The Lie of Equality

Reader KFG dropped this insight in last week’s post and I thought it was very relevant to something I’ve been contemplating for a while now:

As a general principle genetic fitness is always relative to the environment. A spread of genetic traits makes a species more robust, because it will have individuals better suited for survival in a greater range of environments.

There’s more than one breed of working dog because no one is “better.” Each has its specific strengths, paid for with corresponding weaknesses. A terrier is to small to hunt wolves, but you’re not going to stuff a wolfhound down a badger hole.

This was a great analogy. It’s also one of the primary reasons I believe the egalitarian equalist narrative is a deliberate lie with the hoped-for purpose of empowering people who cannot compete, or believe they have some plenary exclusion from competing in various aspects of life. One of the primary selling points of egalitarian equalism for men is the idea that they can be excluded from the Burden of Performance.

There is no such thing as ‘equality’ because life doesn’t happen in a vacuum.

The tests that a chaotic world throws at human beings is never equal or balanced in measure to our strengths to pass them. Equality, in the terms that egalitarian equalists are comfortable in defining it, implies that that every individual is equally matched in both value and utility within a totality of random challenges. Aside from this being patently false, it also demerits both strengths and weaknesses when that individual succeeds or fails at a particular challenge as a result of their individual character.

This is ironic in the sense that it provides easy, repeatable, excuses for a person’s successes or failures. If someone wins, well, we’re all equal so that person’s strengths which led to the success can be passed off as a result of assumed or circumstantial ‘privileges’ that made them better suited to their challenges – rarely is their hard work recognized, and even then, it’s colored by the overcoming of a presumed-unequal adversity that grants them ‘privilege’. If they fail, again, we’re all equal, so the failure is proof of a deficit, or a handicap, or a presumed repression of an equal person in a state of baseline equal challenge.

Individual Exceptionalism

One of the longest perpetuated cop outs (I should say paradoxes) that equalists cling to is the notion that People are People; that everyone is a unique individual (snowflake) and as such there is really no universally predictable method of testing character or knowing how a particular sex will respond to various challenges. It’s all random chance according to the individual’s socially constructed character and their capacity to be a ‘more evolved’, higher-thinking being.

On the surface this all-are-individuals notion may seem the antithesis of the ‘equality’ narrative that equalists cling to, but it is part of a cognitive dissonance all equalists struggle with. This approach is a means to standardizing individuality, so no scientific evidence that might find patterns of an evolved ‘nature’ of a person – or in our Red Pill case, a sex – can be predicted. It’s the hopeful cancellation of reams of empirical evidence that show how influential our biologies and inborn predispositions are. This ‘higher order’ individualism is always touted so the equailist mindset can claim that the exception to the rule disqualifies the overwhelmingly obvious general rule itself.

“We’re all exceptions to the rule.” – Carl Jung

“…and when we’re all special, no one will be.” – Syndrome

This fallacy is where we get the NA*ALT (not all ____ are like that) absolution of the most unflattering parts of human nature. Not All Women Are Like That is standard feminine-primary boilerplate for women and sympathizing men (White Knights) who’d rather we all ignore the aspects of female nature that shine a bad light on what are easily observable truths about their behavior and the motives behind them. The social convention relies on the idea that if there is even one individual contradiction to the generalization (always deemed an ‘overgeneralization’) then the whole idea must be wrong.

Of course, this individual exceptionality rule only applies to the concepts in which equalists have invested their egos in. When a generality proves an equalist’s ego-investment, that’s when it becomes an ‘endemic’ universal truth to their mindset. A binary over-exaggeration of this effect is the reflexive response for concepts that challenge their ego-investments. Thus, we see any and all of the (perceptually) negative aspects of masculinity (actually the totality of masculinity) painted as evidence of the endemic of ‘toxic’ masculinity as a whole. The individualist exceptionality in this instance is always ridiculed as ‘insecurity’ on the part of men even considering it.

The exceptionalism of the individual is always paired with some high-order consciousness, and/or the idea that anything that proves their ego-investment is “more evolved” – despite any evidence that proves the contrary – is proof of that this individual is a being who represents some evolutionary step forward. If you agree and support feminine-primacy it is ‘proof‘ that you are more ‘evolved’ than other men. Thus, the ‘more evolved’ status becomes a form of reward to the individual who aligns with the ideology. Conversely, the avoidance of being perceived as ‘unevolved’ serves as a form of negative reinforcement.

This is kind of ironic when you consider that the same equalist mindset that relies on the individualist exception is the same mindset that insists that everyone is the same; equal value, equal potential, equal purpose and equal ability. Again, the irony is that everything that would be used to establish the ‘unique snowflake’ ideology (so long as it contradicts innate strengths and weaknesses of an opposing ideology) is conveniently ignored in favor of blank-slate egalitarianism. There is a degree of wanting to avoid determinism (particularly biological determinism) for the individual in this blank-slate concept, but it also provides the equalist with a degree of feel-good affirmation that the individual is a product of social constructivism. So, we get the idea that gender is a social construct and, furthermore, that blank-slate individual is ‘more evolved’ to the point of redefining gender for themselves altogether. Even when that ‘individual’ is only 4 years old and hasn’t the capacity for abstract thought enough to make a determination.

To be an egalitarian equalist is to accept the cognitive dissonance that the individual trumps the general truth and yet simultaneously accept that the individual is just the blank-slate template of anyone else, thus negating the idea of the individual. It takes great stretches of belief to adhere to egalitarian if-then logic.

I apologize for getting into some heady stuff right out the gate here, but I think it’s vitally important that Red Pill aware men realize the self-conflicting flaw in the ideologies of post-modern equalism. Our feminine-primary social order is rife with it. They will disqualify the generalities of Red Pill awareness with individualist exceptionalism and in the next breath disqualify that premise with their investments in blank-slate egalitarianism.

This is easiest to see in Blue Pill conditioned men and women still plugged in to the Matrix, but I also see the same self-conflicting rationales among Red Pill aware men using the same process to justify personal ideology or their inability to de-pedestalize women on whole. There’s a common thread amongst well-meaning Red Pill men to want to defend the individual natures of women who align with the Blue Pill ego-investments they still cling to. All women are like that so long as those women are granola-eating, furry-armpit feminists – ‘Red Pill Women’ then become the individual (snowflake) exceptions to the otherwise general rule because they fit a different, idealized, profile.

The Inequality of Equality

I’ve stated this in many prior threads, but, I do not believe in “equality”.

I don’t believe in equality because I can objectively see that reality, our respective environments, our personal circumstances, etc. are all inherently unequal. Everyday we encounter circumstances in life which we are eminently unequalled for in our ability to address them. Likewise, there are circumstances we can easily overcome without so much as an afterthought. Whether these challenges demand or test our physical, mental, material or even spiritual capacities, the condition is the same – reality is inherently chaotic, unfair and challenging by order of degree. To presume that all individuals have equal value in light of the nature of reality is, itself, an unequal presumption. To expect sameness in the degree of competency or incompetency to meet any given challenge reality throws at us is a form of inequality. And it’s just this inequality that equalists ironically exploit.

As KFG was stating, “each dog has it’s strengths for a given task”. One dog is not as valuable as another depending on what determines a positive outcome. What equalism attempts do to – what it has the ludicrous audacity to presume – is to alter reality to fit the needs of the individual in order to make all individuals equally valuable agents. This is the ‘participation trophy’ mentality, but it is also a glaring disregard for existential reality. Which, again, contradicts the idea of individual exceptionalism; reality must be made to be equal to accommodate the existence of the equally valuable individual.

To say you don’t believe in equality is only outrageous because it offends the predominant social narrative of today. It seemingly denies the inherent value of the individual, but what is conveniently never addressed is how an environment, condition and state defines what is functionally valued for any given instance. Like the dog bred to hunt ferrets out of their warrens is not the functional equal of a dog bred to run down prey at 45 MPH. The value of the individual is only relevant to the function demanded of it.

The default misunderstanding (actually deliberate) most equalists believe is that functional worth is personal worth. I addressed this in Separating Values:

When you attempt to quantify any aspect of human ‘value’ you can expect to have your interpretations of  it to be offensive to various people on the up or down side of that estimate. There is simply no escaping personal bias and the offense that comes from having one’s self-worth attacked, or even confirmed for them.

The first criticism I’ve come to expect is usually some variation about how evaluating a person’s SMV is “dehumanizing”, people are people, and have intrinsic worth beyond just the sexual. To which I’ll emphatically agree, however, this dismissal only conveniently sidesteps the realities of the sexual marketplace.

Again, sexual market value is not personal value. Personal value, your value as a human being however one subjectively defines that, is a definite component to sexual market value, but separating the two requires an often uncomfortable amount of self-analysis. And, as in Ms. Korth’s experience here, this often results in denial of very real circumstances, as well as a necessary, ego-preserving, cognitive dissonance from that reality.

Denial of sexual market valuation is a psychological insurance against women losing their controlling, sexual agency in their hypergamous choices.

This is where the appeal to emotion begins for the equalist mindset. It seems dehumanizing to even consider an individuals functional value. Human’s capacity to learn and train and practice to become proficient or excel in various functions is truly a marvel of our evolution. Brain plasticity being what it is, makes our potential for learning and overcoming our environments what separates us from other animals. We all have the potential to be more than we are in functional value, and this is the root of the emotional appeal of equalists. It’s seems so negative to presume we aren’t functional equals because we have the capacity and potential to become more functionally valuable. The appeal is one of optimism.

What this appeal ignores is the functional value of an individual in the now; the two dogs bred for different purposes. What this appeal also ignores is the ever-changing nature of reality and the challenges it presents to an individual in the now and how this defines value. What equalism cannot do is separate functional value from potential value.

Adopting a mindset that accepts complementarity between the sexes and between individuals, one that celebrates and utilizes innate strengths and talents, yet also embraces the weaknesses and compensates for them is a far healthier one that presuming baseline equivalency. Understanding the efficacy of applying strengths to weaknesses cooperatively while acknowledging we all aren’t the same damn dog will be a key to dissolving the fantasy of egalitarian equalism and create a more balanced and healthier relations between the sexes. Embracing the fact that condition, environment, reality and the challenges they pose defines our usefulness is far better than to assume any single individual could ever be a self-contained, self-sufficient island unto themselves – that is what equalism would have us believe.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

Author of The Rational Male and The Rational Male, Preventive Medicine

620 comments on “The Lie of Equality

  1. Albert, I wouldn’t link vaccine efficacy with the others you cite.

    Science indeed is in for a reckoning. The flu vaccine has already been found wanting, the relatively recent swine flu was a complete hoax, the rest of the usual vaccines seem to have never been put under strict gold-standard double-blind studies. Lots of correlation while sanitation and hygiene were rapidly improving almost simultaneously.

    This is all besides the fact that immune response is multifactorial (layers of mucus, epithelial cells, etc) all of which are by-passed by direct injection into the blood stream… more fear-mongering than science.

  2. … and most/all those jumping up and down about climate change are themselves complete consumption junkies.

    If austerity-measures on energy use became the law, I bet you would instantly find more climate change deniers than ever before, especially amongst the “fairer” sex. Their collective need for safety and security (something that I think is underplayed on this blog) is voracious and without rational limit, manifesting in overcompensation in the form of consumption.

  3. Albert
    the health, fitness or the survivability of an idea is contingent upon the harmonious integration of all these levels of the analysis into each other, the number of which may be impossible to compute.

    How long does an idea have to survive to meet your criteria? Need it have any predictive utility, or can it just be “an idea” like the hollow earth?

    As such, an idea has to be tested in the crucible of the internet, if it can make there than there has to be something to that idea.

    As a Nigerian Prince I have one question for you: Want to Make Money Fast?

    Historically, we have relied upon authority to sift through this mess of assumptions for us (the priest, the shaman or indeed the scientists). However, within the context of the internet, with the anonymity of the users, a idea has to stand on its own merit. If an idea, action or event perturbs the harmony established belief systems (feminism, blue pill, egalitarian) it can be seen that there is ‘something’ to that idea.

    Niburu was supposed to destroy the Earth yesterday but did not show up. However that idea did perturb the established belief system regarding objects in the solar system. Does that mean there is “something” to the idea of Niburu and the number 33?

    Or are you just putting lots of words up because it’s fun?

  4. @anonymous

    “How long does an idea have to survive to meet your criteria? Need it have any predictive utility, or can it just be “an idea” like the hollow earth?”

    There is no endstate, just refinement. Thesis + antithesis –> synthesis and repeat. Just like falsification, however without falling victim to the Duhem-Quine problem. Differences in predictive capability IS what is used to decide if something is true. If the TRP wouldn’t get people laid do you think we would have this disscusion here? This site would be one among the million others of the internet with 0 traffic.

    “As a Nigerian Prince I have one question for you: Want to Make Money Fast?”

    Don’t you know man, it’s the jucie fault!!! Just get rid of the juice and no more Nigeiran Prince.

    “Niburu was supposed to destroy the Earth yesterday but did not show up. However that idea did perturb the established belief system regarding objects in the solar system. Does that mean there is “something” to the idea of Niburu and the number 33?”

    Like I said, we are rapidly approaching a state of epistemological anarchy. For your particular example, yes it shows how failable scientific predictions are. Now it’s all fun and games to point to these silly scientists who got it ‘wrong’, however, what the asteroid ‘proofs’ is that we are far more vunreuble than we like to admit.

    “Or are you just putting lots of words up because it’s fun?”

    Actually, I am trying to work out ideas, getting feedback, opinions and perspectives I hadn’t previously considered, you know a proper dialectic. However, you’ve haven’t been a great help in that though…

    @Marcus

    Climate change is established science/fringe science at the same time. It all depends on what aspect you are referring to, same applies for vacciences, biological difference etc.

    Most people do not care to look up the messy nature that science is, unless something goes wrong. Then in this particular issue they become an ‘expert’ being aware of the contradictions, problems and faults. Psychologically, the deficancies are then used to push ones own narrative (e.g. there are no gender differences because one tiny aspect didn’t hold up, science has proven it … citation needed).

    So far my best personal marker to consitentily identify crazy that I have found, is when people start talking about triangles, circles and other geometric figures. Psychologically this means that your mental construct that you are tying to justify is so fucked up that you have to go to pure mathematics to derive your ‘truth’.

  5. @Albert

    The definition of crazy is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results,this happens when someone believes something that isn’t true. By this definition denying all things as being true would make one a contradiction.

    Using the net as a fact finder can be tricky for the inexperienced theorist,having no personal reference he is left at the mercy of strangers. The interesting thing is when commenters let down their guard we can get a sense of their experience and sift the wheat from the chaff. Yet even with a general consensus nothing becomes truth until it is tested at the personal level in the real world.

    Once action is taken with the theoretical and it works the light bulb comes on,then this becomes a new part of the process. Rollo states that the web is a similar slice of pie with all the ingredients of the real world,not in so many words.

    I believe science as it applies to human physiology,mechanics,construction,electrical,geology and fire behavior. These truths have been tested and the results are predictable. The soscio gender dynamics of the red pill is not science as such but can be tested in the real world with predictable results. Without these personal trials it is only opinion.

  6. “How long does an idea have to survive to meet your criteria? Need it have any predictive utility, or can it just be “an idea” like the hollow earth?”

    Albert
    There is no endstate, just refinement. Thesis + antithesis –> synthesis and repeat. Just like falsification, however without falling victim to the Duhem-Quine problem.

    Where does phlogistin fit in?

    Differences in predictive capability IS what is used to decide if something is true.

    You just contradicted yourself.

    “As a Nigerian Prince I have one question for you: Want to Make Money Fast?”

    Albert
    Don’t you know man, it’s the jucie fault!!! Just get rid of the juice and no more Nigeiran Prince.

    You’re the one basically asserting if it’s on the Internet long enough it must be TROO, so…

    “Niburu was supposed to destroy the Earth yesterday but did not show up. However that idea did perturb the established belief system regarding objects in the solar system. Does that mean there is “something” to the idea of Niburu and the number 33?”

    Like I said, we are rapidly approaching a state of epistemological anarchy.

    Define your terms.

    For your particular example, yes it shows how failable scientific predictions are.

    Do you reallly regard numerology as a scientific prediction?

    Now it’s all fun and games to point to these silly scientists who got it ‘wrong’, however, what the asteroid ‘proofs’ is that we are far more vunreuble than we like to admit.

    So you don’t know what the prediction was, you don’t know what “Planet Nibiru” is supposed to be either. You’re clueless, but otherwise well informed.

    “Or are you just putting lots of words up because it’s fun?”

    Actually, I am trying to work out ideas, getting feedback, opinions and perspectives I hadn’t previously considered, you know a proper dialectic. However, you’ve haven’t been a great help in that though…

    Free clue: word salad is not dialectic. You don’t qppear to be tall enough for the ride you have selected.

  7. kfg
    ” . . . climate denial . . .”

    Name one person who denies climate.

    I’m feeling nostalgic, so I’ll point out that It Is September.

  8. @anonymous

    “Where does phlogistin fit in?”

    http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/8657/

    “Differences in predictive capability IS what is used to decide if something is true.

    You just contradicted yourself.”

    How? I think you are confused by me and you using different definition of what ‘true’ means

    “You’re the one basically asserting if it’s on the Internet long enough it must be TROO, so…”

    Nope, your reading into my words, here is Nassem Taleb making the same point

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-main-ideas-and-highlights-of-Nassim-Talebs-Antifragile-Random-House-27-November-2012

    “Like I said, we are rapidly approaching a state of epistemological anarchy.

    Define your terms.”

    Epistemological anarchy – all of societies institution that uphold the vertical dimension of epistemology have broken down and no one can trust authority anymore (a scientific fact involves authority).

    https://youtu.be/16en413Zk9Y

    “Do you reallly regard numerology as a scientific prediction?”

    Not really, i just find your whiggish reinterpretation of science trite and predictable

    https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://cstpr.colorado.edu/students/envs_5110/collins_the_golem.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjD8rbT6r_WAhUSY1AKHYkqBnoQFghhMAg&usg=AFQjCNHmIsyOZNMvoMMlRFepvK25zquj5A

    “Free clue: word salad is not dialectic. You don’t qppear to be tall enough for the ride you have selected.”

    Free clue right back, you don’t appear to fully grasp the concepts you are appearing to defend/criticise. Hence you revert to belittling your things you don’t agree with. This is the same snarky response SJW’s give when faced with criticism. Congratulation, you lowered yourself to the same level of discourse as the feminists

    @stuffinabox

    “I believe science as it applies to human physiology,mechanics,construction,electrical,geology and fire behavior. These truths have been tested and the results are predictable. The soscio gender dynamics of the red pill is not science as such but can be tested in the real world with predictable results. Without these personal trials it is only opinion.”

    That’s the point of a PhD program for example, it used to be a sort of ‘initiation ritual’ where the student gets disciplined and becomes part of the epistemic elite, sorting the wheat from the chaff. However, due ‘muh equality’ seeping into science, the entry barries to science have been lowered so much that just saying ‘science’ is no longer a token for trust and respect. Without respect and trust, your version of reality maybe accurate, however why would I believe you ‘cisgendered nazi scum’? Hence, we are slowly losing faith in science. It’s like blaximus said ‘no one will be able to tell right from wrong anymore’.

    @kfg

    “Euclid was whack and this shit is of the Devil”

    I meant more people who make star predictions and so forth, like numeroligists, egyptoligists or other alien theorists.

    Peterson does something similar, which I regard as a logical fallacy. He starts talking about something and explains it very accurately and logically, however then he will reach a logical impase where he cannot proceed anymore. Than he thinks for a second and tells you a story of how horrible the Nazis, communists were or quotes Tolstoy, Soljenistyn, Jung, Piaget on a similar emotionally charged topic. After the little excursion story time he then leaps back to his original point and states THEREFORE I am right. Psychologically, what you are observing is a man rationalizing himself into what he believes.

    @rugby cute dog!
    /

  9. @Albert: “I meant . . .”

    I know what you meant, but you expressed your meaning sloppily. The particular form of the sloppiness is revelatory of your own thoughts beyond what you have sought to express. As is the fact that you use the grammar and syntax of philosophical rigor to express such sloppy thoughts.

  10. @Albert

    I agree with JP in most cases,and have come to the same conclusions. It would seem as some are emulating his debate style,this could be a peculiarity of academia, that I am totally unfamiliar with. He is a hero of modern time making the ultimate sacrifice,of time and personal freedom. It appears as if this path he is on has stretched his faculties to the limits. Poor guy should take a sabbatical, and reconnect with the process of day to day living.

    It is plain as day to me that this thing he is fighting is destroying his life,the same as it does the working family man that has his family turned against him while he struggles to feed them,all the while ignorant of the root of his trouble. Nobody is immune.

    It is my opinion that the Feminine primary social order is turning the decadence that spawned it into barbarism. My man on the ground view likens the rural barbarian to the Brit Celts of Roman times,the urban barbarian to the Sioux nation, While suburbia is lost in virtual barbarianism not having any clear definition of the enemy. meanwhile the media is shifting the public focus onto the immigrant barbarian product of war that targets the modern system as a whole.

    Bottom line ,understand the threats CYA then get on with the process of day to day living adding more vigilance to the process.

  11. @kfg, you are entitled to think of my motives, my mental health, my thought patterns of what you want. In the the context of what I was talking about it was pretty clear what that I didn’t mean Euclid. So yeah… thanks for playing devils advocate.

    @ stuffinbox based daddy undoubtedly has opened a lot of peoples eyes. However, he is just a human being, like the rest of us, which includes errors in judgment and deeply held assumptions one is not consciously aware. At the rate he’s currently going he will burn himself out sooner or later…

    “Bottom line ,understand the threats CYA then get on with the process of day to day living adding more vigilance to the process”

    Yeah, I’ve pretty much come to the same conclusion. I find it hilarious when for example skepticTM on YouTube express that ‘we are winning the culture war.’ Furthermore, I also have noticed a certain amount of dogmatism creeping into the TRP, MGTOW and other manosphere spaces, not necessarily from Rollo as he’s pretty adamant on his position, but in general.

    1. I also have noticed a certain amount of dogmatism creeping into the TRP, MGTOW and other manosphere spaces, not necessarily from Rollo as he’s pretty adamant on his position, but in general.

      I find the more dogmatic a guy is in the ‘sphere the more likely he’s either a Purple Pill coach with revenue to lose, or he’s mixed his conviction into his RP mix.

  12. @Albert

    AR can indeed act very gamma. Best not to engage him when he starts doing that. So much of what he knows just ain’t so, especially about philosophy of science. In philosophy of science, AR is at the level of someone studying introductory chemistry.

    I like the postmodern critiques of modernism, e.g., by Feyerabend and Kuhn.

  13. @theasdgamer cheers man, he does have a point though. Proper communication and expression is important, as otherwise a lot gets lost in translation. At least that’s what my PhD supervisors have been telling me for the past three years, when they ripped on my writing…

    Anyway, philosophy of science moves a lot slower in their consensus building than for example the hard sciences. However, there is progress and currently people in this field are talking about ‘post-postmodern’ approaches. Here are two good articles that summarize these sentiments

    https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7234/pdf/458030a.pdf

    (if you can’t access the link here is an uploaded PDF, https://ufile.io/poarw).

    http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/89-CRITICAL-INQUIRY-GB.pdf

    Furthermore, within philosophy people pretty much admit that ‘postmodernism is dead’, case in point:

    https://philosophynow.org/issues/58/The_Death_of_Postmodernism_And_Beyond

    The version of postmodernism that JBP and co think they are fighting, is now longer common outside gender studies and all the other activist disciplines. I think the version of postmodernism that they are reacting against is the FI appropriated kind, that uses any argument to put the ‘Sisterhood uber alles’. So they are not fighting postmodernism, cultural Marxism or gender theory, but rather the female hivemind

  14. @Albert

    Hello to you, too.

    he does have a point though. Proper communication and expression is important, as otherwise a lot gets lost in translation.

    But people need to learn to read charitably…we all sin at communicating perfectly.

    Just because philosophy has moved to a new fad doesn’t mean that critiques of the previous fad are passe. Critiques are almost always timeless. Philosophical theories are faddish and give jobs to philosophers who rip those theories to shreds.

  15. Albert
    Free clue right back, you don’t appear to fully grasp the concepts you are appearing to defend/criticise.

    Ironic end to more word salad.

  16. Albert
    Proper communication and expression is important, as otherwise a lot gets lost in translation. At least that’s what my PhD supervisors have been telling me for the past three years, when they ripped on my writing…

    They have not ripped nearly enough. Turgid, ambiguous and ill-defined is no way to go through life.

  17. Rollo in the OP quoted thus:
    “We’re all exceptions to the rule.” – Carl Jung

    Jung, Freud and Frankl arguably are the three prominent Jewish psychologists of the first half of the 20th century. Freud and Jung were obviously working out personal issues as well as using a small sample set; Freud basically theorized about upper class Jewish Viennese then generalized. Both Freud and Jung offer ways to shift blame; “mother complex”, “collective unconscious” and so forth.

    Frankl is the least well known, the only one to survive a Nazi concentration camp, and the clearest writer of the three. Clearest writer by a light-year, in fact: Man’s Search for Meaning is a book that can be read in a single setting. The main lesson Logotherapy can teach is painfully clear:

    “You cannot control other people’s actions, but you can control your reaction to them”.

    This written by a man who once stood next to the death line at the fence of a Nazi concentration camp delivering a lecture on Logotherapy to the air / trees / dirt because he wanted to and needed to.

    Again, Freud and Jung offer blameshifting tools. Frankl puts it back onto the individual: control how you react, to find meaning. No wonder he never was as popular. But it is an actionable tool, unlike the dribble-goo in Freud and Jung.

  18. Rollo near the end of the OP
    Understanding the efficacy of applying strengths to weaknesses cooperatively while acknowledging we all aren’t the same damn dog will be a key to dissolving the fantasy of egalitarian equalism and create a more balanced and healthier relations between the sexes.

    This is the basis of effective leadership. Sun Tzu’s famous dicta on “know yourself, know your enemy” means knowing the capability of the forces available. Knowing what women can do, what they are likely to do, and what they can’t do or won’t do means a man can have reasonable expectations for women that are realistic, and therefore meetable.

    Sentient remarked in a thread on dealing with wives “If she can see daylight, she’ll run for it”; if a wife has a clear direction to go that will “win” for her, she’s more likely to take it than not. This ties right in with acta non verba as effective leadership.

    Meta: Equalism surely is one reason why management in so many big organizations from government to education to industry is piss poor. The cognitive dissonance required by equalism makes people blind to the reality of what people can and cannot do. Modern management demands that dogs act like cats, punishing them when they bark.

  19. @ AR

    Spergy ASD

    Your social skills need work…autists may or may not be “spergy”…and calling someone on the spectrum “spergy” as an insult doesn’t enhance your value among men…it lowers your value.

    Just a thought.

  20. @Anonymous, don’t worry I am well aware of my weaknesses, hence I am working on them.

    However, just out of curiosity what are you trying to achieve by those shaming tactics? Do you get off on them, does it feel cathartic or is a way to deal with your own insecurities?

    I couldn’t really care less what you think, but it’s interesting how you are the one accusing someone to be ‘pompous’ but are the first one to hurl insults when you seem to be out of your depth intellectually.

  21. In the sexual market place men are considered less valuable than the men. Rollo once said women are natural plate theorists (platers). But every time I “ghost” plates and my spam box starts filling with messages like;
    “hey it is so and so…”
    “hey is it possible…”
    “please call me thank you…”
    “hellooo….”
    “stop acting as if we have never been together…”
    “you not responding to my texts…”
    then I start wondering whether the theory that men are disposable really holds water any more. I think feminism is slowly making women the disposable sex.

    1. @cheupez, the only intrinsic value men have for women is ego appeasement and affirmation.

      “hey it is so and so…”
      “hey is it possible…”
      “please call me thank you…”
      “hellooo….”
      “stop acting as if we have never been together…”
      “you not responding to my texts…”

      You aren’t valuable to her, you’re valuable to her need for ego affirmation. Alway consider women’s words through the lens of their solipsism.

  22. Funny that Anonymous Reader should mention acta non verba just as I’m forming a related thought here regarding action not words — also known as don’t talk about it, do it.

    What I want to do is run the NFL protest issue through a Rational Male lens, let’s see if I’ve learned anything from months of grueling Best Of study. (Full disclosure, I hate what they’re doing for other reasons, but let’s focus on issues of masculinity — and the NFL could be seen as a proxy for some of today’s male issues)

    To me action not words means do NOT get bogged down in lengthy discussion (especially with a woman) about feelings, speculation and hypotheticals. Don’t get baited into talking about “us” or “where are we going with this?” Don’t whine and complain if you want things changed, simply state specifics and lay out a plan. Or just change your own actions to influence others.

    My ears perked up and the mental connection was made when I heard some of the NFL knee-takers defiantly or defensively insist that “We’re men.” My point is that taking a knee, locking arms or whatever is not acta, it’s just pale and whiny verba. It’s like some OMG whining to the wife about “inequality” in his household. These players have the resources and the influence to actually do something constructive and tangible, rather than just talking about it. So I see what they’re doing as a poor demonstration of positive masculinity among other problems. In fact, taking a knee can be seen as a passive and submissive posture.

  23. obit – these guys live in a bubble, and though there is great variety in their backgrounds, likely from high school thru college and then the nfl they’ve a life in which their ball skills are exalted and honored to the point where our society looks to them as heroic; so of course let’s stick a mic under their concussed heads listen to their thoughts(?) on other topics unrelated to playing with a ball

    same shit with other entertainers, like actors and singer/dancers; who could be better to know political and social truths than some attention whoring fucktard who is really good at pretending to be someone else? or hey mr. singer/rapper, tell me your thoughts on the presidential candidates; just another symptom of the rot that signals our decline

    you know goddamn well if I were to show up talking shit about football and the nfl, etc. the first thing to happen would be someone asking me “what the fuck do you know about football?” and then I’d say something along the lines of “not a fucking bunch, but I’m *really* good at these other things totally unrelated to football”

    so fuck their dumbasses, if they want to be taken seriously as political advisors, they’ll have to fucking earn it just like I would or you would, no free passes from being good at something else; fucking sickening that I’m even spending the time to type this shit out and breathing life into this nonsense that should be DOA anyway

    I’m waiting for somebody to say shut the fuck up and just go play some entertaining ball; doesn’t seem to be a viable option, though

    but to your point obit, they’re no better than the sjws decrying everyone else’s choices/actions while simultaneously clearing their own accounts of any social debt, if there is such a thing

    they want the virtue w/out the work

  24. @palmasailor
    I think there is something else going on in the sexual market place. As women ride the CC, they are becoming increasingly aware of the perception men have of them as damaged goods. The other day I hooked up with a woman and I needed to get out some lube ready before action and she protested, “you do not even kiss me…” implying we should use play to get her juices flowing. I dont like getting too personal with cumbags since I know they have a cumulative mile and a half of dick up the hole. Where I come from, I know most men out there are of similar opinion about the women they are plating especially the college age girls. Feminism has made pussy commonplace.

  25. About the kneelers: It is depressing that men of a nation cant stand for their flag when their brothers have been getting wasted daily in Afghanistan, Iraq, and various other shitholes fighting behind it. People have many avenues for making a protest gesture: but sitting during YOUR OWN national anthem/flag is just lame.

  26. Re: football. I like y’all, but you are following the simple and stupid false narrative. Not ain’t about anything but the stated reason. You cannot simultaneously argue that free people MUST do anything that’s not codified in fucking law.

    All of the crazy emotionality is really fucked. As far as I know we have a constitution that says the govt can’t fuck with your speech – that especially includes the head of the govt calling for your dismissal from a private institution.

    This is not a dictatorship just yet.

    The protesters are ” fine people” lol at the fucking obviousness of the double standard.

  27. Cheupez you hit on my point — the kneeling IS just a gesture, like a pink Poosay hat. Sure they’re dissing the flag and letting down the country, but the point in TRM context is that they’re also letting down their fellow men by peacocking an empty gesture instead of taking some positive tangible action. Hell, they’ve got a five-month off-season, even longer if you’re on the Browns or Dolphins (And how’s that for working “peacocking” into a non-PUA context).

    In sharp contrast just recently we saw guys — men — on their little boats coming out to rescue hurricane victims. Even that Houston player (AJ Watt?) organized a huge donation effort.

  28. Please, don’t turn blue so fast. Stay red. Be informed. Hold your emotions in check.

    This countries founding started in protest. I’m sure the English sounded like many of the detractors sound today.

  29. I’m trying to say that the players have turned blue — complaining instead of acting, instead of actually organizing something to lead by example. The age-old debate is, Are sports stars role models? Take your pick, either side. But now you’ll see little kids taking a knee instead of studying

    Rollo has probably covered this topic: is being a role model part of being a man (in a public context, not just your own family or workplace)

  30. Obit, serious question, how much attention have you paid to this issue over the past 2 years?

    Your statement is showing the answer to be zero. So how are you forming these opinions? Based on what?

  31. Quite a bit; you can debate without implying I live in a vacuum. I’m probably more of a sports fan than most TRM readers. And the football protest movement started at my very own alma mater — hey, we were threatening to actually boycott a scheduled game, not just take a knee, a year before empty protests became de rigeur in the NFL! I also followed Ferguson pretty closely, which was where this stuff got much of its impetus.

    I’m only trying to look at all this in a TRM context. And to me it just looks like the players are unhaaaaaaapy.

  32. I don’t think most of the people that have such strong opinions even know why then kneeling and arm linking even happened yesterday.

    Why did billionaire NFL owners and players and front office personnel come down on the field in the first place? Why did Tom Brady, who said he doesn’t know what the original protests were even about, kneel yesterday IN UNISON with his team?

    And why did billionaires that are friends with and heavy contributes to our prez disagree with him so strongly? Peacocking?

    To me, this boils down to whether you support the constitutional rights of all American citizens, or do you want to dictate?

    This subject, like many others, is a lot like everything we discuss here at TRM, and that should make it more clear. Again, there’s more than one red pill. There’s more than one ” bitter truth “. There is more than one version of white knighting.

    But don’t worry about it. The current dialog will eveporate in a little while. It always, always does. And everything will return to ” normal “.

  33. @Blax, when I unplugged a few years back, another part of my unplugging was literally to unplug the fuckin television, sports included. I only watch the weather channel 5 minutes each day and that’s it.

    Anybody else experience this when they unplugged? No way would I wear a jersey with some other man’s name on it now. And now I don’t want to spend 4 hours sitting on my ass watching a game, even if that would allow bonding with my male friends. I consider “fandom” beta as fuck now.

  34. They’re locking arms because “team” is justifiably a powerful concept and because a lot of money and prestige is on the line for a league that has suddenly run into a lot of recent PR troubles after being on top of the entertainment heap. And I suppose it’s yet another tiresome pro-Trump/anti-Trump proxy issue

  35. blax – “You cannot simultaneously argue that free people MUST do anything that’s not codified in fucking law.” :: not sure if you’re saying anyone here is arguing that (cuz I can’t find anything after a re-read) or maybe those outside of this site; I’m guessing it’s the Trump part of the situation

    and in that case, I’d agree; all sides are looking for easy wins for virtue but actually *doing* something about it w/out all the accolades for the appearance of doing something isn’t getting much attention

    but why even listen to some fucking dipshit ball players over regular folks to begin with? their opinion is equally valid no doubt, but why as a society do these fuckers even matter beyond playing ball? people looking for moral and social issue guidance from them? holy shit, why?

    because it’s part of an even bigger game and I think that’s what obit might be getting at… how to dissect the situation to help peg it as to what this other RP is

  36. #sigh# okay I get it.

    Obit – trump inserted himself without provocation on Friday. This particular version of ” the knee ” was in direct response to our president calling on owners to FIRE players who kneel.

    No proxy needed.

    Red pill. It’s right there and not a mystery.

    And calling people son’s usually gets a response from men.bat least, that’s how it’s supposed to be in a non FI dominated world.

  37. newly, my screen-watching experience is now just whatever I can find online and actively wanting to see; not a total colonic, but far better than passively swallowing the boobtoob excretions

    I feel the same way about any sort of branding on my stuff…. clothes, cars, anything; I will not be a walking billboard unless I’ve worked out some sort of arrangement beforehand; I will not actively display any affiliations publicly

    these are cries for attention and attaboys for being in the right cliques; the herd needs validation for its actions because by definition, a member of the herd is not thinking for themselves

  38. Lol. I’d expect nothing less than a super high level of ignorance on the subject from you ASD. And you didn’t disappoint.

  39. Statistics are weak on the number of people shot by police. Three per day I’ve read, but who really knows since police depts. aren’t required to furnish statistics about that.

    Blacks are shot about 2.5 times the rate of whites. Blacks commit 50% of the murders and are much more likely to kill whites than whites are to kill blacks. But black murderers prefer to kill their own. And blacks are more likely than whites to be murder victims.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36826297

    Blacks kill many times more blacks than (black and white) police kill blacks.

    Taking the knee during the anthem was intended to cause controversy. Multi-millionaires taking the knee is sooooo virtuous, lol.

    Blax is doubling down on the purple-cough-blue-cough pill.

  40. Albert
    However, just out of curiosity what are you trying to achieve by those shaming tactics?

    What are you trying to achieve with your word salad besides trolling?

  41. When the Rosenbergs were accused of treason, did Jews arise and protest against their arrest? Did Jews in Hollywood agitate for their release? Hell, no! Jews wanted those scumbags executed.

    Some idiot with a long rap sheet goes barreling through town at high speeds and is chased by police and the idiot is a public menace and gets shot. Boo hoo. But then Black Lives Matter agitates and you get black NFL millionaires taking the knee. It’s all about agitation to raise funds for BLM.

    “Politically-correct virtue-whoring” is still spot on.

  42. By the way, I was alone in my family thinking that there wasn’t enough evidence to convict O.J. Simpson of murder. His flight to avoid arrest was quite reasonable if he thought he was being framed. And he wasn’t being a public menace barreling through town at high speed.

  43. fer chrissakes, asd and I in (near) alignment, crazy world lol

    all kinds of issues to pick from if they’re so goddamn concerned about society, but what got those nfl’ers fired up? the thought of them getting fired! lol

  44. O.B.I.T.
    What I want to do is run the NFL protest issue through a Rational Male lens,

    It’s all about emotions on the part of the NFL players, now we will see emotions on the other side. NFL viewers on cable are down year over year, we’ll see if this latest emotional situation drives them up or further down. Friends who still watch NFL are more frustrated by bad ref calls, PC advertisements, too many advertisements, dumb girls on the sideline trying to look smart, Pink month, etc. but they are now also unhappy with the players; “snowflakes” is a word I have heard. (Not my opinion, Blaximus, just sharing what I hear out here in flyover country. I don’t plan to roll around in this particular can of worms.)

    newlyaloof
    Anybody else experience this when they unplugged? No way would I wear a jersey with some other man’s name on it now. And now I don’t want to spend 4 hours sitting on my ass watching a game, even if that would allow bonding with my male friends. I consider “fandom” beta as fuck now.

    Yes. Me Too. I unplugged in the previous century. It took a while to get used to not getting some jokes in my social / work circle due to not having seen the latest episode of the hip-dramady-of-the-week. I’ll wear team colors to a college game in person, and that’s about it.

    Speaking of unplugged, now it’s time for kfg to tell us about his crank-generator-powered TV that he rarely watches.

  45. If black lives matter, why isn’t more being done to stop killings of blacks in urban areas…we all know that it’s gang related…why aren’t the black NFL millionaires taking the knee about urban violence? That might actually get them killed since gangs pay urban politicians for protection.

    No political advantage in doing that. It’s only politically correct to criticize the killings of blacks by cops.

  46. drzipper
    all kinds of issues to pick from if they’re so goddamn concerned about society, but what got those nfl’ers fired up?

    Trump AMOG’d them bigly, a major emotional spike resulted. Now some of the fans are burning their NFL stuff on camera, putting that up on YouTube – a different emotional spike. Who’s next? I don’t know.

    The “free speech” dog won’t hunt. NFL has fined players for wearing the wrong brand of headphones. Remember the 09/11 memorial cleats that players were forbidden to wear? Remember last year when Dallas players were prevented from memorializing the 4 Dallas cops who were murdered? NFL like any other company can put limits on employees “speech” when those employees are at work. For an NFL player, “on the field during the game” is “at work” just as much as any retail clerk at Best Buy or bartender at Hooters when they are on the job.

  47. How good/bad are these players who are ‘taking a stand’?

    Over here on the other side of the pond we have this

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/4481774/charlton-athletic-football-club-lgbt/

    Third rate football clubs ‘virtue signalling’. However, in this case it’s a conscious marketing decision as this club is in financial trouble

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2002/mar/28/broadcasting.clubsincrisis

    @Anonymous, I told you my reasoning. You are the one that is ascribing motif. However, you still haven’t answered my question, what does it feel like insulting people in the internet? Do you feel more manily? I am really curious

    @chepuaz

    “I think feminism is slowly making women the disposable sex”

    It’s poetic irony really, all those femnists cries for equality and wanting to be treated like a man, now that they have it… be careful what you wish for

  48. damn, asd beat me to it…. where’s that free speech when they want to wear nikes instead of adidas? or wear something on their jersey not officially sanctioned (bought and paid for)?

    they try to sell it as free speech ’cause being portrayed as the victim works better, the truth is a harder sell and why do that if there’s an easier, more effective way to get virtue cred?

  49. Albert
    @Anonymous, I told you my reasoning.

    Word salad is not reasoning. Turgid, poorly defined word salad is still not reasoning.
    Turgid, poorly defined word salad with SJW moronica like “climate denier” on top is still not reasoning. Logorrhea, even when full of polysyllables, isn’t reason.

    Stop horking up those hairballs of emotion if you are really trying to engage in dialectic.

    1. @Anonymous, ok I am starting to troll you a bit now. However, it is truly telling that you keep coming with the insults.

      I think you have more in common with SJW’s than you realise, I wasn’t the one who started to attack the person not the argument

  50. offtopic…. when I was living in SoCal many years ago, horking had a different meaning, more like gluttonous consumption, usually of weed; also a hyperbolic way of saying “don’t bogart that joint, fuckhead” or “you smoked the whole bongload, fuckhead”

  51. @Rollo psychologically that would make sense, as your first reaction when faced with conflicting evidence is to double down on your initial position.

    The ego tries to protect itself from facing traumatic harm. Now the more inteligent the person the better the rationalisation that can be concocted (it’s the juice, its the Nazis, it’s the chucks, it’s the SJW’s, its the feminists, [insert favourite other])

  52. @Anonymous Reader

    I have been seeing a lot of that Viktor Frankl fella thrown around. Will try to find the original book and read for myself, since recently I find myself wondering about “meaning” a lot.

    However, and regarding the concentration camp scene: as harsh as it might sound, I just can not understand this fear of death I see everywhere. Recently talking to a friend he confessed that he avoids large cities… for fear of terrorist attacks!! (and he is muscular and alpha-ish in the relationship game, so don’t picture him as a garden variety weakling).

    For a while now I have been seeing death as rather liberating, in the Shakespearean sense of ‘shuffling off this mortal coil’. I guess it has to do with prolongued lack of intimacy and the hardening of the soul that it implies, but still.

    Not so long ago it was normal for parents to lose a couple of children to some illness, and similar events. People carried on. Wars and the resulting carnage were expected as well. I think we are notably weaker in coping with such things today. Another meme that really amuses me is “life is short”… well it is not, it is rather long if you hit, say, 70. Youth might be short, but life sure as hell is not.

    I am afraid of a painful death, but not of death in itself.

    @cheupez

    I often agree with what you write, but one of your recent posts baffled me.

    I dont like getting too personal with cumbags since I know they have a cumulative mile and a half of dick up the hole

    If they disgust you so much, why do you sleep with them? I mean, to fuck somebody is getting as personal as it gets…

    I am fully aware of how messed up those women probably are, and how a LTR is out of the question, but you sound like those dudes who lust after sluts and then put them down… for being just like they want them to be!!

    I have learnt a lot from some of your posts so please don’t take this as a personal attack… I am just curious, because I have never understood that mindset.

  53. Rollo
    I find the more dogmatic a guy is in the ‘sphere the more likely he’s either a Purple Pill coach with revenue to lose, or he’s mixed his conviction into his RP mix.

    The whole “is” vs. “ought” issue is often an unexamined issue. I guess you could include it in the “mixed his conviction into his RP”. Some very stubbornly dogmatic men in the ‘sphere can’t get their mind around “is” vs. “ought’.

    Since RP / Glasses is properly a praxology there can’t be a whole lot of dogma beyond fundamentals such as “dogs are not cats”. But of course that ain’t gonna stop any given man on a day when he’s just totally certain that every other man is “doing it wrong” (Anonymous Age 65 on Spearhead a few years back).

  54. “When the Rosenbergs were accused of treason, did Jews arise and protest against their arrest? Did Jews in Hollywood agitate for their release? Hell, no! Jews wanted those scumbags executed.

    lol …………… l ol

  55. Oscar C.
    I have been seeing a lot of that Viktor Frankl fella thrown around. Will try to find the original book and read for myself, since recently I find myself wondering about “meaning” a lot.

    You should read it.

    However, and regarding the concentration camp scene: as harsh as it might sound, I just can not understand this fear of death I see everywhere. Recently talking to a friend he confessed that he avoids large cities… for fear of terrorist attacks!! (and he is muscular and alpha-ish in the relationship game, so don’t picture him as a garden variety weakling).

    Most people don’t really have any ability to accurately assess risk. Unplugging from mass media actually helps. The men in their 20’s that I encounter often have been so overprotected that they have no perspective on risk.

    Not so long ago it was normal for parents to lose a couple of children to some illness, and similar events. People carried on.

    Yes. In the 19th century families often kept a second list of not-so-favorite names to give to children born sickly. Nobody now can even imagine that.

    Wars and the resulting carnage were expected as well.

    History is full of that stuff. Just one example:

    You’re in Spain. Nobody now living can remember the 1930’s war except vaguely, but the books are in the libraries. Villages half leveled by one side, then the job finished by the other side.

    I read a book on the siege of the Alcazar a few years ago; it was a normal thing for anarchists and Communists to ride out from Madrid to spend a day shooting a rifle at the fort. Some of them got shot every time, it didn’t even slow down the rest. Just one example, there are a lot more.

    I think we are notably weaker in coping with such things today. Another meme that really amuses me is “life is short”… well it is not, it is rather long if you hit, say, 70. Youth might be short, but life sure as hell is not.

    I’ve seen men in their 20’s actually weeping over something a girl did to them. It’s not good. Sons of frivorce seem to either go hyper emotional in a feminine way or very locked up emotionally.

    Several men around here have praised the Roman Stoics.

  56. @Oscar

    Just like Victor Frankle’s Man’s search for meaning is founded upon the belief that it is the striving to find a meaning in one’s life that is the primary, most powerful motivating and driving force in humans, Ernest Becker’s The Denial of Death describes a primary powerful motivating driving force (and Major Buffer) is inventing systems to help deny human mortality.

    https://therationalmale.com/2016/01/18/a-teachable-moment/comment-page-6/#comment-137155

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Denial_of_Death

    The basic premise of The Denial of Death is that human civilization is ultimately an elaborate, symbolic defense mechanism against the knowledge of our mortality, which in turn acts as the emotional and intellectual response to our basic survival mechanism. Becker argues that a basic duality in human life exists between the physical world of objects and a symbolic world of human meaning. Thus, since humanity has a dualistic nature consisting of a physical self and a symbolic self, we are able to transcend the dilemma of mortality through heroism, by focusing our attention mainly on our symbolic selves. This symbolic self-focus takes the form of an individual’s “immortality project” (or “causa sui project”), which is essentially a symbolic belief-system that ensures oneself is believed superior to physical reality. By successfully living under the terms of the immortality project, people feel they can become heroic and, henceforth, part of something eternal; something that will never die as compared to their physical body. This, in turn, gives people the feeling that their lives have meaning, a purpose, and are significant in the grand scheme of things.

    Becker argues that the arbitrariness of human-invented immortality projects makes them naturally prone to conflict. When one immortality project conflicts with another, it is essentially an accusation of ‘wrongness of life’, and so sets the context for both aggressive and defensive behavior. Each party will want to prove its belief system is superior, a better way of life. Thus these immortality projects are considered a fundamental driver of human conflict, such as in wars, bigotry, genocide, and racism.

    You can see how this is playing out with SJW’s, current U.S.A politics and even the NFL controversy.

    In your admissions of “you not fearing death” may just be ennui, lack of affirmation and minor depression. In everyman’s search to get through constraint into freedom, death certainly feels like a viable option for that constraint. but that’s not really a masculine option very much, is it? (That is what war is all about, and what scoring a touchdown in football is all about.) When you are dead or injured, you don’t have to fight any more. And that is a release from constraint. But a non masculine one. The goal is to push through and win. Not to accept an easy way out.

  57. “To me, this boils down to whether you support the constitutional rights of all American citizens, or do you want to dictate”

    Blax you are cracking me up on this topic. As AR notes…. nfl players are paid by companies, called teams. And the shareholders and management can insist on a code of conduct as one of many conditions to get that chedda. There is a very different standard in the private workplace concerning free speech and expression.

    Want to test it? Start wearing a swastika button at work…

    Or have an NFL player start giving fashy salutes…

    See what happens.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/gettyimages-52055077.jpg

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/1788094/paolo-di-canio-axed-as-sky-italia-pundit-after-showing-a-tattoo-honouring-fascist-dictator-benito-mussolini-on-air/

  58. “now it’s time for kfg to tell us about his crank-generator-powered TV that he rarely watches.”

    The trick is to wrap a string around the crank, run it through a pulley, tie a brick to the end and toss it out the window.

    The TV, not the brick. A brick might be useful.

  59. and the string and pulley, don’t make us weight, what’s it for? let me tackle that one,….a-cord-ing to you, the string must help reel in the punch-line

    unless you’re just pulleying my leg

  60. Real quick then I’m gonna leave it all alone because this is a losing conversation. Logic, empathy and common sense just goes flying out of the window. Been that way all my life and will continue long after I’m dead, which is why I support protest in the first place.

    ASD last thing I’m going to say to you because your mind is set in granite and reason cannot penetrate it. You’re not alone though, so good for you.

    No empathy or understanding for fellow men. Fact proven by your comments.

    I regard you as such. Now, if I say to you that I have a problem with law enforcement killing unarmed black males with such regularity, I am addressing the ” state “. Why does that totally escape you? And millions of others? The State. Not gangs, the state.

    Why bring up the tired stats that have nothing to do with the subject? And then dive deeper into the off subject stats? What’s the purpose in that equation? The problem is murder of unarmed men by law enforcement. Not black on black crime. They are 2 different subjects. Cops aren’t supposed to act like murderers nor thugs. Thugs and killers do what they do. I’m offended as fuck when this shit keeps coming up totally dodging the issue at hand. Law enforcement killing unarmed men – that is the subject.

    Know what though? I’ll cut what I was going to explain to you short. It’s a huge waste of time and effort. You must he able to understand what’s being said but your biases won’t allow you to acknowledge it. So everything is moot.

    Your mindset is a big part of the problem. The good thing is that you won’t be around forever and you and people that do and think and obfuscate and justify state sanctioned murder will all go to dust. So keep quoting the off topic stats. You have nothing to worry about from the cops right? That is until you do. Canaries in a coalmine. You’re next.

    Enjoy your life.

    The men will deal with serious issues like men. Go dancing or some shit.

  61. @Dr. Zipper: ” . . . what’s it for?”

    Gravitational potential energy drive. A “grandfather clock” that generates electricity instead of telling time.

  62. You have the right to say whatever you want and deal with the consequences that come with it.

    If you walk around your job saying how much you hate it and tell the customers your boss is a bitch and should die in a ditch…. You have the right to say it and also deal with the consequence of likely being fired.

    If you walk down the street and see a guy who looks like hes going to kill someone and say Your a **** ****** *** ***** **** *** <-(obscene expletive gesture) and he pulls out a knife and guts you. You still have the right to say whatever you want.

  63. kfg – you’re not gonna sidestep my dorkiness that easily, what you’re referring to would be a ‘kinetic energy drive’ with the potential to generate humor; apparently that potential is yet to be realized

    I’m sure you know why

  64. @Sentient

    And the shareholders and management can insist on a code of conduct as one of many conditions to get that chedda.

    I have to disagree…management can ONLY go after employees who post harmful comments about the company. Anything else the company cannot control.

    /sarcasm off

    Blax is a hoot on this topic…it’s like he hasn’t read “Mau-mauing the flak catchers.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Chic_%26_Mau-Mauing_the_Flak_Catchers

    This is so obviously a shake down. BLM have learned from Sharpton and Jackson.

  65. May as well weigh in,likke DZ don’t care much for the entertainment industry as a whole,like Newly Tv has too many fem propaganda shows and nobody likes my comments it interrupts their entertainment,like Blax Trump is the pres of the free world and should give a shit about some chump ass ball players. The players are so far removed from reality they don’t have a clue the collateral damage they could cause. And bricks are quite useful.

    Albert you are unclear as to your stance and appear to be on a fishing expedition.

  66. Albert, I don’t agree with your take on JP’s asides. He is often using other’s insights to support his own opinion. I don’t see that as a logical fallacy.

    He has welcomed many to debate him. Few have taken him up on it. Because of this, we haven’t seen much of his debate skills yet.

    In a recent Rogan podcast with Weinstein, he acquitted himself quite well on defending his viewpoints on the links between religious texts, ancient yet resilient stories, and truth.

  67. @blax

    “The problem is murder of unarmed men by law enforcement. Not black on black crime. They are 2 different subjects. Cops aren’t supposed to act like murderers nor thugs.”

    Focusing on black on black crime is also an expression of emptahty. Focusing on the one issue does not mean that one condones the other issue. It’s a question of priorities. You are correct that cops arent supposed to act like ‘murdering thugs’, but the question is are they?

    Leave this this dynamic for a second and think of a companies priorities, should they focus on stopping people robbing the store or should they make sure that women aren’t harassed? (Like you say, two different issues) If you asked the women they tell that their personal safety is paramount (entitled low self responsibility indvidual who is on welfare). However, when you review the tapes you see that every day people rob from the store every hour (black on black crime), however, there is only one ‘harassment’ per week, and that was a drunk bitch spitting someone in the face (police brutality against blacks).

    Now the feminists will come and protest and say you need to focus more on harassment (BLM). What’s your reaction if you would run that store?

    The question here is not if racism is OK, but rather what size of a problem are we talking about? Is it systemic sexism (cops shooting blacks for fun) or is it some drunk guy not reading the cues right (indvidua l racist officer). Which of these it is matters greatly, if you want to have a disscusion about empathy.

    https://youtu.be/04IQ_PvSQ_Q

    This issue is contingent upon how you frame the situation, hence why I said morality and perception (an indviduals ‘truth’ is linked).

  68. @Albert

    “Focusing on black on black crime is also an expression of emptahty.”

    Nah, only if you show empathy in the politically-correct way is the emptyathy authentic. (misspelling intentional) And it’s ironic that I am called “myopic,” as if this is all about white people getting shot by cops. I couldn’t actually be objective and see what is actually going on. A shakedown.

  69. the entertainment industry is like that hot hb9+ chick strutting around like she’s just cured cancer and her shit don’t stink…. we’ve been bamboozled into thinking it exists for more than just the one thing it IS good for

    it’s put so high up on a fucking pedestal it blocks our vision and being so godly perfect it must have the easy answers we’ve been searching for; and as the new gospel sings us a lullaby we are distracted, placated and drained dry

  70. @Albert

    Black Lives Matter, but only if those lives lost can be converted to cold, hard cash and given to Black political organizations like BLM. If those black lives were taken by black thugs in gang wars, those lives don’t matter to such as Blax.

    I used to try to do shit with kids in the projects, but I was told to quit because the parents were afraid for me. I didn’t have the street smarts and it was a fool’s errand. I learned from the kids how the gangs recruited in the schools very aggressively and used coercion on kids to get them to join gangs. I used to worry about the kids from the projects I knew–that some day I’d read about them in the paper. The kids in the projects really get a shit sandwich.

    Don’t bother replying @Blax.

  71. @stuffinabox

    “Albert you are unclear as to your stance and appear to be on a fishing expedition.”

    I stated in the beginning, ‘proper communication is at the highest level of moral development’

    Now is the perception that I am engaging in ‘word salad’ contingent upon my inability to communicate, the inability to have a charitable interpretation or that what I am talking about is outside the experience sphere of the reader and we are talking past each other?

    How about it’s all of the above, so if I am fishing for anything it is how can I get best comunicate that reality is socially constructed AND at the same time as there is an obersavble reality that lays itself out in a predicatbel fashion. Both modernists and postmodernist have good points, but they usually talk past each other.

    @Markos

    I am not saying that most of his recursions don’t have merit. However it’s most clear when he speaks about postmodernism, how he finds it ‘morally reprehensible’ as ascribes malice to it. He will work himself up so emotionally and sometimes in that rightous mood his logical faculities are overidden by his emotions.

    Another good example is when he talks about marriage, his concept of ‘shakelling’ yourself togather is circular reasoning (why didn’t it work, you didn’t try hard enough). I am happy for him that his marriage works, but that’s him essenstalising his own position and rationales.

  72. Regarding cops, I would like to see all quotas end (arrest, tickets, fines, etc.)

    The very nature of the quota system turns cops into predators looking for crimes, and everyday civilians into prey. It is no surprise that the lower socioeconomic classes get slammed with it.

    Police should keep the peace, not be revenue producers. It is the root of corruption and a big reason the cops are rightfully despised in many instances.

    Regarding the shooting and killing of fleeing men… Sad/funny/tragic.. most police wear shoes that are hard to run in. My friends at work call them “shooting shoes.”

  73. @Albert

    “How about it’s all of the above, so if I am fishing for anything it is how can I get best comunicate that reality is socially constructed AND at the same time as there is an obersavble reality that lays itself out in a predicatbel fashion. Both modernists and postmodernist have good points, but they usually talk past each other.”

    How does this work? Morals are a social construction, social constructions attempt to alter reality and succeed though rarely in the way intended,possibly because they tend to disregard observable reality as too harsh. don’t know or care about the post or modern labels whatever people need to name shit to make sense I guess.

  74. There must be plenty of NFL players who would have credibility with cops and with residents of their cities. Why not spend some of that considerable charisma and off-season free time serving as a bridge — visiting jails, riding with the cops, speaking with community and youth groups, funding some get-together events …. oh God I’m drifting off just typing this kind of feelgood pablum, but the point is I would respect some actual genuine effort.

    My point in regard to the context of this website is that what the protesting players are doing instead is the whiny, bitchy beta approach. I don’t lose sleep over the NFL but the very concept of “football” is under attack as a vestige of toxic manhood — and I’m sorry to see the NFL helping dig its own grave

    Newlyaloof is right to say there are much better things to do than watch some game. But in this feminized society there are plenty of people who want to undermine the silly fun of pro sports and more importantly grassroots sports participation which is a lifeline to many young people. Because it’s too “dangerous” or “competitive” or just too masculine.

    I admit it, when I hear people here mention “game” I’m thinking Penguins-Flyers, not pulling hotties. But there’s a need for sports fans to see what the Female Imperative is up to.

  75. ASD

    I taught in some lower quartile middles schools in SF over a decade ago, so I hear you.

    We needed security at a public middle school. It’s remarkable.

    Sadly, at times gangs would surreptitiously recruit these 12/13 yo kids while they were out at recess, or in PE class. I lasted 4 years.

    Of note: when a big and strong black man who left the ‘hood returned to teach or counsel these kids, they were gold, and rightfully so.

    I wish all those great athletes kneeling seriously consider going into struggling school systems at the end of their playing days (if they have the skills and inclination) Their natural pull would be an immense boon for these kids.

  76. @Markos

    The first kids who became gang members were recruited in the projects, then those kids were used to recruit more kids. Gangs use a carrot/stick persuasive technique. The kids friends were gang members, so there was a social pull to join and a way to earn money, go to parties, and be cool. A gang is a fraternity/employer.

    If you don’t join, your friends ostracize you. Then they beat you up. Every. Fucking. Day.

  77. It is not surprising that Jordan Peterson understands Red Pill. But chooses otherwise.

    Or does he? He has agency. Just because he chooses, does not mean he is purple or blue pill. He is simply moving towards what exactly what he wants to do. And he doesn’t seem to be tilting his purpose and mission off-kilter. He is what he wants to be.

    I’m not evangelizing on a life-style. But I may be trying to say that it’s not a bad thing to do what you want to do and be who you are.

    https://youtu.be/br8KtroS-40

    https://youtu.be/EYR8R7lMUu0

    Heheh, your soul has to align with your mind. Radical honesty. Just do it.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: