Trump Wins the White House

I have been preoccupied with other matters for a while, and that probably won’t change in the immediate future, but I thought I would take a break from my recent absence to comment on the Trump victory. There is a lot of good feelz out there in reactionary circles about it, and I will admit the feeling is somewhat contagious. It is nice to finally win one after so long watching everything just get worse and worse with no apparent relief until the appearance of the Trump candidacy (and now future presidency). There is a hope that there is more to all this stuff we have been doing, and there seems to be a real possibility that there is more to living in the west than mere fatalism. Maybe we don’t just have to accept that the west is doomed.

Unfortunately, the above paragraph just about uses up my ration of optimism for this year. The truth of the matter is that Trump is not a reactionary, and there is no reason to think that he will go anywhere near far enough to correct the massive dysfunctions infecting our institutions and culture. Even if he does everything he has talked about, to the letter, most of us would agree enough still wouldn’t have been done. And I doubt he will go as far as he said he would on the campaign trail anyway, though I expect him to do something in that direction.  Let’s not forget that he will have career bureaucrats trying to block and ruin his every action even if he does try to do everything he said he would.

Our demographics are absolutely swelling with hostile minorities who falsely believe that white men are to blame for their own problems. Trump isn’t going to fix that distorted belief, and the problem is still getting worse. The distortion itself continues to become more extreme, and the number of minorities around who hold it increase at a high rate because of both immigration AND birthrates. Stopping immigration will not stop high birth rates. It will continue to get worse even if he halts all immigration the day he is inaugurated.

In addition, even if he is a natural alpha, to borrow red pill terminology, I don’t see any indication he will push for changes in law that restore more traditional family structures and end the tyranny of feminism. Such things don’t harm natural alphas much anyway. Feminists may have suffered a blow to morale, but that is temporary and ultimately meaningless. They will return with renewed and redoubled vigor, eventually.

For both of these tenuously allied groups, there is a future election waiting to be won. Especially since demographics are heavily in favor of minority factions. At that time, they will pick up right where Obama left off and make the spirit of a Hillary presidency a reality, just at a delayed date and with different names to attribute it to. This election has at best delayed the agenda of the far-left, if that. Some day they will come back and use the institution of democracy to further that agenda.

Hence we find our real enemy. The institution of democracy is what will be used to continue the dispossession of productive whites and traditional families. If not today, then in four years, or eight, or twelve. It doesn’t really matter exactly when, because the clock is ticking and it is only a matter of time. When, not if. There is going to come a point where European stock all over the world will have to accept that the number of warm bodies at the ballot box is an insufficient justification for rule. Otherwise, we will be destroyed by vindictive incompetents. We will have to stand up and yell: “I don’t care how many billions you number your horde, I will not be ruled by you and yours under any circumstance. I will not allow you to have any say over myself, my family, my people or my nation. Get out.”

Share Button

A particularly heinous crime, and how you can avoid a similar fate

Being a good Samaritan only makes sense in high trust societies. And the only societies capable of supporting that high level of trust are those composed primarily of ethnic Europeans. Asians may have this to some degree as well, although I don’t think they reach a level anywhere close to Europeans with the Japanese being a probable exception. What happens when a high-trust individual comes into contact with people who just shouldn’t be trusted?

There was a recent news report about two “teens” in North Carolina who got their vehicle stuck in ditch. A good Samaritan stopped to help them get it out. After the vehicle was extricated from the ditch, the “teens” proceeded to murder and rob him. This level of disgusting behavior is difficult to comprehend for the average European. It seems so… foreign to harm someone who went out of their way to help you.

As you have probably guessed, the “teens” were black males. Black males are notoriously prone to violent crime. 6-7% of the population in the US is composed of black males, yet they make up 50% or more of the perpetrators of violent crime, depending on the crime. In 85% of inter-racial violence between whites and blacks, the black is the aggressor. You can see a lot more details in the previous link. I also recommend this interview/discussion between Colin Flaherty (see also) and Stephen Molyneux.

Not every black person is a violent criminal and I am not trying to claim that. However, a much larger percentage of the black population is composed of violent criminals than any other racial group. So how should a rational person respond to this undeniable fact? I plan to have a more in depth post about stereotypes and statistical reasoning later, and will include a relevant excerpt from my book on stereotypes, but for now it will suffice to say that using stereotypes about blacks to avoid dangerous situations is justifiable. If you avoid a black stranger who happens to be decent and nice, there are no negative consequences of significance. If you give a black stranger the benefit of the doubt and are wrong you could be looking at a beating, a raping, a mugging or even death. Even if only 5-10% of blacks would do something like this, it really makes no sense to take the risk. Why chance it when there is no or very little benefit?

M&M

Avoiding even small risks is perfectly rational when there is no possible pay off. Avoiding relatively big risks like that of black crime is thus a no-brainer. Perhaps the best and most concise elaboration of this sentiment was in John Derbyshire’s The talk: the non-black version. In fact, Derbyshire even specifically advises against being the good Samaritan for blacks with vehicle issues on the side of the highway. Had the victim read and followed Derbyshire’s sensible advice, he would still be alive today:

(10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.

In order to have nice things like good Samaritans a normative commons must be created and maintained:

In a normative commons, each person who forgoes the opportunity of breaking the norm, then pays the cost of maintaining the norms. So, when one lives in a White area, common areas such as shops (markets) will likely be open for browsing, because the norm of behavior is to not steal. Each time a White goes into a store and does not steal, he pays the opportunity cost, equal to the value of the items not stolen. By paying this cost, the norm of keeping shopping areas open to browsing is maintained. Areas with large numbers of Blacks experience increased incidence of crime. In these areas, the risk to shop owners or other providers to allow Blacks free access exceeds the benefits of open browsing (with a main benefit being increased economic velocity). Thus you see convenience stores with no common area, that only sell what can be passed through a bullet-proof teller window. The commons has been destroyed.

Or perhaps someone will follow Blacks through a store to make sure they do not steal, while allowing Whites to browse freely, in this case the normative commons is extended to White co-ethnics, but not to Black co-ethnics. The Whites are the beneficiaries of this normative commons, because they (as a group) pay the opportunity cost of maintaining it…

Privilege is said to be unearned (though I doubt any form of privilege is really unearned). White privilege is not unearned. It is bought and paid for through the cost of maintaining the normative commons. To insist that the privileges accorded to Whites (who maintain the normative commons), be accorded to ethic groups who do not pay the cost of maintaining the commons is futile: market forces will ensure that the privilege is only accorded to those who pay for it. Call it racist if you want. It is simply the market at work.

If you want your society to have people willing to stop and help complete strangers, you have to forego killing them after they help you. I can’t believe this actually has to be explained, but real life events indicate that it does. At least for blacks and some other minorities. Actually, it is probably more the result of a biological tendency and no amount of explaining is likely to ever work. Only segregation or very intense, no-nonsense policing of problematic minorities could address this. The only long-term solution for a tendency for violent crime is regular executions for violent or otherwise egregious crime; although sterilizations could be considered equivalent. Over several generations this eugenic pressure could greatly reduce the frequency of genes leading to violent crime in any given population.

Ironically, avoiding blacks because of their tendency for violence is not just a sane policy for whites (and Asians, mestizos, Indians or anyone else), it is also a prudent policy for blacks themselves when dealing with other blacks they do not personally know and trust. You see, the good Samaritan in the above case was HIMSELF black. This was no instance of racial animus. It was purely the natural behavior of barely-human animals against one of their own co-ethnics. 90% of black murder victims are killed by other blacks. It turns outs the claim that the “The talk”  is not for blacks is actually quite the misnomer. No group could get more day to day use out of that advice than blacks themselves.

Garrett Chadwick

Garrett Chadwick

It also explains why blacks and (some) other minorities are always in such a rush to settle in majority white areas: justified fear of their own co-ethnics (that and taking advantage of white created social norms). Never mind that whites don’t want and shouldn’t have to deal with the dysfunction of other groups. Never mind that the normative commons whites created are quickly destroyed as an area stops being overwhelmingly white because other groups refuse to pay the opportunity costs necessary to maintain them. The immigration mindset is essentially a slash and burn technique: Move to a white area with high trust, strong co-operation and take advantage of the situation. Individual acts of defection can provide real rewards and largely go unnoticed while the population of defectors is small. Unfortunately, every member of the out-group wants a piece of the action and quickly overwhelm the culture. The commons are destroyed, whites try to literally or at least de facto escape parasites on their cultural institutions, then the process begins all over again with a new white area being invaded. This will continue until it is forcefully stopped, or there is nothing left to destroy.

Blacks may implicitly already understand that their co-ethnics aren’t as trustworthy as whites:

It is common knowledge that Black cab drivers will often drive past Blacks and pick up White passengers instead. This White privilege is accrued to the White ethnic group because the members of the group tend to forgo the opportunity to rob the Black cabbie. Black cabbies understand this and accord the privilege to the White ethnics who will maintain the normative commons. Blacks could earn this privilege by paying for it through maintaining the normative commons. Unfortunately for them, enough of them create the tragedy of the commons for their own co-ethnics by abusing their privilege and not forgoing the opportunity cost.

Now I have read the statistics, I have seen the many news reports (the last two years have been especially enlightening), and I have read or heard lots of anecdotes by other people. However, I have also experienced issues with aggressive and volatile blacks personally, and those experiences are easily the most memorable and substantial in my forming of opinions on this topic. There is nothing like a real risk of being the victim of a group attack by blacks to make a person see things more clearly. Years of progressive propaganda can be washed away in mere seconds, or for 10s of minutes if you are unlucky. Assuming you survive that is. The following are three personal examples copied from a comment I have made previously:

1) In the first instance, I was at University after graduation. I had three friends over celebrating the end of classes for the semester. It was a large party school and I was in a college apartment complex known for throwing parties. Though of course, there were only four of us and I wasn’t throwing a party. We had some music playing and my neighbors thought it was too loud. Hypocritically, they were always making huge amounts of noise themselves the entire year. They first started stomping on the floor, I turned down the music a little, but that wasn’t enough. 5 big black guys then came down and started beating on my door with a baseball bat. We had to call the police who I think ended up arresting one for an outstanding warrant. This sort of behavior was amazing to me. This is a college apartment complex in a party town. Some noise is to be expected at times. With only the 4 of us, we couldn’t have been making that much noise. They had never shown any consideration towards their neighbors about their noise level for the entire year they lived above me. One night on which I had an important test the next day, their washing machine broke and they scrapped the floor with a wet vac from 1-3am. I was super pissed, but I didn’t beat their door with a baseball bat.

2) In another instance I was with my roommate and we were going to the grocery store in his truck. He pulled into a parking spot and all of a sudden a black guy who was around a corner pulls behind us. Being around a corner before this, he was clearly not in a position to own the spot when my roommate pulled in. He got out and attempted to instigate a fight (first with my roommate who was a quiet guy, then me when I stepped in and told him he was out of line). He eventually left after I threatened to call the police.

3) I used to ride my bike and take the train to work. On the train, there is a slot for bikes on some of the cars. However, there is a seat under the rack which makes it unusable when someone is sitting in it. On previous occasions, I was told by police officers (at least twice) that I needed to use the bike rack and not use the aisle. If someone is sitting there I need to ask them to move to a different seat if any are available (there were plenty of other seats on this occasion, the train was maybe 50% occupied). Well, it happened to be this black girl and her girlfriend. I politely asked her to move and she did move to a seat about 2 feet distant (literally, it was hardly a move) but with a great deal of attitude. I explained that the police told me I have to do that. Undeterred, she started yelling/chimping out and wouldn’t stop for about 20 minutes. At first (2 minutes) I tried to engage reason, but when that failed (of course) I just ignored her. Most people would eventually give up when their “opponent” stopped participating. Not her. She kept yelling and yelling and talking shit. She wanted to instigate a fight (probably hoping that her “cousins” on the train would gang attack me if something actually happened). The conductor eventually called the police and they took us off at the next stop (thank god). I explained my story and they let me go. I don’t know what happened to the girl. I noped right out of there, but they were detained at least somewhat longer than I was. I am sure she is using that as an example of “white privilege” while conveniently ignoring her completely unjustified and egregiously obnoxious behavior.

And just to add to that, an acquaintance was recently assaulted by a black man while pumping gas for his vehicle. His great offense was mistakenly thinking the yelling and belligerent black was trying to talk to him, and thus asking him what he wanted. Fortunately, the black guy, who was probably on some drug, was pulled away by his friend before he landed more than one punch.  There is a reason race relations are deteriorating rapidly and it isn’t being caused by whitey.

Share Button

Smart and SeXy

Smart and SeXy: The Evolutionary origins and biological underpinnings of cognitive differences between the sexes

The soft cover edition is available here. If you are on a budget you can also download the E-book. You can read the amerika.org review here and the counter-currents review here.

This is probably the most heretical work I have ever or will ever put to writing personally, and probably one of the most heretical things from the perspective of progressives, feminists and any other member of the cathedral available anywhere. If you want a no-nonsense (i.e., no feminism) description of sex differences, then you will probably enjoy the information contained within. If you have questions about what exactly the gender differences in intelligence are, by what fairly exact biological mechanisms they come about, and what potential evolutionary narratives explain what we observe, then this is the book for you. After reading this book you will not only know the current patterns of sex differences in intelligence as shown by psychometric tests, but why and how the underlying biology explains the patterns we observe. At the heart of the differences is both genetic and hormonal elements which work in concert to generate what we see on an every day basis. It has taken years of work (since 2011) and hundreds of hours invested in reading hundreds of dry academic papers to compile the more than 300 sources included, but I did so you can have the evidence all in one place and explained in lay terms. And perhaps most importantly, to have the evidence for gender differences in intelligence without muddying the waters with the foul taint of feminism.

At the heart of The Red Pill and the Dark Enlightenment, when thinking about women, is a kernal which grows to support everything else; all the theory on game, marriage, etc. All higher level knowledge is dependent on it. The fundamental concept, or more accurately the anti-concept, is the rejection of Equality. Egalitarianism just isn’t so. Men and women aren’t equal and they aren’t the same. Knowing they are not equal allows correct understanding of the world and relationships from successful one night stands to successful marriages. The entirety of the manosphere and red pill are dependent on this insight. The Dark Enlightenment is also dependent on this insight, but they expand it to include not only sex differences but ethnic differences as well.

Having that level of dependence on that initial small kernal can present a problem when it isn’t sufficiently supported by evidence. Though there is this and that study which suggests in a minor way that gender equality is false, it is my view that such information as bolsters the rejection of egalitarianism when it comes to men and women is lacking sufficient centralization within the manosphere and neoreactionary community. There may be thousands of individual blog posts on the topic, but mostly each one only addresses a small part of the big picture and getting the entirety of the picture from these diffused writings can be more difficult than it needs to be. The known facts are sufficiently dispersed, unorganized, and lacking in coherence that it makes the kernal a source of vulnerability to criticism from the outside. It is, as it were, a chink in our armor that needs to be addressed.

You might think “there is plenty of evidence.” Sure, there is. But, in all honesty, do we (the community more than geneticists) REALLY understand the mechanism? How exactly, at the molecular level, does inequality between men and women come about? It is an important question, and until it is answered so rigorously and thoroughly that it can’t be denied this will always be a vulnerability in our position. This is why I wrote this book. It is meant to be the titanium plate to cover our chink in the armor. This book coheres the currently available data into a single place and a single narrative that is relatively easy to access and difficult to refute. Moreover, and unlike most feminist theories, it presents a testable hypothesis. The genetic explanation for sex differences in intelligence I propose is something that biologists and geneticists can design experiments to test in order to prove or disprove. By making this hypothesis known to the mainstream it forces scientists to directly test the hypothesis. At least that is my hope. Prior evidence suggests what the result of such testing will be.

Another point of this book is to attempt to put to rest once and for all the idea that disparities in achievement between men and women have a chiefly cultural origin; they don’t. The differences between men and women are almost exclusively due to biology. Once society accepts that women aren’t going to ever achieve at the same rate as men, we can stop wasting time and resources promoting women, via affirmative action, into positions and occupations they are not suited for; thus saving a lot of effort and wealth that is currently getting wasted. We might also be able to get the birthrate back up to a more stable level and thus avoid demographic problems.

Lastly, to a certain extent it is meant to be a handbook for those who might be faced with deliberation on the topic and who need to quickly reference one type of study or another to demonstrate biological reality. I have made herculean efforts to make this as readable as possible and I believe I have done a good job with this, but I have placed greater emphasis on including as much relevant information with proper citations to credible journals as possible. I wanted to give people knowledge of which studies they need to cite for their particular argument or discussion in one convenient and accessible place.

Who to thank?

I owe some twisted gratitude to progressive academics who through their push to shun and silence me in the name of political correctness gave me the motivation I needed to write this book contrary to their culturally Marxist fantasies. On multiple occasions I have been personally screwed over by people holding that ideology because I was so audacious as to merely mention I had read The Bell Curve and found the points within to be worth consideration. I didn’t even claim to agree with it, just that it is a hypothesis which needs to be taken seriously. That is, I was trying to be an objective biologist which is what scientists are supposed to do. What we are trained to do in fact. There were also several situations (probably more actually) where similar points, but about gender instead of race, met with pretty much the same result. Though it didn’t end up mattering very much, I was rejected from one graduate school because the chairman of the department found out I had a conversation with another professor about the bell curve (that professor actually brought the topic up!). That chairman then projected onto me an argument he had with his daughter’s teacher where apparently the teacher said or believed something sexist. The bell curve only briefly talks about gender differences (a couple pages out of 849)…  What the teacher actually did was never very clearly explained. This guy was mad, and it had absolutely nothing to do with anything I said to him, and I got a nice rejection because of it. So ya, I got really pissed, and not for the first or last time. A string of situations just like this created a great resentment within me, which I am sure is quite true of many other people given the swelling of the red pill, the dark enlightenment and other internet phenomena. These prig prog “scientists” were being complete a**%^$!s about hypotheses which cover perfectly valid scientific questions, and which as I show in the book have a great deal of empirical support. If it hadn’t been for my naive faith in actual objectivity in science, and the subsequent confrontation with the progressive faith that actually exists in science that resulted, I almost certainly never would have cared enough to do any of this work. I may never have cared enough to find neoreaction. Yet those things did happen, and now neoreaction, the alt-right and the red pill have something available that they can use against left-wing creationists, should they desire to use it.

Confrontations like these have made me, and many others, heavily motivated to discredit feminism because their beliefs don’t match the facts and they witch hunt anyone and everyone who points that out. The best way to do that is with hard data and if I didn’t do it, I feared nothing else so comprehensive would have come out for years. Or if it did, it would be hidden in esoteric academic texts in obscure journals and even then it would be dressed in evasive and overly-qualified language. In fact, I would argue that there has been more than enough data available to discredit feminism for a very long time but paywalls for publicly funded research (don’t get me started on that) and a wide dispersion of everything relevant with substantial credibility has made it difficult to pull everything together. There are many, many papers which touch on the subject but none that I have been able to locate that brings it all together. And they definitely don’t come close to calling out progressives. Most try to appease the leftist mobs. To do this right takes an outsider, and it takes someone with an audience. I have a marginal audience, but the biggest help with spreading the information lies with my ties to the other neoreactionaries who have a much larger following. Likely, it will spread to the manosphere blogs due to the porous nature of the divide between neoreaction and that community. Or not, only time will tell.

Blog vs. book

There are a number of bloggers who write for years then decide after the fact to convert their posts into a book. In my case, I actually went the other direction. I had already had this book in progress for several years prior to starting this blog in 2014. A number of posts on this blog (not all) were either direct offshoots from work on this project or were indirectly inspired by my work on the book and later integrated as they were highly relevant to points I was making. Some changed little, while others changed significantly in the move. For the most part, my posts are shortened versions of what appears in the book and have less evidence, citations, and topics as a result of needing to make them stand alone away from the rest of the text. However, the most important part of the book, in my mind, is the large numbers of studies collected together from a wide variety of fields and which constitute the evidence for the biological origins of sexual dimorphism in intelligence. This includes both IQ test studies and the impact of the genetics and hormones on the brain and intelligence. This evidence is exclusive to the book. If you would like a taste of the content of the book before deciding whether or not you want it, I recommend you take a look at the following posts:

Career women are dysgenic

How standardized testing undervalues men

stereotype threat and pseudo-scientists.

Share Button

Women’s Olympic Soccer Team loses 0-7 playing teenage boys 14 years old (or younger)

You can read about it here or here.

Honestly, I am not particularly surprised by this outcome. In my soon to be released book on intellectual differences between the sexes (Titled “Smart and Sexy“), I spent a short time evaluating past research on the differences in strength, endurance, and other physical aptitudes such as proneness to injury. Let’s just say that though the intellectual differences are there and substantial, they don’t come close to the physical differences. A lot, but not all, of this research I used in the book was performed by the military in the doomed desire to integrate women into the military. I think they stopped doing it as much, or at least stopped releasing it publicly, once it became clear that they weren’t getting the “right” answers.

I’ll only mention one of the studies here (a non-military one), but suffice it to say all the relevant research comes up with similar stuff. One interesting study was a comparison of hand-grip strength between normal males, normal females, and athletic trained “elite” females. The results of the study showed that the entire distributions of normal males and normal females barely overlapped at all. 90% of the male population was stronger than 95% of the female population. Below is a graph I made for the book that uses data from the study (There is a typo in this image file in the last sentence which is already fixed in the book. This graph doesn’t contain the elite females data set is all it is saying.):

male female grip strength graph

Elite females did better than normal females, but even then only their extreme outliers reached the 50th percentile of the normal male distribution:

men women elite women compare hand grip strength no textThe above pseudo-distributions are divided into population quartiles by the black horizontal lines. In other words, each horizontal zone covers 1/4 of the population. The shape was added just to look nicer for the book and show that it is indeed a distribution.

Elite, athletically trained males were not included at all. Honestly, I think the above provides all the information you really need to know. If elite females do that badly compared to normal males, you can just imagine what a comparison to elite males would show. I am not sure if the authors didn’t bother with this for the above reason, or if they did get the data and decided it would be a little too controversial for their taste.

So that is the kind of things the research tells us. Once that is established you can start considering the anecdotes as being normal or the rule rather than exceptions to be discounted. One of the examples I used in the book was that of the 200th ranked male tennis player who beat the top ranked Williams sisters, while smoking cigarettes and drinking beer right before the match and during the intermission. (Sorry to use a forum post, but that article was the funniest and appears to have been deleted from its original source. A quick google search can find better, and more boring, articles). Not to mention that the Williams sisters were black while Braasch, the male tennis player, was white. As black women, they almost certainly had more testosterone than women of other races but that wasn’t enough.

If this soccer match had happened before getting into the editing and formatting phase of publication I likely would have used it as well. It  is a better example. Males who had barely started puberty blowing out a top ranked adult women’s soccer team is a very difficult anecdote to ignore. 13 and 14 year old boys aren’t anywhere near reaching their physical prime, which won’t be until they reach around the age of 22 or so. We have every reason to believe these kids are going to get a lot better. Currently, Australia’s women’s soccer team is ranked 5th in the world, and is expected to be a serious contender for the gold medal at the next Olympics. Apparently it isn’t the first time this team has lost to boys much younger than themselves (see original links).

At first you might wonder why the people running all this, who are almost certainly progressive, are allowing such blatant proof of crimethink to go ahead. The simple answer is they have no choice. There are no women’s teams available who are at a high enough level to train with. If they want a chance of doing well at the Olympics they have to play against skilled opponents and the only ones available at a satisfactory level (not too high and not too low) are teams comprised of teenage boys. Though obviously even thirteen and fourteen year olds, properly trained and skilled, are more than a match for a top adult women’s team. Maybe they would have better luck if they played against ten year olds.

So what we have is a fair number of publicized examples of female physical inferiority in physical endeavors, not to mention common sense and experience, as well as a fair amount of research confirming that these anecdotes aren’t just stereotypes, misogyny, or whatever else. These are real differences. Yet we are still opening up combat positions for women in the military which will introduce unnecessary extra danger to everyone involved. Life threatening danger. The fact that this stuff is all out there and easily accessible, yet I find my opinion here to be in the minority, makes me wonder how the world has become as insane as it is. This isn’t rocket science, anyone can easily understand this merely from personal interaction. Yet you are going to lose your job if you mention it publicly under your real name. What the hell kind of world are we living in?

Share Button

A response to Duerte Harry

Recently Jim wrote about the future president of the Philippines, affectionately known as Duerte Harry because of a slight similarity of his last name to the first name in the movie dirty harry as well as his similar approach to crime as the title character. Namely that the only good crook is a dead one. Duerte Harry is heavily criticized by progressives enthralled to anarcho-tyranny because as Mayor of Davao he wasted no time with criminals, he just killed them.

As Mayor of Davao, [Duerte] has been accused of running vigilante death squads that have killed more than 1,000 people.

On the other hand, average law-abiding people obviously love him because his method is undeniably (and unsurprisingly) effective. A criminal can’t commit crimes when they are six feet under. Would-be criminals start to have enough fear to think twice. Therefore, once dangerous neighborhoods become safe for people of moderate means because everyone committing crimes is dead or in hiding, average people become happy. That kind of competent governance has led Duerte Harry to a landslide victory in the race for the presidency of the Philippines.

During his campaign he promised to end crime in the ENTIRE country within six months. If it were anyone else I would be skeptical, but he has a successful track record and enough right-wing death squads that he just might make this a reality. Here is a rundown of his campaign:

Philippine President-elect Rodrigo Duterte has vowed to end crime in his first six months in office through mass executions of convicts and eliminating police corruption… While on the campaign trail, the elderly politician enraged critics and hypnotized fans with promises to ignore human rights laws and solve crime by killing tens of thousands of convicts.

I must admit I am impressed. Part of his platform was willfully ignoring (progressive) human rights laws and a plurality of the country loved him for it. Can’t say I am all that surprised. If you have ever been in a bar that is mostly blue collar and talk about some crime or another, almost everyone will say that the S.O.B. who did it should just be killed and be done with it. This is probably true all over the world. If a person lives somewhere with a high crime rate especially, the idea of getting even with the thug who victimized them is probably high on their wish list. With a president like Duerte Harry, the dream just may come true. If the president kills tons of criminals, he just might get that specific criminal you would like to see get his karmic reward.

The only people who don’t think this way are typically rich liberals who can afford to isolate themselves from the trash. Rampant crime doesn’t bother them as much since they don’t have to live through it, and getting that smug feeling of self-righteousness is more important to them than the well-being of decent people unable to separate geographically from the trash.

Anyway, I would like to point out that Duerte Harry’s plan has plenty of advantages beyond just the immediate lowering of the crime rate. It is actually a profoundly eugenic policy. The personality that makes for a risk-taking criminal also often generates lust in many women. A criminal has high time preference and given his natural seductive talents, is likely to father multiple children by multiple women. And to become scarce when it is time to actually raise them. Do all criminals have this ability? Probably not, but criminals probably have a higher proportion of this ability than the average of the general population. By killing a criminal, you prevent him from reproducing ever again. You actually prevent any number of criminals from ever being born. Fantastic. You also can reduce the rate of single motherhood by removing bad choices from her vicinity, and reducing single motherhood has all sorts of positive benefits itself. Killing violent criminals is a likely reason why the west is (or was) relatively more civilized than other places. Our ancestors really liked their executions.

There is one last thing I would like to note about Jim’s post, and that is to confirm his appraisal of Duerte’s death squads compared to Western police forces. Basically he found that he felt perfectly safe around the death squads because they were highly disciplined and focused on actual criminals. In the West, on the other hand, decent, law-abiding citizens regularly find themselves fearful or wary of police even when they are quite certain they are doing nothing wrong. I have felt this way plenty of times and regularly avoid officers just in case they decide to harass me for the hell of it. I feel this way because it has happened on plenty of occasions. Especially in college, but after that as well.

For example, if you have a beer or two you have to think twice about walking out of your door. And I am not defending going out completely sloshed, I mean only a beer or two. A police officer is not unlikely to slap you with a 3-400 dollar fine even when you are just trying to go about your business. I remember one time in college I was going to a party and had not drank anything. At least not yet, and neither had my friends that were with me. As soon as I arrived officers quickly ran up to us gave all my friends and I tickets for drinking. We hadn’t had a single beer. They were in it merely to harass, annoy, and maybe get some easy income for the city. They were apparently upset that the people already in the house wouldn’t let them in, so they took it out on us. The whole situation was crap. Meanwhile, on the other side of the city you have a (minority) area overloaded with violent crime and hard drug use that never seemed to get any better . For some reason the police couldn’t do anything about that (anarchy), but they had plenty of time to pick on college students (tyranny). We were easy targets.

After college I spent about 2 years living, working, and traveling in south east Asia. I never once felt the same sort of dread at seeing a police officer in any of those countries. The simple matter was they weren’t going to bother you unless you were actually visibly doing something wrong, and they were very consistent about that. There is only one example of an exception to this rule and that is that sometimes you could get your scooter pulled over and they would check it for drugs, or they might come into a bar and check it for drugs. In the whole time I was there I only saw this happen twice, so about once per year, and only in extremely touristy areas. Outside of those areas it was unheard of and I never saw anyone harassed by police undeservedly. In fact, the only time I saw the police in action was when a homeless man set a truck on fire and he obviously had it coming. I personally never once had trouble with the police, even if I saw other people being checked.

Now, I won’t skip over the important specific example, because it was messed up, but you have to make a comparison to what might happen in the states under similar circumstances. However, I am not going to get too into the details. And the story is second-hand anyway since I wasn’t immediately around when it happened. Some people I had met and was hanging out with generally, if not at this exact moment, got arrested for smoking marijuana. The police forced them each to pay somewhere between 200-500 USD in bribes to get out of the ticket. One guy got really mouthy and they made him pay the bribe, then picked him up the next day and made him pay it twice. That ended his trip and he had to go back to his country of origin.

So they made them pay bribes, which is corruption and sucks right? Well, ya it does, but what would have happened if you were arrested in the US?  My brother has been arrested for smoking pot several times and I watched him go through all of the following types of BS at one point or another until he finally wizened up and quit. The fine you would pay would easily be 300-500 or more (sometimes they add a yearly payment on top of the initial fine that lasts several years), you would have to do between 20 and 100 hours or more of community service, you probably would have had to pay for some “drugs er bad M’kay” class which would waste a few hundred dollars and up to 20 hours of your time, and you would likely have a permanent mark on your record that would make securing future employment far more difficult. To avoid the permanent record, you could be put on probation for a year which requires regular visits to a government office for drug tests. Failing that and other harsh restrictions could lead to bigger fines or jail time. It could easily take years of annoyance to finally stop having to interact with the cursed legal bureaucracy. If you had gotten mouthy like the guy in the story (and apparently he was pretty bad according to his friends) you might expect to get tazed or even shot in the US. Now tell me, which of these things sounds worse to you? Paying a one-time fee and never having to look back, or years of wasted time, money, and hassle as well as bleaker employment options? The kind of crap they force people to go through over a relatively harmless plant is clearly an example of the tyranny part of anarcho-tyranny.

There is no contest. The one example of BS, which I never experienced personally and is honestly easily avoidable if you take simple precautions, actually has far preferable resolution conditions than the equivalent in the states. Not that I want to laud corruption, but if you are going to have it the system over there is superior. In SE Asia corruption is available to all. If you are of modest means and you get caught committing some minor infraction, such as smoking pot, you can pay a bribe just as easily as the wealthiest man in your city to avoid interaction with the legal system and any sort of permanent record. In most of the US this simply isn’t possible unless you are well-connected, and even when it is it is far more expensive. I would honestly argue that the corruption there is in many ways more fair to the middle class and lower than the rigid legalism of the US. It is certainly far easier to move on with your life after something minor happens.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I am not condoning drug use. A lot of drugs can cause a lot of harm if over-used. In the case of pot, however, its only real problem is that it makes people forgetful and lazy. That can be a problem yes, but not one I think the legal system needs to be involved in addressing. And even being involved it shouldn’t be more than a minor fine and that is it. Of course, it wouldn’t be the US if the state didn’t harass relatively decent people for the hell of it.

Share Button

Star Trek: Voyager’s anti-false rape allegation episode. No really.

[Image source, no affiliation with atavisionary.com]

[There will be spoilers, I will note where they start]

Star Trek has long been known to be thinly concealed propaganda for the left. In almost every episode (and movie) there is a “moral” of the story which (almost) always coincides with some popular leftist cause at the time. This harkens back to the original series such as in episode “Let that be your last battlefield” where the people from an alien species had a black colored half and a white colored half with two different races. Each race was basically the mirror image of the other, where one had black on the right side and the other had white on the right side and vice versa for the left side. This was obvious commentary on the contemporary civil rights movement with the (verifiably false) “moral” that we are all the same and differences between races are only skin deep. In the subsequent series this pattern of leftist hugboxyness only became more pronounced.

However, there are the occasional and sometimes hard to fathom exceptions. For example, Klingons transformed from a vaguely hispanic and relatively reasonable race (though also treacherous and full of guile) to a black race full of directly confrontational and violent barbarians. Perhaps this was some thinly veiled semitic racism? Could it be a result of greater interaction between the entertainment community and black musicians during the 70s and 80s between the end of the first series and the beginning of the movie franchise? One can only guess…

Of all the series, Star Trek: Voyager is known to be one of the worst offenders with their not so subtle promotion of left-wing values. The captain is a woman, the first officer is a native American, the chief engineer is a miscegenated half Klingon-half Human (played by a Hispanic woman), an Asian science officer (actually, that one is pretty legit), and the security chief is black. Quite the diversity utopia. There were only two white male main roles, and one of which was an unresponsible man-boy (Tom Paris). You can imagine what the plot lines were like in general. Voyoger was also really bad at using nonsensical technobabble.

So when I say that there was actually an episode which came out AGAINST false rape accusations I can understand why you would be incredulous. That sort of thing is incredibly out of character for Star Trek. However, the 1998 episode “Retrospect” does just that. I was a bit too young to retain an understanding of the contemporaneous cultural atmosphere of the time, but something tells me that false rape accusations were happening. Also, feminists might not have quite achieved the cultural hegemony necessary to prevent something like this from going through. Either that, or it was the writers choice to replace “rape” with “unwanted examinations” which allowed it to slip by the admittedly low-iq feminist commissars at the unofficial ministry of culture. [Spoiler alert, watch the episode now if you don’t want to see the plot first]

So let me give you a run-down of the plot. Voyager is at a trading planet looking to purchase better weapons since despite their 100% peaceful and reasonable intentions they always seem to piss off everyone they come into contact with. There is clearly something wrong with every other alien species in the galaxy. They enter into a trade negotiation with a merchant named Kovin. During the negotiation, Seven of Nine goes to Kovin’s workshop to look through some of his merchandise. Seven of Nine was basically the hot chic used as fan service for all the fat, lonely star trek nerds. The choice of her in the role of “non-consensual, physical examinee” really emphasizes the episode as a false rape allegation allegory. Anyway, while she is looking at a rifle, something overloads and she is hit by a gratuitous discharge. This causes some damage, but otherwise she is ok. Or so we think.

Later, after agreeing to purchase a new weapon for the ship, Kovin and Seven of Nine are working at a console in engineering and get into a bit of an argument about technobabble configurations. Kovin is a passionate guy so he moderately pushes seven out of the way to get to the console. She gets pissed and clocks him right in the nose. This leads to an investigation and the Doctor scans Seven to see if anything is amiss in her female borg brain. Unsurprisingly there is. As he is trying to perform the scans she starts p.m.s.-ing (anxiety attack) about medical procedures and makes the doctor let her up. He ends up having to sedate her to do the scans. It turns out that she had a neurotransmitter imbalance or some other nonsense which might “be a result of suppressed memories.”

The Doctor decides to take it upon himself to become a psychologist and do some sort of hypnotic regression therapy to see what these suppressed memories are. With the Doctor’s “help” Seven “discovers” that the incident in Kovin’s lab wasn’t an accident at all, but that he had intentionally shot her so that he could do invasive medical procedures to recover borg technology from Seven’s body in the hopes of creating new weapons to sell.  It seems that even in the 24th century, humans will still have yet to accept the fact that suppressed memories “uncovered” during therapy sessions are almost certainly crap. This alleged non-consensual and physically invasive examination was the clear stand in for rape.

With the help of the local authorities the Voyager crew begins an investigation into the incident. Kovin is understandably quite distressed and angrily professes his innocence. He also distrusts the objectivity of the crew, and explains how according to his local government’s policy or maybe just culture that even an allegation proven to be false could ruin a man. He frantically worried about his own life and livelihood being over. How no one would ever trust him again. Of course, the Voyager investigator promises him a fair shake at things. Since this is fantasy fiction, we can believe this promise.

Meanwhile, the Doctor spends time with Seven and asks her how she feels about the whole thing. At first she has no feelings at all, but then the doctor gives the following impassioned speech:

Doctor: How are you feeling?
SEVEN: I am undamaged.
Doctor: But how do you feel? Seven, your physical scars have healed, but the psychological effects are still there. You’ll have to deal with them.
SEVEN: For what purpose?
Doctor: In order to heal. Kovin attacked you, violated your rights as an individual. It’s important that you recognise that, so you can understand any hostility or resentment you might be feeling.
SEVEN: Resentment is a human trait. It has no structure, no function. I want no part of it.
Doctor: You’re going to have to begin accepting the fact that your human feelings exist, and that suppressing them can damage you.
SEVEN: If I am not aware of these feelings, how can I express them?
Doctor: Let me ask you this. What would have happened if Kovin had tried to take Borg technology directly from the Collective?
SEVEN: He would have been assimilated.
Doctor: Precisely. Which is why he chose you. He could get what he wanted without running any risks.
SEVEN: It was my individuality which made me vulnerable.
Doctor: Exactly. He violated that individuality. What he did is an affront to everything you are, Borg and Human.
SEVEN: It was the act of a coward.
Doctor: Yes! Someone who was willing to use you in the cruellest way so that he could create new weapons and sell them.
SEVEN: I believe I’m beginning to experience anger. Anger toward Kovin.
Doctor: Good. That’s a perfectly healthy, normal response. And when Kovin gets what he deserves, you’re going to feel much better.

So the Doctor takes a non-emotional Seven and convinces her to become an angry, accusatory bitch. And this after he helped her “find” these examination memories through psychoanalytical hypnotic regression. Replace “Doctor” with feminism and “seven” with the average woman and you have our culture writ large. How the hell did the commissars miss this thought-crime?

The rest of the crew continues the investigation in Kovin’s laboratory and come up with only circumstantial evidence. The only thing remotely supporting Seven’s story (or is it the Doctor’s?) is some borg nanobots which were still active when they shouldn’t be. (That part is just technobabble they made up for plot convenience, don’t think too hard about it.) The doctor then tells Kovin he must have done it because of this “evidence” which causes him to go insane, grab a gun, and try to escape in his ship.

While pursuing the ship, they do an additional test on Seven to see if the active nanobots which should have been inactive could have unexpectedly become active from an accidental discharge of the weapon in question. If so, then they would have literally no evidence to support Seven’s story. The test confirms that an accidental discharge could have led to the spurious state of the nanobots. Everyone at this point except Seven, who was still under the influence of the Doctor’s incompetence, accepts that whatever Seven was remembering it wasn’t something that happened with Kovin. Probably it was something she experienced or witnessed while still part of the borg because they do that kind of stuff all the time.

Voyager catches up to Kovin and Captain Janeway tries to explain that they made a mistake and that they know he is innocent. He doesn’t have to run. Kovin replies and says he thinks it is a trick and that they just want to capture him to put him through the wringer. He lashes out and starts firing on voyager. Voyager doesn’t return fire and tries to beam him off his ship, but can’t for technobabble reasons. Something overloads on his ship and boom, no more Kovin.

It is at this point where Janeway, Seven, and the Doctor all start to feel remorse for what happened. Thanks to their actions, they end up destroying an innocent man’s life. Fictional leftists are far more self-aware and reflecting than their real-life counter-parts. At the end the doctor (AKA feminism) describes himself like so:

“I became a self-righteous advocate and didn’t stop to think for one second that I might be wrong.”

Captain Janeway consoles him somewhat in this way:

“We all rallied around seven, doctor, myself included. I wanted her to know she was part of this family. That we would support her, fight for her, no matter what. We let our good intentions blind us.”

I honestly can’t think of another instance off the top of my head where a Star Trek episode tries to give a cautionary moral lesson about the leftist tendency to engage in manic episodes of moral self-rightiousness. In fact it is difficult to think of any episodes which are tacitly non-leftist. And it was in Voyager of all things. Quite extraordinary. For all the problems with the utopianism in Star Trek, you have to give credit where it is due. This was an exceptionally well done exploration of false allegations and the potentially lethal negative consequences they might have. It might even be worthwhile to show this episode to someone who can’t seem to “get it” that there are false rape accusations and that they are the epitomy of injustice. Given the leftist tendency for purely emotional thinking, the fact that they get to know the characters as people might help them learn something new through their thick skulls.

Ultimately, the take away is that the Doctor is the main villain here. If he hadn’t been such a self-righteous busy body, Seven would have never come to believe that she had been assaulted when she hadn’t. She also wouldn’t have progressed from believing in the assault to a start of anger with a desire for revenge. If the doctor hadn’t jumped the gun on what some piece of “evidence” actually indicated, Kovin wouldn’t have felt the need to run. A situation was created that didn’t need to exist, and was escalated far beyond reason thanks to the involvement of an ideologically rigid and corrupt third party. This is essentially how feminism behaves with respect to family law as well as rape. Domestic violence, divorce, alimony, child custody as well as other areas are all things that could be handled far more reasonably than they are now and the only reason they are not is because of the political involvement of feminism.

The part where Kovin goes belligerent as a result of the injustice of a false accusation is reminiscent of the relatively frequent lashing out by fathers forced through the family court system. I know it isn’t exactly the same thing, but it results from a similar sort of court bias which leads to excessive credulity of society and the courts with respect to false allegations. And honestly, I don’t even know if you could find any data about how common violent revenge is as a response to a false allegation of rape. This may or may not fit a similar pattern. Though all parts of the current family regime is problematic, the part of it which is closest to a false allegation of rape is false allegations of domestic violence. False allegations of domestic violence are commonly used by women in divorce and/or child custody battles against their husbands as a tactic to get favorable rulings. They are almost always believed no matter how baseless the accusation.

As far as I am aware, there aren’t any well put together studies on violence committed by men forced through the family court system, but legal professionals (judges and lawyers) seem to be aware of it and have wrote or talked with the media about it. One family court judge, who was shot in the chest with a sniper rifle an inch above his heart but survived wrote about the issue.

Eight years ago, while I stood in my chambers at the Family Court building in Reno, Nevada, a sniper shot me just above the heart from the upper level of a parking garage about 200 yards away. The shooter was a husband no longer content with battling his wife about assets and child custody in a divorce action. [talk about the mother of all understatements] I wasn’t his first target that morning. Before driving to the courthouse, he stabbed his wife to death at his suburban home during an exchange of their nine-year-old daughter.

Perpetrators of courthouse violence cannot be limited to one or more demographic profiles. They are mostly men, but of all ages, levels of educational attainment, employment histories, criminal histories, and experiences with substance abuse. They can be identified, not by their characteristics, but by their motivations… Two-thirds are motivated by a desire to take revenge. More than half of perpetrators seeking revenge intend to kill.

One-half of all court-related violence is family law related. It occurs in conjunction with cases involving divorce, alimony, child custody, child support, or domestic violence restraining orders.

Few judicial attackers suffer from mental illness. Nothing in the literature states or implies that perpetrators of court-targeted violence act under the influence of a mental imbalance or an irresistible impulse. They have not lost their free will or their ability to control their emotions. They act purposefully.

Forty years of record keeping show that the perpetrator is the person most likely to be killed in courthouse violence. Law enforcement officers are injured almost as often as perpetrators but are much less likely to be killed. Ex-wives and family members of the perpetrators make up the largest group of unarmed victims of courthouse violence, followed by members of the general public. Judges are not the most frequent victims of attack but, when they are, they are twice as likely to be killed as wounded. Court staff and judges’ families have also been victims, but with lesser frequency than these other categories of persons.

Courthouse violence also has a psychological cost. On May 5, 1992, during a divorce proceeding at the Clayton Courthouse near St. Louis, Missouri, a husband went on a shooting rampage. In less than 10 minutes, he killed his wife; shot his own lawyer and his wife’s lawyer; shot at, but missed, the judge; and wounded three other people who happened to be in the vicinity of the courtroom. A three-year longitudinal study was conducted of the consequences of the violence for courthouse staff, law enforcement personnel, attorneys, and others who were present during the attack. Two months after the incident, almost three-quarters were suffering a wide range of psychiatric symptoms including anxiety, difficulty concentrating, and substance abuse. Some continued to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder three years later. A study of the judges in my judicial district following my shooting found that my colleagues had responses that could potentially interfere with judicial functioning. Almost one-half expressed recognition that their fear of violence might affect their decision making. Courthouse violence causes continuing emotional effects and substance abuse. It can lower memory capacity, interrupt decision making, and increase stereotyping in decision makers.

So, unlike every other form of violent crime, attacks against family courts transcend race, economic status, educational attainment, and substance abuse (according to this judge, who presumably has enough credentials to be trustworthy). Now that is equality we can believe in. The only non-equal part of it is that it is almost always men, but that might have something to do with the overwhelming gynocentric bias of the family court system. Its funny that every time you read a lawyer’s take on this cultural phenomena they almost never ask whether or not there is something wrong with the system itself. Their main concern is how to conduct business as usual while reducing risk; so they typically just advocate for increased security. Can’t let this legal cash cow get away. They do admit that immediate concern for their own personal safety might prompt them to be less likely to dick over fathers, so there is that I guess. Completely unconsidered and selfish though that sentiment is.

Another article has some interesting quotes:

“There’s a saying that in criminal court, you have bad people at their best,” said Texas Supreme Court Judge Debra Lehrmann, who spent more than 20 years as a family court judge. “In family law, you get good people at their worst. In criminal court, dangerous people are in handcuffs. In family court, you don’t have any idea who is dangerous…”

“It’s not uncommon [to be threatened],” said Linda Lea Viken, a family law practitioner in Rapid City, S.D., and the president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. “I’ve talked to women lawyers who have had guns pulled on them. I’ve talked to a lot of lawyers who were threatened. It seems like everyone has a story.” Viken has had her mailbox smashed and a golf ball sent through her office window; she suspects that both incidents were instigated by estranged husbands of clients. The only time she felt truly frightened for her safety, however, was when a man against whom she had obtained a protection order for a client followed her home from her office one night two years ago.


Todd Scott, vice president of risk management and member services for Minnesota Lawyers Mutual Insurance Co., began looking in 2010 for safety advice that he could pass on to his attorney clients and was surprised to find few formal resources. “I would go to these attorney panels and seminars, and almost everywhere I spoke, there was a local story about someone getting attacked or killed, and family law is at the top of the list.”

England has similar problems. Though the mail goes out of its way to avoid mentioning that it is mostly fathers aggrieved by the injustice of the system doing most of this.

If you take responsible, reliable, law-abiding fathers and totally shit on them in family court by taking their children away, giving his children and most of his assets to a woman who hasn’t worked in 5 years, then force him to pay 50-70 or more percent of his income to her on a monthly basis, it shouldn’t surprise anyone if this once decent and economically productive man feels he has nothing left to live for and decides to take out every dirty S.O.B. who screwed him over.

Share Button

Schizophrenia Anecdote

Yesterday I published an article on dissidents. I meant to put this anecdote in there somewhere as a comparison, but forgot. Even if i had, though, I think it would be too much of a digression. Basically, at one point in the article I mention how dissidents can’t get along with each other that well. Derbyshire points this out as well:

At root this tendency is antisocial. Indeed, if you mix with dissidents much, you notice how fissiparous they are, how they can never agree among themselves about anything for very long. The dissident scene is full of petty animosities and slanders. I find dissidents to be individually admirable and attractive, but collectively hopeless. I’m glad to know they are there, though — that I’m not the only member of what my mother called “the awkward squad.”

What I didn’t mention so much is that it is true even when they mostly agree on the big picture. They are just generally disagreeable at all times, even about nonsense. At least some of them are. It is a spectrum, though, so your mileage may vary. This might be surprising, because you would think that if they mostly agreed they would get along. Personality can’t be turned off, however, and the minor crap is enough, sometimes, to push them apart. Though, to be fair, I have seen a lot of inter-personal drama between cliques of normies as well so I might be over-associating this tendency with dissidents compared to the general public. The difference is dissidents more often disagree about ideas whereas normies disagree about how improper it was to have sex with whom. Although, in the modern era, almost everyone has the latter problem.

Anyway, the fact that dissidents can’t get along despite agreeing with each other reminds me of a class on genetic causes of mental illness I took in college. (disclaimer: disagreeing with the consensus is not, in and of itself, a mental illness in any way) At one point we had to team up and choose a mental illness to investigate and do a report on it. Part of the research required meeting these people and talking to them. Being both curious and fearless, I thought meeting some real life schizophrenics might be interesting. A cultural experience if you will. When I suggested to the very petite Korean girl I was partnered with that we should do schizophrenia for our project, I was quite surprised she did not object. As I suspected, she was just ignorant (sheltered?) on how truly nutty (and potentially physically intimidating to a small girl) they would be. I made sure not to explain that beforehand. I really wanted to meet a schizophrenic after all and her safety wasn’t that much of a concern; mainly because I knew I could remove them if that became a problem. That and the fact I wouldn’t be legally blamed if I failed in ensuring her safety. As long as I gave it my utmost there would be no guilt on my part.

We went to a center filled with schizophrenics on the lower level, not even the hospitalized ones so they were more tame. I won’t go too deep into the details, but most people with mental illness are male. My book, Smart and SeXy, explains how the X chromosome is mostly responsible for that, but the mechanism isn’t too relevant for this post. The point is that a schizophrenia center is mostly guys who are so crazy they couldn’t get laid to save their lives even though like all guys they want to, and are so crazy they don’t respect social norms of conduct with women. She wasn’t physically touched as far as I am aware, but an unhealthy amount of interest in her was shown, plus a lot of weird ass gurgling and other weird sounds that only a nut would make.  If chaperones such as myself hadn’t been around to make sure nothing untoward happened who knows. 20 minutes of this was enough for her to cut involvement with interview part of the project and I had to finish it by myself. You don’t meet many highly motivated Koreans who won’t OCD complete their work, but I managed the right situation. To be fair, she pulled her weight quite reasonably on the other aspects of the project. But dealing directly with deranged, aggressive psychopaths is clearly the man’s job. That is just a fact of life and I have no complaints about it. A woman might be able to better sympathize or some other pyschobabble, but she better not go without two swole male orderlies to help her in the tight spots.

Anyway, during the interviews I noticed a lot of the schizophrenics did not get along with each other. Like at all. They easily put the dissidents to shame for anti-sociability. (Some of them made the most amazing artwork, however.) If you don’t really think about it, you might lazily conclude that putting all the crazy people together in the same place should be great for them. Lunatics are all lunatics, so their delusions should all fit in together comfortably. Not true. Crazy people are crazy for all sorts of different reasons. Things that makes one person crazy may be completely aggravating to another person who is crazy for completely different reasons.

After this experience I went and talked to the neuroscience professor about this. Given our knowledge of genius and insanity and the correlated heretability of both, it is no surprise (in hindsight) that this quite accomplished professor had a completely insane aunt that needed to be committed to an institution. In their family’s dealings with this aunt, they were initially surprised to learn she quite hated being locked up with a bunch of other insane people. (This shows that even the highly intelligent can be in error when their premises are faulty).  Her own insanity was not enough to stop her from noticing that the lunatics around her were also lunatics you didn’t want to deal with. When you think about it, it is quite apparently no surprise that no one wants to be around the insane, including the insane. But for some reason it was very easy, even for the highly intelligent and logical person like the professor, to figure they would just all get along. Similarity should make them get along. And that is the problem. From the outside, conflation of traits is easy. Especially if you don’t have the right terminology to distinguish the quite subtle differences of type, which we don’t. If you don’t take the time to understand that being a lunatic actually encompasses so many different types that there is radical differences in this sub-community, then it is easy to make the (in hindsight) quite easy logical error of classing them all together when in fact they are all drastically different. Or at least so problematic they can’t get along. The similarity we so easily and wrongly see is obviously an error, in retrospect. When you think about it.

Though I don’t think the dissident is insane,* I think we may be making the same sort of error we would easily and automatically make with the insane. The class of “dissident” may be such a diverse group that in fact they are not really a group at all. The dissidents themselves may be making this error themselves when they form an association. It seems to be an error the smart and logical are unaccountably susceptible to as much as anyone. Errors of the intelligent are always nice to know. I am contradicting what I said in the second paragraph of this essay here, just to make sure you notice. I am not saying this is more true than what I previously said, but I at least think it is a possibility. It may be that dissidents don’t get along for very fundamental reasons which have little or nothing to do with agreeableness. Mainly that each one is in fact unique. Their intrinsic uniqueness may make it so they are part of no group, even when they personally think they are. In which case the assumption of disagreeableness for the sake of disagreeableness may be in error. It might not be disagreeableness per se that is the problem, but an inherent uniqueness which prevents them from seeing eye to eye even with other unique individuals. Especially since there is no way to separate uniquenesses one from another without the proper language. It defies the definition of the word.

This seems plausible to me. If it can be true for the bottom end of the spectrum, why shouldn’t it be true for top end?

*I think most dissidents are autistic in some way. Specifically they had a lot of testosterone exposure in utero. I spend a lot of time in my book, “Smart and SeXy”, talking about this and how it comes about for biological reasons, but suffice it to say there is small difference between an engineer who invents the next greatest gadget and the autist who memorizes all the dialogue, complete scripts, from every cartoon since 1960. Yes, I know personally an autist who is that able at cartoon dialogue. He is certainly not sane by normal standards, but he knows way more than any of us in his domain. Autistic is definitely not schizophrenic, which is a completely different medical disorder; with completely different symptoms. However, autists can lead the “well socialized” to hold hostile a view of them through their, well, unsociability. Autism is a spectrum, and the best and brightest humans that have ever existed were on the high end of it. There are far more who didn’t reach those heights. But the contributions of the ones that reached the greatest heights are responsible for the relative pleasantness of our lives today, for good or ill.

Share Button