experimentation, of going for all of the most sexually exciting men: mysterious wild bad boys, Alphas and  high-status men (sports stars, rock stars, etc.) at whom all the other women are throwing themselves, and a variety of “interesting” high-testosterone types including slick PUA’s, guys who are perpetually getting in fights or scrapes with the law, guys who are heavy into drugs, etc.

Having sex with a bunch of guys of these genres is very exciting and emotionally riveting. And the “nice guys” are a bore, except as an occasional shoulder to cry on about how terribly the asshole/bad-boy boyfriend is using and abusing them.

However, as the years go by, things change. Our wild ‘n free young woman
hits “the wall” – a moment typically in late 20’s or early 30’s when her looks start to fade rapidly. She is no longer as attractive to the Alphas and bad boys or to men in general. They stop calling her.

As this is happening, she realizes that her fertility clock is ticking, and that the Alphas and bad boys are not going to give her what she wants for the long term like stable marriage, material support, and so on. She begins to look at other men – the men she had rejected and friendzoned before, the “nice guys” – in a different light. These are the guys, she then realizes, that could give her what the men she chased earlier will not.

The only problem is that many of these “nice guys” are now successful, comfortable and confident, and are actually becoming more attractive with age, rather than less. They’ve grown up and become a little less “nice” and a little more manly. They’ve taken care of their health and acquired some style, and some of them morph from nerdy to quite handsome and sexy.

They may not want the older female, often a single mother, overweight and/or with generally deteriorating looks. Instead, they go for that (substantial) fraction of younger women – younger and a whole lot hotter and sexier – who like older successful guys. The “nice guy” who got friendzoned and sexually shut-out in his 20’s, now has the power in his 30’s and 40’s.

Meanwhile, our formerly-young free-spirit female is facing grim options, like say two offers for dates last month – both from unattractive, much older men. “What happened to all the good men?”, she cries. The answer is that they were there all along, and she ignored them, and now they have no interest in her. She may wind up living a barren life, hanging out on personals sites and hoping that some slightly attractive guy will see how awesome she truly is, regardless of her looks. Rots of ruck.

One author, an older “nice guy”, puts it poignantly: “Dear Girls Who Are (Finally) Ready To Date Nice Guys: We Don’t Want You Anymore.”

With the passage of years, things are likely to get better and better for the “nice guy” types and worse and worse for the women who friendzoned and sexually rejected them. Not to mention much worse for many of the bad boy types that they once prized: alcoholism, addiction, disastrous accidents, prison, disease, burnout, etc.

The exception to this is the “nice guy” who can’t get over having been rejected and marginalized – becoming, over the years, embittered and withdrawn. Many in the MGTOW movement are this type. But it is his choice. He could grow up, mature, work on himself, and become much more attractive to women – even young, hot women – than he ever was before.

Some women say that women are “stupid” for going for the bad boys, etc. But that’s not true. They are not stupid; they are emotional, and they love the emotional roller-coaster ride.

For a woman to give sound relationship advice, she needs to be honest with herself and others about the following:

1.Women are hypergamous, they are not naturally monogamous.

2.Women fitness test. Sometimes consciously, sometimes subconsciously.  With rare exception, they all do it.

3. Women often don’t say what they really mean.

4. Women often speak in partial truths and half truths. A perfect example:  when a woman says she just wants a nice guy who will treat her right, what she really means is “I just want a hot, good looking, confident guy who will be nice to me, commit to me, have sex only with me, and treat me right.” Half the battle would be fought and won if  women would just be clear and honest about this.)

5. All women have a rationalization hamster. I’ve seen girls as young as 10 rationalizing.

6. Women often say one thing and then do the exact opposite  Examples: “I  just want a nice guy who will treat me right” then run off with Harley Biker Badboy; or “I don’t want to get in a serious relationship right now” then a month later, she’s hot and heavy with Dr. Medical Student.)

Part of what is done here is to have honest conversations about these  issues. Feminism and the mainstream media ignores things like female  duplicity, hypergamy, female cheating, women initiating at least 70% of  divorces, etc. and instead falsely blames men for what women and feminism have wrought.

A few women like Susan Walsh get it. Most still don’t, including my mother and every woman I knew until I was 30 years old. I was told to “be nice” and “be yourself”. My father’s sole relationship advice? “Keep your d**k in your pants. If you don’t you’re playing  with fire.”

This is the most useless advice any parents could ever give their son. It condemns a young man to neverending frustration, anger, bitterness and withdrawal. It makes you spin your head in disbelief that the jerks, the thugs and the a$$holes get all the girls. “How can that be? They’re not “nice”. Why do they get all the girls? I was told that I was supposed to be “nice” and I would be swimming in girls. Why is this not happening?”

So then I was told that evidently I must not be “nice” enough and I should be “nicer”. Heh. The frustration is only amplified when he finds out that what everyone told him was absolutely 180 degrees from the truth.

8 Comments

Filed under Ethics, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Man World, Masculinism, Philosophy, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Sex, Women

Ever Fantasize about Killing Someone?

Jason Y writes:

So who is more disturbed, De Niro on Taxi Driver or Robert?

I am not that disturbed. I actually don’t really mind most people on an individual basis. Or at least I don’t hate them, let’s put it that way. I do not hate on an individual basis,the vast majority of people I meet. I have quite a few people I actually like, especially people I see on a regular basis. For instance, there is local corner store here, and everyone who works there totally loves me and acts like I’m they’re my best friend.

When I say I am homicidal, I don’t mean that seriously. I usually don’t want to kill any individual person. It’s more of a vague feeling directed at humanity in general. It’s hard to explain, and I know I would never do anything about it. I would have to hate people vastly more than I do now to go shoot up a mall, and even if I had that level of hatred, I still doubt if I would shoot up a mall because my massive inhibitions or guilt would stop me. I honestly do not think I will ever go postal. It’s just not going to happen, ever.

I have no guns, and I hate guns. I’ve never even tried kill someone except maybe someone who was trying to kill me. So really as long as you are not trying to kill me, I’m not going to try to kill you, so everyone needs to relax. That’s been my history for decades now, and I doubt if it will change. I guess I could use weapons other than guns, but I don’t even think about that, and I do not think I have ever used a handheld weapon against another person. I have used weapons, including very large knives, to threaten people before, and they deserved it, but never to attack someone. I’ve pulled knives on people before, but I’ve never stabbed anyone.

There are some old girlfriends about whom I say “I want to kill them to this very day,” and they richly deserve that feeling. It’s very vaguely true, but it’s something I almost never think about. And when I actually think of those women, I don’t like them very much, but I almost never think about killing them even in fantasy.

It’s just that some of the things that they said and did to me were absolutely unforgivable and completely warrant homicidal feelings towards them. But even then, it’s only when I think about that specific comment or action, my next thought is, “Goddamn I want to kill that bitch. She should be killed just for saying that/doing that to me.”

So most of the time I think about even those old girlfriends are fairly pleasant because I prefer to think about good things we did, and 99% of the time I am thinking about them, I am not feeling homicidal towards them. And this includes ones that I basically hate to this very day, and they deserve my hatred.

I think it is that I really do not like thinking about killing specific individual people because it bothers me on some level. And also something that happened long ago, I really should not still be all wrapped up in it.

Also there were a few guys who did stuff to me that pretty much warrants me killing them, and they would deserve it too for what they did to me. But even with them, when I imagine meeting them, the fantasy is more like I punch them in the face as hard as I can one time, which they would deserve, and walk away.

So I don’t really want to kill them either. I suppose I want to kill them in some vague sense, but it’s usually not even a fantasy because explicit homicidal fantasies about specific people bother me on some level.

I say vague because even if I met this guy who I really want to punch, I doubt if I would punch him. I have been in quite a few fistfights and physical altercations, but they always hit me or acted very physically aggressive towards me first.

Sure there’s a few guys I totally wanted to kill before, and they all deserved it. I did have homicidal fantasies about them even including plotting how I would do it. But the fantasies usually involve guns, and I don’t even have one, never have, and they terrify me. Also on some level, I know the fantasy will never happen.

That is because fantasy is different from thinking you really want to do something. A lot of evil fantasies involves things you know will never happen. So sure, I feel like killing them, and I even think about at times maybe, but I pretty much know it will never happen.

And there is one more thing. There were times when I was plotting how I would kill one of these guys, and I stopped myself because the thought process felt disturbing.

So I actually sat down and thought, “Hey wait a minute. Does this guy really deserve to die over what he did to me?” Almost always it comes back that even though what they did to me was horrific, monstrous and probably unforgivable, it doesn’t really warrant taking their lives. Actually killing them just seems wrong on some level.

When you think about what you are actually doing I mean what you are really, really, really, really doing, when you kill someone, you realize that true homicide is some very heavy shit. It’s about the heaviest shit you will ever deal with in your life. So if you kill or try to kill someone, you better have a damn good reason. The only time I ever actually tried to kill people was when they were trying to kill me.

I also start really worrying that I might get caught, and then that even if I did it and got away with it, I would have to walk around with that in my head for the rest of my life, and it might eat me up. Because killing someone who isn’t trying to kill you is so heavy that I’m not sure I could do it without being destroyed by guilt for the rest of my life.

Also when I get into these feelings about a specific person (which doesn’t happen too often), I usually only feel homicidal for 2-3 weeks. Then it just completely goes away for some reason (it sort of “burns out”), and I don’t miss it at all. It doesn’t seem healthy to stay in a homicidal frame about someone for a significant period of time. A few weeks, sure, but after that, it starts to feel disturbing, and I just want it gone.

5 Comments

Filed under Ethics, Morbid, Philosophy, Psychology

Capitalism 101: Want a Loan? No Problem!

Loans are very easy to obtain in a free market system. The relationship between the lender and the borrower is a contract entered into voluntarily by two equals. LOL yeah right.

Loans are very easy to obtain in a free market system. The relationship between the lender and the borrower is a contract entered into voluntarily by two equals. LOL yeah right. Can you believe capitalists actually believe that crap?

Great system.

But really, have you seen the laws on usury in your state? I mean what laws? Payday loans anyone? Seen all those payday loan stores popping up everywhere? Isn’t capitalism grand? You would not believe the perfectly legal rates those scumbags are allowed to charge.

Many major religions forbade usury for a damn good reason. They weren’t just a bunch of uptight primitives. They had a good handle on universal moral philosophy.

15 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Capitalists, Economics, Ethics, Humor, Law, Philosophy, Religion, Scum

What Is the Basis for Our Political Opinions?

The truth of course is that almost no politics is empirically proven to be right, wrong or even indifferent. Different proposals are simply different ideas about how society should be run and as such are outside of the realm of science.

And honestly, almost everyone’s politics is “I take Position A over Position B because Position A makes me feel good, and Position B makes me feel bad.” That’s how 90% of the population chooses its politics, and that’s when they are not acting even worse and going down an ideological checklist. I fully agree that all of my political positions are taken because Positions A that I take make me feel good, while Positions B that I reject simply make me feel bad. It’s that simple. No empiricism, no science, no nothing. It’s all about the feels.

Now a lot also take positions on a moral basis. For a lot of my positions I simply feel that Positions B that I reject are out and out immoral, while Positions A that I take are much more moral choices.

A lot of politics is also taken for selfish reasons. I am not here to knock that, as I do this myself. Many Positions B that I reject are rejected simply because I feel these positions would be very bad for me personally in some way. This stuff hits close to home. So I choose Position A which will not harm me over Position B which will harm me. Most other people and even entities like corporations base most of their politics on similar egotistical and yes, of course, selfish politics.

The Big Lie is that everyone says, “I take Positions A because those are the ones that really work, and I reject Positions B because those policies simply do not work.”

Now I might take that position in a few cases. Say if someone proposed to tear down all the prisons (there are far Left types who advocate this), I would reject it on grounds that it just would not work and further would probably harm a lot of innocent people. Prisons are horrific, but they work better than setting what amounts to wild animals loose on our streets. Animals belong in cages!

But most people do indeed take positions based on what makes them feel good, what they think is morally correct and what is better for them on a very selfish level. Almost no one will admit this because to do so makes them seem petty, vain, shallow and narcissistic and although this describes most humans, hardly any of us want to face up to our petty, shallow and callous inner cores.

5 Comments

Filed under Ethics, Philosophy, Political Science, Politics

Why Feminists and the MRA’s Are Both Wrong

Something finally dawned on me. I was talking to a feminist the other day (you really don’t need to know who that was), and I mentioned MRA’s, or Men’s Rights Activists. She saw red and became absolutely furious at the very mention of the phrase. Apparently MRA’s are simply evil, or wrong, or assholes, or something. Anyway, she made it clear that MRA’s suck. This is the attitude of almost all feminists: that MRA’s are evil, it is a misogynistic, wicked movement, etc.

However, the more time I have spent around MRA’s, the more I noticed that they are just like feminists. MRA’s are the other side of the feminist mirror. Turn a feminist around, make her into the exact same thing as a feminist except her direct opposite, and wa-lah! You have an MRA. Now, I happen to think feminists suck. As a man, I have good reason to think that, as feminists are pretty much the enemies of the men. Now this feminist may well believe that MRA’s are the enemies of the women. And sad to say, that is exactly how some of them come off.

So,

Feminists are the enemies of the men,

yet

MRA’s are the enemies of the women.

See what I mean? You are just turning the mirror around. It’s the same person. Turn an MRA around, and you have a feminut. Turn a feminist around, and you have an MRA kook. Get it? They’re the same damn people! One type is just the mirror and completely opposite image of the other side’s kookery.

Personally, I think if women ought to fight for their equal rights, then feminism is justified (at least the equal rights type).

But why must only females fight for their rights? Don’t males have a right to fight for their equal rights too? Well of course they do. Then MRA’s are justified at least as a movement that fights for equal rights for men.

Now feminists will counter this with an interesting argument that bears listening to (not all feminist arguments are crazy): Feminists simply argue that women have to fight for their rights because they are oppressed or slaves, while males are on top and already have all the rights they need, so they don’t need to fight for their rights, and indeed, Men’s Rights just means giving oppressors or slaveowners more rights. Obviously only slaves need liberation. Surely slave owners do not need liberation too! We took that argument out in 1865.

However, this argument is problematic because with the coming of Female Rule (an Oppressive Matriarchy that openly assaults men), it is becoming increasingly obvious that men are definitely in need of equal rights as women take away more and more of our rights and oppress us more and more, which has honestly been the result of feminism political power in the West.

So probably in the West women and men are both systematically oppressed either by society or law, and both are in need of equal rights, so both feminism and MRM are justified on an equity basis.

But then I observed something else. This feminist absolutely hates misogynists and misogyny. There is literally nothing worse than a man who hates women. That is just pure, sheer evil. Now misogynists are pretty nasty creatures, let’s face it. It’s an ugly philosophy, and women have a right to dislike their haters. But this feminist also completely rejects the argument that men who have lots of bad experiences with women have a right to be misogynists. Fair enough.

And yet…and yet…

I have brought up women who hate men to this feminist before, and she has always tried to justify them. “Well, she had a lot of bad experiences with men,” or “Yes, Simone Beauvoir was a man-hater, but Sartre was her husband and he didn’t treat her very well.”

In other words, feminists justify women who hate men on the basis that men treated them badly but then refuse to justify men who hate women on the basis that women treated them badly.

Rational? Of course not.

Now MRA’s are the same way. MRA’s are always railing against misandry and women who are man-haters, and for good reason. These are some pretty damn nasty creatures. On the other hand, one major theme of the MRM is that misogyny in men is completely justified.

Ok, now how can these views possibly make sense? How can this feminist possibly believe that women being man-haters due to bad treatment by men is understandable and even laudable, while men being woman-haters due to bad treatment by women is the ultimate in evil? This cannot be reasonable. Or can it?

In a proper moral philosophy, either:

1. Women who hate men due to bad treatment by men and men who hate women due to bad treatment by women are both acceptable,

or

2. Women who hate men due to bad treatment by women and men who hate women due to bad treatment by women are both unacceptable.

Either they’re both ok, as we figure damaged people are understandably haters, or they are both no good, as we figure that no matter what you go through, you don’t turn into a bigot.

Right?

But what you can’t have is a universe where one is ok and the other is not (the worlds of the feminists and the MRA’s).

However!

Such a universe,

where misandrists are understandable and even laudable and misogynists are Satanic,

or

misogynists are understandable and even rational while misandrists are wicked,

can only be true under one condition:

And that condition is that the other side is Evil.

Now let us examine what feminists and MRA’s are really saying.

When a feminist says female misandry is understandable and even a good thing, while male misogyny is wrong and despicable, what she is saying is this:

Female misandry is acceptable because Men are Evil. Male misogyny is wrong because Women are Good. Surely it is correct to laud those who hate Evil and despise those who hate Good, correct?

And of course, on the other hand, when an MRA says male misogyny is understandable and even logical while female misandry is deplorable and disgusting, what he is saying this is:

Male misogyny is acceptable because Women are Evil. Female misandry is wrong because Men are Good. Once again, we are back at Square One of Moral Philosophy, that those who hate evil are proper and even heroic while those who hate Good are wrong and even malevolent.

Once again, we see the same person switching genders and reversing the mirror, no?

Do you follow me here?

21 Comments

Filed under Ethics, Feminism, Gender Studies, Law, Masculinism, Philosophy, Politics, Social Problems, Sociology

Robert Stark Interviews the Truth Will Live About Why People Become Leftist, Myers Briggs Personality Types & Sexual Morality

I do not mind this young lady. I listened to about 30 minutes of this interview.

Interview here.

Topics include:

Her video Do Leftists Have Legitimate Grievances? in response to Richard Spencer’s interview Surviving The Global Monoculture

How people often become Leftist in response to a materialistic, bland, monolithic consumer culture and are searching for something with meaning

How the Alternative Right overlaps with the Far Left

The Myers Briggs Personality Types

Portrait of an INTP

People with this personality type are most likely to be unemployed

INTP’s: Ethnicity & Race

Chastity, Monogamy & Slut Shaming

Response to a comment about whether morality is a weakness

Jewess Heroine Overdose (Jewish Hollywood Starlets)

11 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Culture, Ethics, Jews, Labor, Left, Personality, Philosophy, Political Science, Pop Culture, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Romantic Relationships, Sex

Discussion on ‘The g-Factor of International Cognitive Ability Comparisons: The Homogeneity of Results in PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS and IQ-Tests Across Nations’ by Heiner Rindermann

This is taken from the discussion on Rindermann’s recent paper in which he said that PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS tests all load very heavily on the g-factor (up to 97%) and at the same time, these three tests correlate very well with IQ tests themselves such that we can look at a score from these three tests and derive an IQ score from it. What follows a discussion about the paper from a number of experts on intelligence.

If any of you are interested in the IQ question, you might want to read this. Honestly, I do not feel that race and IQ are much discussed in either the paper or the discussion. The document is fairly long at 24 pages.

Discussion on ‘The g-Factor of International Cognitive Ability Comparisons: The Homogeneity of Results in PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS and IQ-Tests Across Nations’ by Heiner Rindermann

Article first published online: 8 AUG 2007
DOI:10.1002/per.648
Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Issue

Abstract

Geographical Distribution of Mental Abilities and Its Moral Consequences

JÜRI ALLIK
Department of Psychology, University of Tartu, Estonia
Juri.Allik@ut.ee
Rindermann’s study provides the most comprehensive evidence so far that national scores of school assessment have systematic differences and the geographical distribution of these differences almost perfectly repeat the distribution of the mean national scores of intelligence. It is argued that without comparison with the random effects of statistical aggregation it is impossible to decide whether additional factors are needed to explain the strong association between national scores of school assessment and intelligence tests. The ignorance about real differences in mental abilities may become a source of social injustice because this does not allow natural inequalities to be arranged such that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantageous. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The Big G-Factor of National Cognitive-Ability Comparisons: Not Trivial and Not Immutable

JENS B. ASENDORPF
Department of Psychology, Humboldt University Berlin, Germany
jens.asendorpf@rz.hu-berlin.de
Rindermann’s analysis identifies a large first factor of cross-national differences, with high loadings of both IQ tests and student achievement tests. This finding is not trivial because correlations at different levels of analysis such as individuals and nations can be very different. The finding should be seriously discussed rather than downplayed because of the enormous political implications if the finding is misinterpreted as evidence for immutable national or regional differences. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The Different Levels of the g-Factor

ROEL J. BOSKER
Institute for Educational Research, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
r.j.bosker@rug.nl
In search for a country-level g-factor, aggregated data were used by Rindermann. This, however, can cause some problems, well-known in the literature on multi-level modelling. Conceptual clarity of the country-level g-factor is lacking, the ‘blown up’ coefficients are well-known in studies on using aggregated data, and are not that remarkable, and the quest for causes and effects of the country-level g-factor is only meaningful if we understand what this factor stands for, and if we are able to analyse data in which the multi-level structure is preserved. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Not Every g is g

MARTIN BRUNNER and ROMAIN MARTIN
Research Unit for Educational Measurement and Applied Cognitive Science, University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg
martin.brunner@emacs.lu; romain.martin@emacs.lu
The target paper identifies a common factor underlying measures of intelligence and student achievement on the cross-national level. Given the level of analysis applied, however, this factor cannot be interpreted as general cognitive ability (g). Rather, it is an indicator of a nation’s prosperity. g operates at the individual level and not at the cross-national level. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Little g: Prospects and Constraints

STEPHEN J. CECI and WENDY M. WILLIAMS
Department of Human Development, Cornell University, USA
sjc9@cornell.edu; wmw5@cornell.edu
Rindermann’s analyses reveal substantial correlations for intelligence tests in multiple nations, across content domains and over time. Although impressive and supportive of g-theory, high correlations do not necessarily reflect immutability of g over time or high heritability. Multiple studies demonstrate strong training effects for g-loaded tasks, and tendencies for general intelligence to vary by country may reflect resource and experiential factor differences more than heredity. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A g-Factor of International Cognitive-Ability Comparisons: What Else?

FILIP DE FRUYT
Department of Developmental, Personality and Social Psychology, Ghent University, Belgium
Filip.DeFruyt@ugent.be
Rindermann showed that student assessment means across countries are strongly correlated with intelligence means. Potential reasons for this strong relationship are discussed, and alternatives for student assessments are considered and evaluated. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The g-Factor Is Alive and Well But What Shall We Do About It?

ANDREAS DEMETRIOU
University of Cyprus and Cyprus University of Technology, Cyprus
ademetriou@ucy.ac.cy
This commentary first demonstrates, in agreement with the target paper, that g exists, and it specifies the cognitive dimensions involved in it. It then argues that g is malleable and plastic and specifies how it can be increased. It is also maintained that rank ordering groups along a dimension of g is possible but difficult to achieve and that the present international studies depart from this ideal. Finally, it is argued that we need policies and programmes for the cultivation of g in the best interests of everybody. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

What Lies Behind g(I) and g(ID)

JAMES R. FLYNN
Emeritus Professor, Political Studies, University of Otago, New Zealand
jim.flynn@stonebow.otago.ac.nz
Rindermann’s results suggest that different factors lie behind the emergence of g in international comparisons and the emergence of g when we compare the differential performance of individuals. This renders g(I) and g(ID) so unlike that they have little significance in common. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Parsimony or Reductionism?—Against the g-Factor of Nations

HEDE HELFRICH
Department of Psychology, University of Hildesheim, Germany
helfrich@uni-hildesheim.de
Rindermann presents the thesis that international student assessment studies primarily measure the same cognitive ability as intelligence tests, namely Spearman’s g-factor. My comment focuses on two objections to his analysis. First, the uniform correlations taking countries as units of analysis may mask different shapes of correlations within each country. Second, the psychometric approach to assess national differences in general intelligence cannot claim universal validity. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Contributions Made and Contributions Yet to be Made by Rindermann’s Analysis of National IQ’s

EARL HUNT
Department of Psychology, The University of Washington, USA
ehunt@u.washington.edu
Rindermann presented criteria for judging international assessment studies of cognitive competence. He showed that broad trends in the present data are sufficiently strong so that the weaknesses of some data sets can be disregarded. We still need to understand how the nature of the testing situation itself restricts the measurement of important aspects of cognition, at the national level. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

IQ and Inequality in Human Conditions: Are Correlates Dependent on the Level of Analysis?

PAUL IRWING
Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, UK
paul.irwing@mbs.ac.uk
Rindermann greatly increases the credibility of Lynn and Vanhanen’s (2002) findings, by reproducing those using international studies of student attainment. Additional candidates for the prediction of economic outcomes include: personality, knowledge, motivation, psychopathology, inter-group processes and efficient employment of human resources, the importance of each being dependent on whether analysis is at the individual or cross-national level. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

It Does not Help to Ignore It

WENDY JOHNSON1,2
1Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, UK
2Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, USA
wendy.johnson@ed.ac.uk
Rindermann’s (this issue) analysis highlights the large factor of cross-national differences that closely links student achievement and intelligence test results. For some, existence of this factor justifies their dominance by proving their innate superiority. For others, it is an awkward observation to be buried amid hope that it will disappear by itself. Neither is constructive; neither is likely to be accurate. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The Evolutionary Biology of National Differences in Intelligence

RICHARD LYNN
University of Ulster, Northern Ireland
Lynnr540@aol.com
Rindermann’s work raises the question of the causes of national differences in intelligence. It is proposed that these are likely adaptations that evolved in the European and East Asian peoples to the cognitive demands of survival during the winter and spring in the temperate and cold climates. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

If All Tests Measure the Same Thing, How Can We Evaluate the Quality of Schooling?

GERHARD MEISENBERG
Department of Biochemistry, Ross University, School of Medicine, Dominica
GMeisenberg@rossmed.edu.dm
The near-equivalence of school achievement tests and intelligence tests raises questions about the causal relationships between intelligence and school achievement, and about the evaluation of educational systems on the background of country differences in general intelligence. Causal relationships remain unresolved, but we can conclude that tests of school achievement can only be evaluated conjointly with tests of fluid intelligence. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Does the Globalisation of Assessment Lead to the Globalisation of Education?

FROSSO MOTTI-STEFANIDI
Department of Psychology, University of Athens, Greece
frmotti@psych.uoa.gr
International educational surveys and intelligence tests assess the higher-order cognitive abilities that are important for individuals to adapt to a globalised world, and for countries’ economic advance. The globalisation of assessment is believed to have revealed the need to re-examine current educational practices in many parts of the world since they do not face up to the challenges posed by globalisation. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Do Recent Large-Scale Cross-National Student Assessment Studies Neglect General Intelligence g for Political Reasons?

HELMUTH NYBORG
KF Andersen Leadership Academy, Lausanne, Switzerland
helmuthnyborg@msn.com
Rindermann’s analysis of international student assessment studies re-confirms previous findings that all intelligence- knowledge- and achievement-scales basically measure psychometric g. Several recent large-scale international assessment studies nevertheless chose literacy over psychometric g as their dependent variable, in order to better promote the notion of considerable student educational malleability. This politically correct choice compromises the studies and educational policy. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The Reciprocal Causation of Intelligence and Culture: A Commentary Based on a Piagetian Perspective

GEORG W. OESTERDIEKHOFF
Institute for Sociology, University of Karlsruhe, Germany
Oesterdiek@aol.com
Social and cultural factors such as special child rearing practices and a lack of formalised education account for the stop of ontogenetic development below the level of formal operations in pre-modern or underprivileged social milieus. Only the socialisation practices in modern societies have been efficient enough to cause the IQ gains (Flynn effect) respective the growth of formal operations. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

How Smart are Nations? About Corrections and Correlations of International Data

MANFRED PRENZEL
Leibniz Institute for Science Education, University of Kiel, Germany
prenzel@ipn.uni-kiel.de
The homogeneity of the results of international cognitive assessments which Rindermann claims in his paper will be questioned on two levels: First, Rindermann corrects national data sets by a certain amount if specific test participation rates are available, without testing whether the samples are representative. Second, we will demonstrate with an example that the correlations reported can by no means be considered as evidence for the homogeneity of different cognitive tests and other indicators. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Generalisability, Groups, and Genetics

J. PHILIPPE RUSHTON
Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, Canada
Rushton@uwo.ca
Rindermann shows that g is highly generalisable. We can add: (a) predictive validities generalise across cultures; (b) g-loaded items found relatively difficult by the Roma (Gypsies) in Serbia are found relatively difficult by East Asians, Whites, South Asians, Coloreds and Blacks in South Africa and (c) group differences are more pronounced on more heritable items, indicating they are partly genetic. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Profiting From Controversy

MANFRED SCHMITT
Department of Psychology, University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany
schmittm@uni-landau.de
My comment will address the scientific value of Rindermann’s contribution, wrong conclusions that might be drawn from it, and his quest for interdisciplinary cooperation. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The Softer the Truth, the Harsher the Fight

BIRGIT SPINATH
Department of Psychology, University of Heidelberg, Germany
birgit.spinath@psychologie.uni-heidelberg.de
Rindermann’s target paper is bound to provoke retorts. The present commentary analyses the explosive potential of Rindermann’s thesis along five questions: Are international student assessment tests flawed? Should we give up the distinction between intellectual potential and scholastic performance? Is intelligence heritable but school achievement is not? Is school achievement primarily dependent on the educational environment but intelligence is not? Can we advance something that is heritable? Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

International g: Mixed Feelings and Mixed Messages

FRANK M. SPINATH
Department of Psychology, Saarland University, Germany
f.spinath@mx.uni-saarland.de
This commentary reflects on the misleading amalgamation of behaviour genetics findings on the aetiology of individual differences in intelligence and speculations about the causes of international mean differences in intelligence at the group level. It questions the scientific value of mapping or ranking national mean IQ’s given that the vast majority of the variation lies on the individual level. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Abilities as Achievements, or is it Achievements as Abilities, or is it Both, or Neither?

ROBERT J. STERNBERG
Tufts University, USA
robert.sternberg@tufts.edu
Rindermann’s paper shows that well-known ability and achievement tests all roughly measure the same thing, general ability. Three potential implications are that the distinction between ability and achievement is not clear, that we should use broader psychological theories on which to build tests, and that we should consider teaching for leadership rather than merely for academic facts and skills. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Methodological and Conceptual Notes on National Cognitive Ability

THOMAS VOLKEN
Sociological Institute, University of Zürich, Switzerland
volken@soziologie.unizh.ch
While at first sight, the concept of national cognitive ability is appealing, a closer inspection reveals major conceptual and methodological problems which need to be addressed. In particular, the meaning as well as the scope and reach of the concept remain vague, the aggregation process does not consider estimates of different precision, and (too) many values are estimated. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Something Old, Something New, Something Borrowed and Something Blue: National IQ and the Integration of Cognitive-Ability Research

MARTIN VORACEK
Department of Basic Psychological Research, University of Vienna, Austria
martin.voracek@univie.ac.at
This commentary focuses on methodological issues encountered in estimating national IQ; specifically, on criticism regarding one source of national IQ figures (Buj, 1981), which criticism appears unjustified; and affirms Rindermann’s call for a broad integration of different paradigms and lines of cognitive-ability research, illustrated with an example from suicide research. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Methodological Aspects Concerning Rindermann’s g-factor of International Cognitive-Ability Comparisons

OLIVER WALTER
Leibniz Institute for Science Education, University of Kiel, Germany
walter@ipn.uni-kiel.de
It is argued that several methodological aspects concerning the broad definition of literacy and intelligence, the heterogeneous samples, the scaling methodology of international student assessments, the highly aggregated data and the requirements of higher-order factor analysis provide sound alternative explanations to Heiner Rindermann’s hypothesis that literacy could be subsumed under the intelligence construct. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Percentages of Children Living in Poverty Determine IQ Averages of Nations

VOLKMAR WEISS
Leipzig, Germany
volkmar-weiss@t-online.de
By comparing three bodies of independently collected data sets, Lynn-Vanhanen-IQ, PISA-IQ and children poverty percentages, we have evidence of a downward and hence dysgenic trend in a number of nations, reaching up to 6 points within one generation and even higher losses in Latin American countries. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

What is the National g-Factor?

JELTE M. WICHERTS1 and OLIVER WILHELM2
1Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2Institute for Educational Progress, Humboldt University Berlin, Germany
J.M.Wicherts@uva.nl, oliver.wilhelm@rz.hu-berlin.de
Rindermann correlated the national averages of several student assessment studies and ‘national IQ’ estimates and proposes that these variables are all indicators of a common cognitive ability at the macro-social level, which he denotes the national g-factor. We argue that Rindermann oversimplifies issues of individual differences and applies inappropriate statistical analyses. Therefore, we refute his conclusions. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

4 Comments

Filed under Culture, Education, Ethics, Intelligence, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Social Problems, Sociology

Are Westerners Really More Likely to be Pedophiles?

SHI writes:

I’m afraid stats from an online source don’t tell the entire story. White pedophiles kinda stand out from others due to the sheer gravity of their crimes. Watch NBC: Catch a Predator, most accused on show are white men.

I’ve been to Thailand and Cambodia (for tourism purpose mind you) and saw an overwhelming number of white males, and also a few older white females looking extra cozy around children. I don’t think all of them were social workers with nice intentions. Most white people who are overstaying in SE Asia happen to be freaks of one kind or another, they don’t talk normally to you due to the easy availability of pussy. Somehow the permissive climate of SE countries brings out the worst in human nature.

It is well known in Thailand that the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami which killed a lot of Swedes in Thailand was God’s sweeping punishment against a vile, wicked and sinful people (a lot of them were pedophiles).

To Catch a Predator sets up men who are trying to fuck a 14 or 15 year old girl. Men who try to fuck 14 and 15 year old girls are not pedophiles. I would point out that in Black communities and especially in the ghetto, it is normal for adult men to fuck 14 and 15 year old girls. Nobody bats an eye or calls the cops because it is simply not seen as a crime. Mexicans start fucking their women when they are 14 in both Mexico and the US.

So there we dealt with that one.

I would argue that in much of the 3rd World, it is simply normal for girls to get molested. 53% of all Indian girls get molested as children. Apparently it is mostly done in the family. So do Indian men have a reputation for being pedophiles? Of course not. Because in that culture, it’s normal for adult men to mess with prepubertal girls.

My friends in Canada tell me that in Canada, “all Indian girls get molested, 100% of them.” It’s generally done in the family. And this is before they even hit puberty. By the time they are 14, they are considered women and are already getting fucked normally all the time and no one even thinks it’s weird.

You can read interviews with Black women from the ghetto online. They have women sitting around in groups talking about how they got molested. One says, “In the ghetto, all girls get molested.” And all the other women solemnly nod their heads. And once again, this is mostly in the family.

There is said to be an epidemic of Black men raping or having sex with very young girls in South Africa. The rates of girl-fucking there are absolutely off the charts. A lot of this is due to the idea that if you get a young enough girl, it’s a sure bet she doesn’t have HIV.

Very few studies are done on child molestation in the 3rd World, so we have no idea how many girls in the 3rd World are subjected to this sort of thing, but I think if we studied it, there might be a whole lot more than you might think.

One wonders why White Western pedophiles often relocate to the 3rd World so they can molest freely without getting caught. That is because in places like the the Philippines, Thailand, Cambodia, Sri Lanka and even Mexico, most people don’t even care about some White man from the West who is screwing kids. In fact, many of the locals will hear about the rich White pedo older man ion that house over there and they will gladly rent their kids to him to play with for a handful of cash.

The fact that child molestation seems to be no big deal in these places implies that there is probably a lot of it that goes on and also that they don’t think it’s a moral issue. We in the West definitely think it is a moral issue that implies right there that those 3rd World areas are more pro-pedophilic than the West is.

White culture is different because we actually take exception to this sort of thing – adult men have sex with teenage girls – which is accepted in most of the world.

There are two types of child molesters – pedophilic child molesters and non-pedophilic molesters. Various estimates indicate that 70-92% of all molesters are not even pedophiles. They generally molest in the family and are no more into little girls than anyone else. They are just criminals who are taking advantage of very vulnerable little girls, an easy target.

Now as far as the true pure pedophile type, there may be an argument that Whites are overrepresented among pure preferential pedophiles – the type who deliberately seek out children in various ways – the guys that were the cause of the whole “stranger danger” fad. But that’s not proven yet either.

13 Comments

Filed under Africa, Asia, Asians, Blacks, Cambodia, Canada, Culture, East Indians, Ethics, Girls, Hispanics, India, Jailbait, Lolitas, Mexico, North America, Pedophilia, Philippines, Philosophy, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, South Africa, South Asia, South Asians, Thailand, USA, Whites