The Dove Sketches Beauty Scam
the only way to win is not to play"Dude, are you doing the Dove ad now? That was so April 15th...?" Yes, I realize I missed the meme train, but it's better to be right than part of the debate, especially when there is no debate, this is all a short con inside a 50+ year long con. Remember House Of Games? "It's called a confidence game. Why, because you give me your confidence? No: because I give you mine."
"What's with you and fin-de-Reagan David Mamet?" It's not my fault Dove cast Joe Mantegna as the sketch artist, and anyway if you want to understand the world today, you have to understand how the Dumbest Generation of Narcissists In The History Of The World was educated. See also: 9 1/2 Weeks.
Here's how you run a short con, pay attention:
Everyone likes to know the secrets of the game, and this scene certainly satisfies. Joe Mantagena shows a famous psychiatrist (played, tellingly, by David Mamet's future ex-wife) how a short con is done, how it's improvised, and he makes it look so easy. Really easy, except for the part where you have to connect with a perfect stranger and make them like you. Did you find yourself wondering if you had the skills to pull it off? Better watch it again, sucker.
Quick test for a con: what questions does it not occur to you to ask? While you were memorizing the language and the pacing of the scam, you didn't ask yourself, why didn't Mantegna take that guy's money at the end? Why did he let him off the hook? "He was just doing it as an example." Oh, like when a guy says he'll put in just the tip, "I want to see if it fits"? It's not like the psychiatrist doesn't know he's a thief-- that's why they were there in the first place. So he purposely didn't steal the money to make the psychiatrist feel at ease, feel closer to him. To earn her confidence by first giving her his. She's the mark. The aborted short con is part of an unseen long con.
But the genius of the scene is that while you, the viewer, are criticizing the stilted dialogue or the improbability of the success, "dude, that would never work in real life!" if you search your sclerotic heart you will find that you yourself felt good that Mantegna didn't take that guy's money, that he let him go. It endeared you to Joe, it made you feel more sympathetic to him, like he's an ethical thief, like he's Lawful Neutral. In other words, he's given you his confidence.... which means that the true mark is you.
Women are their own worst beauty critics.... At Dove, we are committed to creating a world where beauty is a source of confidence, not anxiety... That's why we decided to conduct a compelling social experiment that proves to women something very important: You are more beautiful than you think.
"Oh my God," you might say, "I know it's just an ad, but it's such a positive message."
If some street hustler challenges you to a game of three card monte you don't need to bother to play, just hand him the money, not because you're going to lose but because you owe him for the insight: he selected you. Whatever he saw in you everyone sees in you, from the dumb blonde at the bar to your elderly father you've dismissed as out of touch, the only person who doesn't see it is you, which is why you fell for it. Even mirrors fail you. Hence a sketch.
II.
The gimmick that propels the Dove ad is a comparison between subjectivity and objectivity, though in this case objectivity is defined as however well Mantegna can use a charcoal pencil. Why not just use a photograph?
Because when it comes to beauty, we all know photographs can be manipulated, especially in ads, especially by Dove. So the ad frees you from your cynicism and goes with a new standard of beauty, one that, like yoga or genetics, has been around for a long time AND you know very little about it; it hasn't been over-critiqued, you haven't watched it fail over and over, and thus seems pure, fantastical, true. The artist's sketch. How can anything this lovingly and precisely created not be the real thing? And nothing makes a middle aged neurotic happier than 45 minutes alone in a loft with a good looking man who requires no sexual contact and just wants to listen to you talk about yourself, unless he's also sketching you attentively in natural light. "Can I offer you a Pinot Grigio?" Slow down, Christian, you're making me woozy. There is not enough quantitative easing in the universe to prop up this fantasy, but at $3000000000000 you can't say America's not committed to the attempt.
The mistake in interpreting this ad is in assuming the ad is selling based on the women and their beauty. If that were true, it would be counterproductive: if they are naturally beautiful, if the problem is actually a psychological one, then they certainly don't need any beauty products. A beauty ad operates by creating a gap between you and an ideal: by creating an anxiety that can only be mitigated by the product. But this ad reduces anxiety and avoids cynicism. Therefore, it is not a beauty products ad. It is selling something else. This is why there aren't any products in the ad.
Dove is telling you you don't need to do anything to be beautiful, but it knows full well women must do something to themselves to feel good about themselves, and if they don't need makeup then at least a moisturizing soap. All Dove needs to solidify this is to be recognized as an authority on beauty-- real beauty, not fake, Photoshopped, eyeliner and pushup bras beauty.
It is the sketch artist who is the most important character in the ad, the ad is selling him. That's why he doesn't just draw the sketches, he sticks around to chaperone these women to self-awareness. By the way he is depicted you understand that he knows beauty, inner and outer; he is part father, part lover, expert in what makes a woman valuable. For you to accept him, he can't be married; but since in real life he is, they only show you the right hand-- the part of him that almost autonomously draws beauty. He is an authority on appearance, he is the "other omnipotent entity" that decides whether "you are beautiful."
The ad lets the women become beautiful without selling them anything. It lets them win. It lets them win. It endears them and you to Dove, it makes you feel more sympathetic to Dove, like it's an ethical beauty products company, like it's Lawful Neutral. It gave these women its confidence; it gave you, the viewer, its confidence.
And then-- spoiler alert-- it will screw you and take your money.
III.
That Dove wants you to think of it as the authority on beauty so it can sell you stuff makes sense, there's nothing underhanded about it and hardly worth the exposition. The question is, why do they think this will work? What do they know about us that makes them think we want an authority on beauty-- especially in an age where we loudly proclaim that we don't want an authority on beauty, we don't like authorities of any kind, we resist and resent being told what's beautiful (or good or moral or worthwhile) and what's not?
You may feel your brain start trying to piece this together, but you should stop, there's a twist: where did you see this ad? It wasn't during an episode of The Mentalist on the assumption that you're a 55 year old woman whose husband is "working late." In fact... it's not even playing anywhere. You didn't stumble on it, you were sent to it, it was sent to you-- it was selected for you to see. How did they know? Because if you're watching it, it's for you.
Here you have an ad that was released into the Matrix, it is not selling a product but its own authority, and it is not targeting a physical demo, age/race/class, it is targeting something else that operates not on demography but virality. Are you susceptible? So while you are sure you most certainly don't want an authority on beauty, the system decided that you, in fact, do very much want an authority on beauty. The question is, which of you is the rube?
"But I hated the ad!" Oh, I know, for all the middlebrow acceptable reasons you think you came up with yourself. Not relevant. The con artists at Dove didn't select these women to represent you because you are beautiful or ugly, any more than the street hustler selected you for your nice smile. They were selected because they represent a psychological type that transcends age/race/class, it is characterized by a kind of psychological laziness: on the one hand, they don't want to have to conform to society's impossible standards, but on the other hand they don't want the existential terror of NOT conforming to some kind of standard. They want an objective bar to be changed to fit them-- they want "some other omnipotent entity" to change it so that it remains both entirely valid yet still true for them, so that others have to accept it, and if you have no idea what I'm talking about look at your GPA: you know, and I know, that if college graded you based on the actual number of correct answers you generated, no curve, then you would have gotten an R. Somehow that R became an A. The question is, why bother? Why not either make grades rigorous and valid so we know exactly what they mean, or else do away with them entirely? Because in either case society and your head would implode from the existential vacuum. Instead, everyone has to get As AND the As have to be "valid" so you feel good enough to pay next year's tuition, unfortunately leaving employers with no other choice but to look for other more reliable proxies of learning like race, gender, and physical appearance. Oh. Did you assume employers would be more influenced by the fixed grades than their own personal prejudices? "Wait a second, I graduated 4.0 from State, and the guy you hired had a 3.2 from State-- the only reason you didn't hire me is because I'm a woman!" Ok, this is going to sound really, really weird: yeah. The part that's going to really have you scratching your head is why did either of you need college when the job only requires a 9th grade education?
Which is why those that yelled "Unilever owns Dove and Axe!" like it was an Alex Jones tweet, those who felt tricked/used/violated that Unilever has a sexist side to it, those who thought the ad was hypocritical or "anti-feminist" are still being duped, detecting hypocrisy is 100% the play of the rube, go ahead and yell indignantly as you continue to be fleeced. Figuring out the short con is part of the long con, see also House Of Games, for a non-spoiler example if the street hustler is shifting the cards and you think you're able to follow them, then you're still going to lose AND your pocket is being picked. "Can't bluff someone who isn't paying attention," Mantegna told the shrink helpfully-- he's telling her the scam, no, she didn't listen either. So let's go to the places where people pay attention, go to the "intelligent" media outlets where all the suckers hang out, and observe the most common criticism about this Dove ad: it has no black women in it. Never mind it does, that's a very telling criticism: why would you want black women in it? It's not the Senate, it's an ad, no, don't you hang up on me, why do you want blacks in the ad? Because it would represent the diversity of beauty? Because without them, it sends black women the wrong message about society's standards? Your answer is irrelevant, the important part is that whatever your answer, it is founded on the assumption that ads have the authority to set standards. Which is why, in your broken brain, the reflex is to complain about the contents of the ad, not assert the insignificance of ads. The con worked. Of course it worked: they selected you.
"Well, not authority-- power. You can't deny their power is massive, but of course I'm not a stupid, I don't think it's legitimate." I'm sorry, no, you are stupid. You'll let it have power over you in exchange for the right to brag that you know its not legitimate.
This is the same problem with people who want to ban Photoshopping in magazines or want bigger women to be featured in ads. You all have the internet, right? It seems crazy to worry about how beauty is portrayed on TV and ads when there are blonde billions (rated on a scale of one to ten) getting double penetrated literally underneath your gmail window, but that obsessive worry about what's on TV or what's in an ad is completely predicated on the assumption that the ad, the media, has all the power to decide what's desirable. And therefore, of course, it does. But the important point is not that you believe this to be true, the point is that you want this to be true. You want it to be true that advertising sets the standard of beauty because in the insane calculus of your psychology you have a better chance of changing Dove than you have of changing yourself, turns out that's true as well.
Dove, et al sympathize with your powerlessness, so since you can't get anywhere near those impossible standards, ads give you a chance of making some kind of progress: a little moisturizing soap and a positive message and maybe you get closer to the aspirational images of the women in the ad. "Those women are aspirational?" Of course: they're happy, Dad told them they're good. It feels like improvement, it feels like change, and I hope by now you understand it's only a defense against change.
The obvious retort is that ads are everywhere, you can't ignore them. But there are rats in the ceiling of your favorite restaurant, and you ignore them no problem, you don't even look up. That's the real Matrix you make for yourself continuously, in analog, not digital-- overestimate this, disavow that, a constant transduction of reality into a safe hue of green, until by the time you get to bed you're physically exhausted but your brain can't downshift. "I have insomnia." Time for a Xanax. Yes, it's Blue.
"Everybody gets something out of every transaction," said Joe, explaining why people want to be conned. That's what ads do for you. They'll let you complain that they are telling you what to want, as long as you let them tell you how to want.
"Shouldn't my parents have taught me how to want, instead of yelling at me about what to want?" You'd think that, let's check in: have you shown this ad to your 14 year old daughter yet? Oh, you sent it to her on Facebook, that was helpful. What did you tell her about the ad? "Well, even though it's an ad and they're trying to sell you Dove soap, there's a positive message in it." No other ways to deliver positive messages? "Well, the ad is really well made, and it communicates the message more powerfully than I ever could." But if the medium is the message, shouldn't you NOT show her this ad?
David Mamet has some excellent insights, but for practice what you preach wisdom you have to defer to a Wachowski sister: stop letting the Matrix tell you who you are.
IV
Did the way the sketching sessions were conducted remind you of anything? The women aren't in yoga casual, no one's wearing sneakers-- they got a little dressed up for the appointment. Observe the way they talk about themselves, trying to find just the right words because, you know, their inner experience is very complicated; and the unfinished, hesitating haste with which they take their handbags and walk out at the end leaving the artist behind. The loft is certainly an inviting, comfortable setting, warm and safe, but it doesn't belong to them. They know they are merely visitors in a shared space. That setting is exactly like therapy.
You may think this is merely my (a psychiatrist's/House Of Games viewer's) biased perception of this, except that a) they're in San Francisco, where the main output is crematorium roast coffee and cash-only psychiatry, and b):
My father was emotionally very distant-- and so was my mom. And I didn't get the emotional comfort I needed...
It's been really clear to me over my life that I've made really bad choices, and that's a reflection of my self esteem. I chose the wrong jobs, the wrong husbands...
I use a toolbox of things I tell myself.... whenever I hear negative thoughts about myself, I remind myself I have to use what's inside me, my authentic self, to feel good about how I am.
This isn't every woman I've ever been stuck next to on the A train who spotted me with a psych journal or a flask, this monologue is in the ad. Let's find out why: anybody watching this ad in therapy? Anybody watching this ad ever fantasize about what it would be like being in therapy? What a coincidence.
This woman is roots deep in therapy, she thinks about herself in the language of "insight oriented therapy," how has this strategy worked out for her?
Yikes, an Oscar Wilde novel. But the thing to notice here is not that this thinking has failed but that this thinking has BOTH failed AND she thinks it has worked amazingly well for everything else EXCEPT her perception of her physical appearance, her self-esteem; only in that one single area does she "have more work to do on myself." If you ask her about her capacity for empathy or her social/political beliefs or her "values"-- those aren't evolving, those are evolved, they are unassailable. "I have a lot of love to give." How do you know?
I'm not picking on her, any woman who has to raise two kids on her own or with a husband has my unconditional support, but truth hurts, that's how you know it's true. The confidence with which she knows how her perception of self-esteem affects everything in life, "it couldn't be more crucial" is not an insight, it is not wisdom gained from years of therapy: she has been conned, it is society's long con so her pocket can be picked.
The ad's association to therapy here was probably not planned but it was inevitable, just as Mantegna selecting a psychiatrist and not an engineer or a cook or a stripper as the mark in House Of Games was inevitable. It is the only system of rules based on self-deception, it encourages the illusion of "self" separate from behavior. And as long as psychiatry uncritically elevates identity over behavior, it makes it-- not the patients, it-- an easy mark for con men with their own agenda: SSI, the justice system, gun control, schools, whatever. "It's called a confidence game. Why, because you give me your confidence? No: because I give you mine." Take a minute, think it through.
Self esteem is sold to you as an inalienable right, not something to be earned; and if you don't have self-esteem it's because fake society made you feel bad about yourself. But fake society also made you feel good about yourself, it propped you up. The reason you got an A and not an R and believed it is because you actually believe you are an A kind of guy, Math, English, History, Science, PE, and Lunch notwithstanding. A, not R. But if everyone deserves it, it has no value. Which is why getting it is unsatisfying.
Self-esteem is relative, advertising knows this, which is why it operates on comparisons between you and the aspirational people in the ad that seem better because they own the product. The Dove ad dispenses with the aspirational people and actually compares you to you. But that's not you, it's aspirational you, "wouldn't it be great if people saw me in an idealized, sketchy kind of way?" But even as it does this, it pretends self-esteem is innate.
One of the great insights of psychoanalysis is that you never really want an object, you only want the wanting, which means the solution is to set your sights on an impossible ideal and work hard to reach it. You won't. That's not just okay, that's the point. It's ok if you fantasize about knowing kung fu if you then try to actually learn kung fu, eventually you will understand you can never really know kung fu, and then you will die. And it will have been worth it.
You can't see it, but since this is America, the problem here is debt. Not credit card debt, though I suspect that's substantial too, but self-esteem debt. They're borrowing against their future accomplishments to feel good about themselves today, hoping they'll be able to pay it back. Melinda's 26, at that age some self-esteem debt is reasonable as long as you use it to hustle. But what happens if you overspend now and can't pay it back by the time you're 40? Look above. Time for therapy or a moisturizing soap. There's not enough quantitative easing in the universe to prop up this fantasy, but you can't say America's not committed to the attempt.
http://twitter.com/thelastpsych
Luxury Branding The Future Leaders Of The World
Digg | 
del.icio.us | 
StumbleUpon | 
Reddit | 
Yahoo! | 
My favourites
May 8, 2013 12:48 PM | Posted by : | Reply
My God, you have laid so many cards on the table this time I'm fearing this might be your last post :'(
Score: 61 (79 votes cast)
May 8, 2013 1:30 PM | Posted by : | Reply
A few of your posts have shown up as links in other blogs with some people (maybe it was just one person) claiming to know your identity. The more I read from your archives, the more I see this as therapy for yourself (often for myself as well). I see this sometimes in stand up comedy performances and am currently weighing the effectiveness of anonymity in the whole exchange. Regardless of your desires or your intentions, I am still uncertain about if I would want to know who you are if your identity came forward. It would change everything.
Score: -14 (72 votes cast)
May 8, 2013 1:39 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The moment I saw this ad - on Facebook of course - I hoped you'd cover it. Thanks for the post.
Score: 37 (39 votes cast)
May 8, 2013 1:53 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"If you're watching it, it's for you."
Now I'm wondering what it means that I watched the ad to find out what your post was about.
Score: 115 (121 votes cast)
May 8, 2013 1:54 PM | Posted by : | Reply
What gets me about this ad is that no one understands why the women basically described themselves as trolls and the women they were talking to as goddesses. They're being filmed. They know it, and they know it's being put up somewhere. They don't want to be seen as having an over-inflated ego - they know exactly how it's going to look to the watcher if they describe themselves as more beautiful than they are. They have to have had an idea of what the guy is doing, which means they're going to know there's going to be a sketch hanging next to their real face. Wouldn't you want to look nicer than the sketch?
As for the women they're describing. When a stranger asks you what you think of their hair, have you ever said, "I hate it"? Again, they know that someone is sketching. They describe the other woman in the prettiest terms they can.
This isn't a deep look into their feelings about their actual looks, it's an exercise in self-marketing and politesse.
Score: 246 (262 votes cast)
May 8, 2013 2:09 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Ethical thief is Chaotic Good. Lawful Neutral never cheats, never lies, never break rules, even if it may hurt someone. Lawful Neutral cares more about Law than anything.
Score: 102 (112 votes cast)
May 8, 2013 2:11 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I've always thought it was self-therapy too, based on the German at the top
Score: 12 (16 votes cast)
May 8, 2013 2:17 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Definitely a recovering narcissist at the very least. Takes on to know one.
Score: 3 (23 votes cast)
May 8, 2013 2:33 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Who needs therapy when we have this blog? Thanks
Score: 13 (29 votes cast)
May 8, 2013 3:03 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Anything to say about the Men's ad? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8Jiwo3u6Vo
Score: 23 (25 votes cast)
May 8, 2013 3:09 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
(This ad has a parody goldmine hidden within it somewhere.)
Score: 21 (23 votes cast)
May 8, 2013 3:49 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It's remarkable that a pirate like Alone seem to be concerned over peoples freedom. It is a major theme on this blog to support peoples awareness of their veils, and of that we have a daddy.
The artist lend credibility to the ad. At least I did think art - > art is about truth -> ad is honest, good. We are reminded how different perceptions may be, a common example is a girl/woman underestimating their attractiveness. It says that there is no standard for beauty, and it is set by Dove.
I liked how you connect the story at the end to identification over behavior and culture/therapy. The emphasizes on "use whats inside me" sounded new-age'ish
Score: -14 (30 votes cast)
May 8, 2013 4:38 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
OK, but the entire D&D paradigm is completely retarded because in reality law is good and chaos is bad, no exceptions.
Score: -92 (108 votes cast)
May 8, 2013 4:50 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Completely off-topic, but I was wondering when you will write about the increase in suicide rates amongst the Baby Boomer population, especially with the increased use of hanging as the method of suicide. Does narcissism have anything to do with this?
Score: 27 (35 votes cast)
May 8, 2013 5:06 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Can someone explain the concept of "self-esteem debt"? Is it that people are getting self-esteem from society instead of their own actions? If that's the case, then why describe it as debt?
Debt implies that we have to pay it back somehow. What is it that we have to pay back when it comes to self-esteem?
Score: 23 (31 votes cast)
May 8, 2013 5:20 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Initial runs of the ad ran along the lines of "Honey, does this make me look fat," but they introduced the illustration concept in order to make the sleight of hand less obvious.
Score: 18 (20 votes cast)
May 8, 2013 5:25 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Speculating here, but I think the concept is that in the absence of worthy present behaviors (e.g. a good job, a satisfying love life), in order to buttress one's self esteem one must appeal to one's innate worthiness, which I assume draws from one's "potential" or "future worthiness." If we don't refill the reservoir with actual worthy behaviors, we'll eventually run out of potential against which to draw self esteem?
Score: 102 (104 votes cast)
May 8, 2013 6:21 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I guess a couple things I'm still confused about...
So I understand how there's this desire for an external authority of one's identity, but one which shifts according to how you'd like to see yourself - it adjusts to help you avoid change.
What I don't get is how the stuff about people rejecting the ad feeds this? Why are people criticising it, for a lack of diversity or whatever, guilty of some evasion of reality, trying to preserve the ego?
Also, how does any of this sell soap in the end? Is it a positive association? It's all very clever, if all of this is what Dove really intended with their adverts (working in advertising myself I can promise you I've never heard anyone say anything like what you say above as their explicit intention behind a campaign), but how does it wind up making people but soap? Is it that it aids in entrenching the "I don't need to change, I just need... I just need...." Mentality, which puts people in a consuming mindset (though not necessarily a consuming-Dove mindset)?
Score: 18 (24 votes cast)
May 8, 2013 7:37 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
working in advertising myself I can promise you I've never heard anyone say anything like what you say above as their explicit intention behind a campaign
of course, even if they only had 1/10000000th of this (self) awareness, they wouldn't even be working there.
Score: 38 (48 votes cast)
May 8, 2013 7:42 PM | Posted by : | Reply
When I read this blog, I feel like a three-dimensional creature visiting the realm of the Great Old Ones, beings who exist in ten dimensions of bleakness that I can't even conceive of.
Anyway, thanks for writing the blog that helped me figure out my problems do not stem from mental illness, but rather from terminal self-absorption. Question: now that I've applied to help out at the local senior care group, where I will be hanging out with lonely seniors and helping them run errands, will being around my narcissistic self merely make them even more depressed and long to die?
Score: 52 (62 votes cast)
May 8, 2013 7:59 PM | Posted by : | Reply
This blog gets painfully meta at times. Not in the way that you deconstruct a video in a way that is pleasing to people versed in deconstruction (people desiring therapy or having liberal-arts education), but in that statements you make which plainly refer to yourself and the blog.
The most obvious is "if you're reading it its written for you."
"It's called a confidence game. Why, because you give me your confidence? No: because I give you mine."
"Dove is telling you you don't need to do anything to be beautiful, but it knows full well women must do something to themselves to feel good about themselves, and if they don't need makeup then at least a moisturizing soap. All Dove needs to solidify this is to be recognized as an authority on beauty-- real beauty, not fake, Photoshopped, eyeliner and pushup bras beauty."
These are all statements true about the blog. You are Dove. We are marks.
"The ad lets the women become beautiful without selling them anything. It lets them win. It lets them win. It endears them and you to Dove, it makes you feel more sympathetic to Dove, like it's an ethical beauty products company, like it's Lawful Neutral. It gave these women its confidence; it gave you, the viewer, its confidence.
And then-- spoiler alert-- it will screw you and take your money."
That last part is one area I watch avidly. How, other than the irritating ads, do you monetize this following? I trust you're at the experimental phase where ideas are being tested. Slowly.
Anyway, I'm just adding your veneer of mysticism by pointing this out. But I'm getting something out of the transaction. More importantly, my reader has the potential to get something too.
Score: 70 (94 votes cast)
May 8, 2013 8:00 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"The only way to win is not to play."
Score: 15 (21 votes cast)
May 8, 2013 8:37 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Perhaps he-or-she will monetize with the porn book? which I for one will buy the instant it's available for preorder. By now I'm one hundred percent scammed!...
Score: 42 (44 votes cast)
May 8, 2013 8:51 PM | Posted by : | Reply
where da book, where da book, where da book at?
Score: 28 (30 votes cast)
May 8, 2013 10:20 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Can you please write a book containing your writings? I would buy one for myself and a dozen of my friends.
Score: 16 (20 votes cast)
May 8, 2013 11:28 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The answer you seek is right there in the post.
Why does Alone let the mark (us) get away without monetizing/scamming us? Because we are the short con. Albeit embedded in the longer con.
The aborted short con is part of an unseen long con.
Of course there is a twist.
In order to show you how to get out of the matrix, you have to first see the matrix for yourself. No one can be just told. Which paradoxically means you have to plug in so that you can then unplug or come to grips with the fact there is a thing called a "plug" and then unplug.
So Alone isn't Dove. More like Unilever. The big other. Morpheus. The one crying out in the wilderness, pointing to a commitment bigger than your tedious self in the hopes that you (me, all of us) make the leap to faith all by your lonesome. There is no other way.
Which, I'd wager is the long con game most don't see. Too busy trying to sound like alone ourselves. Personally, I don't think Alone needs our nickels and dimes. Its not that kind of con. That would mean Alone cares about the what instead of the how. But how you know directly determines what you know.
Score: 47 (57 votes cast)
May 8, 2013 11:31 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Could someone explain me this "they teach you how to want" thing?
I can't grasp it, and it's been a common Alone's expression, but it's puzzling me, I can't get it.
Thanks.
Score: 12 (16 votes cast)
May 8, 2013 11:40 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It seems to me you borrow self-esteem from your future self.
A student gets fake As and feels good now. It doesn't make the student feel great, since we all know the As are relatively easy. However, it feels better in the short term than getting a D or working hard for a C+. The student's future self loses out on the self-esteem that comes from having met a challenge and from possessing skills.
Score: 30 (30 votes cast)
May 8, 2013 11:54 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Good question. Advertising is a trillion dollar industry for a reason and its not because its fun. It works. If we argue about an ad being X or Y, we are allowing it to set the discussion and the parameters.
As Alone says, If you think plus size women need better representation in TV ads because you are hip to the sexism going on you are still unaware that such a position elevates advertising to such an important role. Its kind of like demanding that the head slave look more like the average slave for self esteem reasons. The fact that you are a slave however eludes you.
In that way they teach you *HOW*. Argue all you want about the *what*, so long as you do so after this short commercial break.
Score: 56 (56 votes cast)
May 9, 2013 12:45 AM | Posted by : | Reply
As narcissists we don't learn how we seem to others or realize how our actions define us. What we want is rooted in our self-image so we want things that will never satisfy us when we get them. I want to make a film, but if that never happens, maybe I really want to learn guitar! I want to know what thing I should be wanting, so I desire to desire the right thing, the thing that will actually actualize my identity at present, not what I would become if I learned the self-discipline to actually learn guitar or make a movie.
Back in Echo and Narcissus, Narcissus wanted the ideal girl who echoed himself. But since she had no substance herself, she wasn't desirable to him when she showed him an real, living instance of his hypothetical desire.
Likewise Dove is telling you that what you want, whether it's inner-beauty or whatever, is just some new way of looking at yourself. You don't want to want to exercise, you want to not think you need exercise (perhaps by being fit, but more likely by being comfortable not being fit).
We don't want properly because we don't know what we should want to change because we don't realize we don't want to change. I think.
Score: 44 (50 votes cast)
May 9, 2013 1:09 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The student's future self loses out on the self-esteem that comes from having met a challenge and from possessing skills.
He also looses out on the knowledge that he is not as good as he thinks he is and that he needs to work harder to get to where he needs to be in the future.
Score: 15 (25 votes cast)
May 9, 2013 1:40 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think the idea is that of "potential", meaning some (or maybe all?) people assume that they are going to achieve a lot in the future, so they allow themselves a pat on the back right now, even if who they are right now isn't that great. Like TLP said, what happens when you reach 40 and realize that you are not the kind of 40 year old you were borrowing against? Are you allowed to keep on borrowing even though you haven't paid your debt so far? The answer: Yes, this is America. Also, "Dove" is willing to offer you some attractive financing options.
Score: 43 (45 votes cast)
May 9, 2013 2:29 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I may be wrong, but it seemed like the prettiest (I think the youngest) more accurately described her face than the others, who elongated it. What does that say?
Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
May 9, 2013 2:30 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I think I get why it's a long con then. It's not that you'll buy Dove today. It's that 10 or 20 years from now, when you're all young and smart and believe yourself to be hip to their game. It's when you're in self esteem debt, when you're in your 30s or 40s an the lack of actual accomplishment starts to severely catch up with you. That's when you start needing some "financing options" as the above commenter puts it.
Incidentally: Alone, have you ever read Ayn Rand? A lot of your psychological writing sounds like hers. A massive part of her theories had to do with the relationship between one's ego and reality, in the same way as you talk about it. She was very interested in the notion that most of the evil that men commit is out of trying to evade reality and boost a pseudo sense of self-esteem.
Score: -1 (33 votes cast)
May 9, 2013 6:43 AM | Posted by : | Reply
He is also a POLICE artist. Not only is he creative, he is also the man. i.e. he is God
Score: 21 (25 votes cast)
May 9, 2013 7:22 AM | Posted by : | Reply
A very stimulating read, nice work.
Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
May 9, 2013 8:16 AM | Posted by : | Reply
The hook (or the sell if you want to call it that) is there, in plain sight:
"I should be more grateful of... my natural beauty. It impacts the choices in friends that we make [...]"
Obviously the referent for "It" here is not "my natural beauty" - somehow the woman's self image has substituted her actual looks. The pause before "my natural beauty" is telling - something has been substituted there, something is censored.
Also, "the choices in friends" has slipped through - the choices are made IN the friends, not by the narrator.
That's all there is to it, it's a short con inside the long con. Dove helps you build and maintain a favorable self-image, helps you feel prettier, so you should buy Dove because otherwise you'll feel like an old rotten hag and no-one will ever love you.
Score: 6 (16 votes cast)
May 9, 2013 8:27 AM | Posted by : | Reply
The second video is even simpler - it's an aspirational, the middle-aged blonde is (we are told, by her) who/what other middle-aged women would WANT to be. A successful, desirable, self-confident person who "happens" to also look pretty good for her years. Of course, Dove can't fix ugly, but boy will customers ever try...
Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
May 9, 2013 8:36 AM | Posted by : | Reply
You know, the first thing that occurred to me when I watched the ad in order to read the article (I never saw it online) was that police artists always work with witnesses on sketches. As in, the artist and the witness sit down together, staring at the same piece of paper (or computer screen). The artist starts to draw the shape of an eyebrow, for example, and then ask the witness, "Was it curved like this, or straighter? Was it this thick, or thicker?"
The witness doesn't just give a verbal description, they partner with the sketch artist. It's an equal collaboration, an attempt to transfer the witness's visual memory on to paper.
The notion that a police sketch artist could produce a recognizable sketch (one that would be useful to law enforcement or the general public) from a disembodied voice is really silly. No amount of verbal information, absent any collaborative feedback, is enough to accurately describe the proportions of a human face. I'm shocked that both the self-descriptions and stranger's descriptions looked as much like the subjects as they did.
Except - not that shocked. These people all got paid for participating in this ad, right? And they all signed N.D.A.s?
I don't think this ad is part of a long con. I think it's fiction, pure and simple. Professional stunt driver, do not attempt.
Score: 70 (74 votes cast)
May 9, 2013 8:39 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Good point, although it could be both a fiction and still doing everything described above.
Score: 18 (18 votes cast)
May 9, 2013 8:43 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Damn, I closed out my italics at the end of the wrong sentence. That's embarrassing.
Score: 0 (6 votes cast)
May 9, 2013 8:55 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Oh, I don't disagree. I should have said in my comment that I wasn't on the set, so I don't have any way of knowing or proving that the artist worked from pictures of the subjects or that a producer or somebody carefully supervised the end results.
But given my limited knowledge of witness sketching, I don't see how it could be otherwise. Seems like this experiment has the same validity as an in-house lab "proving scientifically" that some herbs, vitamins, and baking soda can cure a cold virus.
Score: 9 (13 votes cast)
May 9, 2013 9:45 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Don't participate. They hate you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Cunts_in_a_Kitchen
Score: 21 (21 votes cast)
May 9, 2013 10:30 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Something else to consider if it hasn't already been mentioned: the artist knew beforehand what the "experiment" was all about- or if he didn't, he eventually figured it out after a few drawings- which subsequently biased the rest of his drawings.
Really liked the Self-esteem/Economics analogy.
Score: 20 (24 votes cast)
May 9, 2013 11:05 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Your internal thinking about your amount of beauty doesn't matter if no one treats you like you're beautiful. Beauty is defined by others, not you. Their opinions are what make you loved or not loved, wanted or not wanted.
You can think and tell yourself you're beautiful all you want, if no one else thinks so, you will not be sought and cherished and observed and cared for in the same ways. Women seek beauty because it changes how much attention and time and effort people put into understanding and interacting with you and the kind of love they want to give.
The fact that women are so confidant their image is important is not reflective of that individual woman. It's a reflection of the fact that most individuals in our society treat unattractive people badly, and attractive people well. We want to be seen and for our presence to bring joy and happiness to others. When we have illness, fatigue, sorrows, difficult lives, disfigurement-- these features often show up on our faces and bodies. And people avoid us or don't work as hard to see how we feel or love is.
Disordered body image isn't a disorder of "women who misinterpret themselves" it's the result of women who know very well they aren't been seen and loved (often in their families or peer groups) and think maybe if they looked like the women in the movies they would be. They are likely quite right. But we all, even the less attractive among us, have given beautiful people the power they have. It's funny because unattractive people still want to date conventionally attractive people. The shallowness isn't in humans because they are beautiful, all people are naturally attracted to beauty. Yes beauty is culturally reinforced but it does usually correlate with markers of health and wealth which are attractive features. It's hard to face for those of us who want to love others based on their humanity and goodness of character. Or to be able to see "true beauty", the light that people bring to the room with their love, awareness, and contributions.
Score: 91 (99 votes cast)
May 9, 2013 11:26 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
yours is probably the truest comment i've ever read on tlp.
Score: 4 (12 votes cast)
May 9, 2013 12:25 PM | Posted by : | Reply
We read TLP for a while and we think "we can see through the system's gimmick now."
Here, the absuive boyfriend is the con man. He says "you're smart enough for this, it can't arm you now, and because it can't arm you, you can still keep doing it." Protection against change.
"I can see the cards being shifted, and because of this I can still play."
Score: 24 (26 votes cast)
May 9, 2013 12:40 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
haha, bravo. Yes it never occurs to me that I am still sitting here reading TLP (still standing in front of the card table) as if my vision is oh so much clearer now. I can be a mini-TLP in my little circle of the world.
But that isn't change. What would change look like? Only you can say for yourself but its doubtful it will require me to be online. In fact, if I have to tell someone, chances are I haven't changed.
When I realize I haven't checked in here for months because I'm out DOING what I fear, ah, then *maybe* I can begin to thank the con man for his insight.
Score: 23 (25 votes cast)
May 9, 2013 1:46 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"OK, but the entire D&D paradigm is completely retarded because in reality law is good and chaos is bad, no exceptions."
Of course chaos can be good...it all depends on your frame of reference...e.g. the Big Bang, though extremely chaotic, was good for all humans.
Frame of reference, man.
Score: -1 (17 votes cast)
May 9, 2013 2:15 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You're assuming that there IS and experiment. You've bought into the premise that there's an experiment going on. You've also bought the idea that these are really women telling you about themselves (not actors), that the artist is drawing the images from being around them, and that he's ever been a police sketch artist. There's zero reason to trust anything going on here. In fact, I think they'd probably be stupid to film the "experiment" because the results would not necessarily look good on film. The sketch might not have matched up with the face, the woman might have been inarticualte and filled half of her interview with UMM and AHH and awkward silences. Too much chance for the end result not to look good.
If you look at the ad, none of those things happen. The strange thing is, they not only never show the artist, they never establish that there's an artist in the room. The woman doesn't talk like someone in an interview, she doesn't stop and think about what to say, there are no uumm and aahh and silences, she never breaks eye contact at all. These are actresses -- they're simply too perfect to be real women.
Score: 24 (28 votes cast)
May 9, 2013 2:37 PM | Posted by : | Reply
A few commenters are misunderstanding, or at least not fully understanding, the self-esteem debt. It's fully explained when the concept is brought up, though:
"They're borrowing against their future accomplishments to feel good about themselves today, hoping they'll be able to pay it back."
e.g., Joe Schmo has grand plans to be an amazing detective and those plans affect who he is today. He has more self-esteem now because of how he sees himself in the future. That's OK if he actually tries his damnedest to achieve his goal. Whether or not he achieves them is immaterial, as TLP points out. The key is
But if instead he just thinks about it and tells people (maybe even to impress them) but never actually pursues it, and 10 years later he's still just a middle manager at office max, well now he's fucked. He's either got to go into further self-esteem debt or he's got to file bankruptcy and work ten times as hard to repair his credit and get back on his feet. If he does the former he'll face the same decision in another five years.
And of course, why would he work hard and pursue it? High school was easy, he got As. College was easy, he got As. So what changed? Why isn't being a great detective easy? Why can't he just show up?
Score: 50 (52 votes cast)
May 9, 2013 5:07 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I know it's fun to deconstruct the ad, but I think you're maybe missing one of the points that TLP is making. The ad shouldn't matter. You're still making the ad matter by the sheer act of talking about it.
Score: 18 (22 votes cast)
May 9, 2013 5:31 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I have heard that in the realm of Viral Videos, which is what this is. The idea is to make an un-advertisement-like ad that people pass around on facebook and twitter and youtube and the like so as to reach people who normally wouldn't see their ads or buy their products. I don't know which women this would be for Dove, maybe feminists or lesbians or something, but I can''t be sure.
And for those kinds of people it's a dog whistle. FINALLY they get that beauty isn't looking like a supermodel, it's an older lady who doesn't really look that old and has a mind that does exactly what everyone else's brain does. So feminists spread that to each other, and low and behold, they're fans of Dove.
Score: 20 (24 votes cast)
May 9, 2013 5:45 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I don't think it matters if its a con one way or the other.
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
May 9, 2013 5:52 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
And yet there is an interplay, a type of conversation between the observer who judges your value of beauty and you.
You can be "objectively" beautiful and still be unattractive.
Anyway, you're still playing the game aren't you?
Score: -4 (4 votes cast)
May 9, 2013 5:59 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'll just add this. Because it "seems" to work.
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
May 9, 2013 6:16 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Profiterol Tarifi için en iyi yer burasıdır.
Score: -6 (12 votes cast)
May 9, 2013 6:25 PM | Posted by : | Reply
But there is a black woman in there ... she was the one talking about freckles ...
Score: 10 (12 votes cast)
May 9, 2013 6:28 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Umm ... no. Good is good and bad is bad. Lawful is organized and Chaotic is whimsical.
Score: -2 (10 votes cast)
May 9, 2013 6:29 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Maybe more like perverse sex practices due to trying to have a 20-something sex life when you're really 60-something.
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
May 9, 2013 6:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Don't underestimate the commercial value of a warm fuzzy feeling.
Score: 15 (15 votes cast)
May 9, 2013 10:35 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Part of the con is letting the people control the message that's given them. No one complains about the signals the media sends them like women, no one demands control over the messages they believe influence them like women do when it comes to beauty, the Barbies they played with as girls, etc.
This is Dove's way of saying, "You control the message. We're telling you what you want us to tell you."
Score: 14 (14 votes cast)
May 10, 2013 3:01 AM | Posted by : | Reply
" By the way he is depicted you understand that he knows beauty, inner and outer; he is part father, part lover, expert in what makes a woman valuable."
This is the creepiest, most insidious part. Daddy-hunger, encouraged in women ... when the plain truth is, there is no Daddy in real life. Only persons. We gotta grow up.
Score: 10 (16 votes cast)
May 10, 2013 3:51 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Re psychiatrist: "It is the only system of rules based on self-deception, it encourages the illusion of "self" separate from behavior."
You can't define abnormal unless you know normal; you can't define irrational unless you define rational, etc. Mental health focuses on defining the problems without defining the solutions. We don't want it to do that, but if it defined solutions it would be even worse. The best it can do is define normality and rationality in minimal consumer terms that we already accept "how do you feel with yourself"- separating behavior from image because in consumer culture we already do that.
I have no idea about psych, but I think that there is a pattern and that you can see it elsewhere. Success words like truth, rationality or health are normative. You can't do problem solving without the normative, but the normative is not easy to accept, and when situations put a gun to our head to define the normative the best that we can come up with is philistine, sometimes even abhorrent.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
May 10, 2013 11:03 AM | Posted by : | Reply
As a relatively homely woman, I decided very early (12) to eschew makeup out of some aristocratic kind of impulse that I was not put on this earth to PLEASE others. And for the most part, I have not done so. I am too much of a truth teller for many people to be comfortable with me. However, I did find love (without cosmetics! who knew?) and bore two objectively beautiful children. NOW: Was I relieved when I realized they would be beautiful? Unreservedly, yes. Because life clearly is easier for the beautiful, if the beautiful person is wise and aware. Now my lovely daughter also wears no makeup, and is still lovelier than most, and so females hate her rather passionately. My grandmother was extremely pulchritudinous and suffered for it her whole life because she did not have the wisdom to manage it. I think we will know that we have come a long way in the world as humans when most women are confident enough to go barefaced. My locus of pain will always be my ugliness but i have the stoic resources to deal with it and not impose it on those who love me....thank you, Alone, for this blog. It feels very true to me.
Score: 11 (35 votes cast)
May 10, 2013 11:39 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Couple shots in the dark here, my thoughts on why the people pointing out flaws are guilty of trying to protect the ego.
The big one is saying there is not enough diversity or whatever in the ad is basically the same as searching for hypocrisy in a persons position. [If it turns out you're a bastard I don't have to listen to you, even if your bastardlyness is unrelated to the central point of the ad.]
If someone shouts "where were the black people in this ad" its a pretty good sign their avoiding whatever issue they think is being brought up, especially since there actually was one. It means that whoever said that couldn't even watch the whole ad before picking a flaw and using it to trumpet why Dove are bastards.
As to the 'how this sells soap' question, my guess is that it's regular old positive association, in the same way that Starbucks reminds everyone they use decomposable cups. There is no direct connection between green cups and buying more coffee, but if you think 'well these guys are trying to do something good' its easier to use special pleading to allow yourself to have an extra coffee today.
Score: 18 (20 votes cast)
May 10, 2013 12:03 PM | Posted by : | Reply
We're all a part of your long con as well. We trust you because you're revealing to us the deep, dark, seedy underbelly. You're telling us what we need to hear, and then you're walking away without taking our money. This is brilliant. This is absolutely and terrifyingly brilliant. And my recognizing it changes nothing. For here I am, reading your words, commenting your post. We're falling for it, right in the middle of you telling us we're falling for it. Brilliant. Just...so damn brilliant.
Score: 9 (21 votes cast)
May 10, 2013 12:28 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Holy fuck, they really did cast Mantegna as the (FBI trained) sketch artist!
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
May 10, 2013 12:31 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I believe "R" stands for "regular" but I'm not sure.
Score: -4 (4 votes cast)
May 10, 2013 1:35 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
link to said blogs?
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
May 10, 2013 1:44 PM | Posted by : | Reply
TLP is starting to get predictable. And lazy. And unforgivably boring. Pro tip: if you're trying to predict your reader's reactions in the course of your article, it helps to actually be on the mark.
Pure drivel
Score: -16 (34 votes cast)
May 10, 2013 1:57 PM | Posted by : | Reply
TLP: "Deluded IDIOT! Did you really think you had things figured out!? DISREGARD your shallow, obvious* interpretation of THIS PARTICULAR THING! The TRUTH is FAR MORE COMPLEX! And PSYCHOLOGICAL! It involves CAPITALISM! And RACE! And also NARCISSISM, probably!"
*and probably accurate
Score: 1 (27 votes cast)
May 10, 2013 3:03 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm pretty sure "R" stands for "RETARDED"
Score: -2 (10 votes cast)
May 10, 2013 3:36 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It's just a blog, man. Some dude's thoughts on various things that happen to be entertaining. It's not a fucking TV show. "Wah he's so boring now. Gratify my needs!" Go back to 4chan.
Score: 19 (27 votes cast)
May 10, 2013 3:39 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"I'm special right now because of what's inside me. My thoughts, my dreams, will one day be relevant, one day people will see my true value. Just because I haven't done anything worthy of praise doesn't make me not praiseworthy. One day, my potential will just become action, and then they'll see." -Borrowing on self-esteem debt
"I'm 65 and what have I done with my life? I never took initiative, I thought just being me was enough." -failing to pay it back
Score: 17 (21 votes cast)
May 10, 2013 3:59 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This sounds like so many of the "he writes about narcissism because he must be a... !!!" comments that show up like clockwork. But remember, "detecting hypocrisy is 100% the play of the rube". Or maybe that's Alone's preemptive defense against accusations of projection. Or maybe us pointing THAT out is a defense. Or maybe the pattern of looking for metaness and so many layers of irony in everything is a defense against having to look at the bottom layer of reality in your life and being horrified to find out that what lies there is--
Score: 11 (13 votes cast)
May 10, 2013 5:40 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
When people react with criticisms for lack of X, they are ignoring the real criticism, which is that they shouldn't need a commercial to tell them what beauty is in the first place. It's an unconscious evasion of the central problem by focusing your attention on a non-problem. If anything, it would have been good for no black people to appear (even if that were true) because then at least one demographic would have been untainted by this commercial's manipulations.
Do you see? The exclusion of black people would not have meant black people can not be beautiful (the superficial, knee-jerk anti-racist's reaction TLP refers to), but that black people do not respond when told by some outside authority that they are/are not beautiful.
Score: 20 (22 votes cast)
May 10, 2013 5:47 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Drug induced insights tend to be pretty one track. But they do make you think, that's for sure.
Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
May 10, 2013 5:50 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
also I find myself squinting my left eye and slightly raising my right eye brow involuntarily reading this one. Something tells me this one is fetched from a distance.
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
May 10, 2013 6:04 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
good point. I think the idea is that 'the motive' goes beyond the stratagems of individuals, hence all the talk of "the matrix" (apologies, stratagems seems more fitting than strategies, I don't know if its the right word). At least this is the only way I can understand it.
I guess its interesting to consider/assign the sum-of-the-parts as having a more defined/driven raison d'etre which has implications for 'narcissists' (apologies for french phrase, but it does avoid repetition, no affectation intended); whereby 'interesting' of course I mean 'mental wank'; of course I am an unashamed (if occasional) indulger in same.
Is this comment confusing and negative? Well then it fits right in with this blog. Tally ho.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
May 10, 2013 6:22 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Actually, defining Normality would be worse.
If I define the perfectly average American, it would define almost everyone as somewhat abnormal. There's a sort of danger there, because you've given a person the power to define what Insane means, and if the powers (drug companies for example) decide that liking odd things is a disease to be treated. I came to this based on a few things, starting with my ADD, but there are tons of other things that would not really be pathological today, but would have been pathological in 1950. Or things that are pathological today that were not in 1950.
In 1950, being gay was abnormal, if they would have had a drug to treat or cure it, they would have drugged gays. On the other hand, there was no pathology known as ADD, you were just a wild active kid who needed to buckle down and do his homework. That points to a major problem on both ends if we let a system define who is and is not normal. Normal is defined by culture, and what is normal in the US would be weird in the USSR, but at the same time, cultures are changing. What that means is that you cannot have a truly scientific definition of "normal". But worse yet is that people who have nothing biological wrong with them are treated with drugs and coercive therapies in order to fix what may not actually be broken. And for the wider society, it means that certain cultural changes become off-limits. This is to my mind even worse. It's raw power to prevent the culture from figuring something out -- if American psychiatry somehow deccided that Socialism is a mental disorder, than we don't ask if Capitalism is bad (or if you do, you get drugged and treated until you love Capitalism) so if something is broken in our society it won't change. It also means that any power structure can prevent any challengers from rising -- all you have to do is define anyone who could take you down as "crazy".
IMO I'd much rather have the DSM define biological diseases of the brain that we can find on MRIs and so on. Anything more than that is an invitation to use psychiatry as a means of social control. If you can't sit still, you're ADD, if you're unhappy with the system, you must be depressed. Take the blue pill.
Score: 8 (16 votes cast)
May 10, 2013 7:06 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Thanks to everyone who took the time to explain my "self esteem debt" question. It makes more sense now.
Maybe someone can help me with something else. I don't fully understand this part of the article:
"And as long as psychiatry uncritically elevates identity over behavior, it makes it-- not the patients, it-- an easy mark for con men with their own agenda: SSI, the justice system, gun control, schools, whatever. "It's called a confidence game. Why, because you give me your confidence? No: because I give you mine." Take a minute, think it through."
How are con artists using the confidence game to con psychiatrists? What exactly are they doing to give their confidence to psychiatrists? Is it that they are letting psychiatrists control social policy? Like how politicians let psychiatrists determine who gets SSI? Then I suppose they screw them over because psychiatrists don't notice they are administering welfare in a way that lets politicians avoid blame.
Does this SSI scam have anything to do with elevating identity over behavior? I guess that's what psychiatrists do when they label someone unfit for work and eligible for SSI? If they focused on people's behavior, then maybe politicians wouldn't be able to use them to administer welfare through SSI and psychiatry? I'm not sure how focusing on behavior would prevent abuse of SSI, but it seem to be the logical conclusion from what Alone is saying.
Am I interpreting the above quoted passage correctly?
Score: 0 (8 votes cast)
May 10, 2013 10:00 PM | Posted by : | Reply
speaking of Alex Jones, did you know he has a dating site for his fans???
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
May 10, 2013 11:06 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I've always been more fascinated by shills than by cons.
Do I get an A?
Score: -1 (5 votes cast)
May 11, 2013 6:29 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Psychiatry (subconsciously) knows it's being duped. See Side Effects.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
May 11, 2013 7:39 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"How are con artists using the confidence game to con psychiatrists? What exactly are they doing to give their confidence to psychiatrists? Is it that they are letting psychiatrists control social policy? Like how politicians let psychiatrists determine who gets SSI? Then I suppose they screw them over because psychiatrists don't notice they are administering welfare in a way that lets politicians avoid blame."
That's exactly right. But further, psychiatrists are dong that because the courts and the law and disability findings are based on the notion that psychiatry is capable of finding out if you're really insane. So everybody wins, the politicians avoid blame, the psychiatrist feels like he's helping people, the patient gets his SSDI (if that's why he's there).
And one of the great things about using "identities" is that identities are much more stable. My identity will be mostly the same in 15 years. My behavior might change radically, but I'll still be the same person. So if you're trying to change my identity, you'll have a patient for 20+ years. If you're trying to change my behavior, that only takes about a month or so. Who gets more out of that change? Not the patient.
Score: 5 (9 votes cast)
May 11, 2013 11:30 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
>>Its kind of like demanding that the head slave look more like the average slave for self esteem reasons.
"I don't have to run faster than the bear. I only have to run faster than you."
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
May 11, 2013 2:37 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Hhhhmmmm the first thing I thought when I viewed the ad is that I wouldn't even know where to start when describing my face to someone else. How do I know what I look like?
Second thing: of course the first sketch will look less "attractive" than the first, it's an ad. How does anyone know how much truth there is in any aspect of this ad? There could be none, it's an ad.
After reading on I wondered where exactly was this ad shown, I had never seen or heard of it. Does that mean I'm not a target? I doubt it; it looks to me like all the women in the US and probably a lot of other places are the targets because every ad we've ever seen already tells us we need something to make us feel better.
It actually never even crossed my mind to send the ad to anyone I know, much less my daughter. As far as I can tell she thinks she's ok the way she is. Why does everybody think everyone has self-esteem issues?
And why are so many people worried about being "normal"? If you look around a bit you will always find other people in the world that are just like you. "Normal" is pretty much an opinion and the definition varies with whomever you are speaking with.
As far as I can tell, what the ad is trying to say according to TLP seem to have a pretty tenuous relationship to how criteria for receiving disability benefits are determined. Perhaps I just don't understand.
And why the attitude of superiority toward people who fall for a con? Does that make them less of a human being? Do they have less value because they weren't able to see what was happening? We're all marks in one way or the other, there is no escaping it, that's the way the world is. It is totally narcissistic to think that all your thoughts are logical, rational, and totally intelligent. All of our our thoughts, behaviors and emotions are deeply affected by our environment; most people have now idea how much of that is already determined pre-consciously, before we ever get around to deciding what we think we are actually choosing.
And at the end of the day, why is there really anything wrong with buying a bar of soap because it makes you feel good?
Score: 9 (15 votes cast)
May 11, 2013 4:29 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I suspect that this blog will at some point stop being anonymous, and when that happens, Alone will have taken from some of us something far more valuable than money.
Look at it from her perspective: Psychiatrists make $200,000+ a year, and only a tiny percentage of nonfiction authors do the same. Do you really think, as some have suggested, that the long con is about money? About buying some book? For it to be about money, it would have to be about a book advance, and newsflash, those are cratering. Think $50,000, making our author's total writing time worth only a tiny percentage of what it'd be worth on the couch.
When (and it is only a matter of time) the anonymity here is broken, it will cost many readers something much dearer than money; it'll cost them (me?) a chunk of our self-concept. What if the author is gay? Evangelical? Mormon? Scientological? Incarcerated? Pentecostal? Muslim? Conservative? Liberal?
If the author is a member of some group that many readers here demonize, and there are so many of us, and so diverse, that this is almost a given, then the de-anonymization will cost us an enemy. (S)he will have conned us out of one of the more valuable things we could possibly lose in these confused times; a good, old-fashioned enemy.
Score: 11 (15 votes cast)
May 11, 2013 5:02 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Unless you're a feminist, you aren't the target. That's kinda the point. The point is to hit all the feminist Dog Whistles so that Feminists feel like the people at Dove "get it", which does two things, first making them more likely to forward the youtube link, and second to feel validated.
The reason that the second thing does what TLP says it does, is that by mirroring the feminist argument that females should not have to look like models to be beautiful and that the person should be beautiful on the inside. Therefore the ad gets credibility because it first validated the opinions of feminists. It's ripe for infecting the host.
Score: 3 (7 votes cast)
May 11, 2013 5:25 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Normally I'm a fan of TLP, but every time alone starts talking about advertising he seriously violates his masthead. I mean, interesting thoughts on feminism and all, but not the thoughts of somebody vaguely familiar with how or why ad spots come about.
Score: -3 (7 votes cast)
May 11, 2013 5:55 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I feel the opposite way. His stuff on advertising is more interesting to me than his stuff on feminism (though I don't hate those posts or anything).
Could you explain why you think he's off base with his analyses on ads, though?
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
May 11, 2013 6:10 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"it'll cost them (me?) a chunk of our self-concept. What if the author is gay? Evangelical? Mormon? Scientological? Incarcerated? Pentecostal? Muslim? Conservative? Liberal?
If the author is a member of some group that many readers here demonize, and there are so many of us, and so diverse, that this is almost a given, then the de-anonymization will cost us an enemy. (S)he will have conned us out of one of the more valuable things we could possibly lose in these confused times; a good, old-fashioned enemy."
I always thought one of the many subtexts to his posts was the recognition of biases and their effect on what you choose to see/hear. If some readers aren't getting that point, as I know many aren't ("zomg cultural marxism!" "zomg MRA!"), they're going to have an easy dismissal set up for him if/when he goes public (ie, "turns out he was just some Randian idiot") but if they were long time readers I don't think the dismissal will last very long and they'll come to realize how their biases distort their perception.
I was reading some post about him on a blog called Orthosphere and many of the comments were just people with their little box-traps set up: "Liberal in denial", "Cynical Neoconservative", "Libertarian Atheist", etc. In other words, what do we have to call him so that we get to pretend his thoughts don't count?
Score: 18 (18 votes cast)
May 11, 2013 6:19 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"...but truth hurts, that's how you know it's true. "
Am I just calling this sentence bullshit because I've taken it out of context? If it hurts for me to call it bullshit, then it must be true that it's bullshit. Someone call the hyperbole police!
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
May 11, 2013 7:09 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Now my lovely daughter also wears no makeup, and is still lovelier than most, and so females hate her rather passionately.
More people should be talking about this issue.
Score: 4 (8 votes cast)
May 11, 2013 7:55 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
But worse yet is that people who have nothing biological wrong with them are treated with drugs and coercive therapies in order to fix what may not actually be broken.
Isn't that like the psych industry's primary function?
It would be a very sane child that refused to submit to the Toddler tyrants who steamroll their will over the free will of anyone they have the power to dominate, obliterating Self in the process of introducing power to children (which triggers the obsessive need for power to protect oneself).
Sanity in need of antipsychotics for that Oppositional Defiant Disorder.
The child must exhibit 4 out of the 8 signs and symptoms listed below in order to meet the DSM-IV-TR diagnostic threshold for oppositional defiant disorder:
* Actively refuses to comply with majority's requests or consensus-supported rules
* Performs actions deliberately to annoy others
* Angry and resentful of others
* Argues often
* Blames others for his or her own mistakes
* Often loses temper
* Spiteful or seeks revenge
* Touchy or easily annoyed
So every girl I know is basically a lock for 7/8 of those with conformity the only value they all subscribe to. I guess all their children will have ODD.
_________________
What is normal should be what is biological.
You are wearing clothes because your toddler innocence embarrassed your mother, who emotionally degraded you with her Toddler shame of nakedness because subscribers to misogyny repackage sex as a commodity for sale.
Clothes are normal. I've not heard the logical case yet for how they could be sane.
Lying is normal. I know for a fact lying is insane.
Score: -3 (17 votes cast)
May 11, 2013 8:23 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I really don't understand what you are saying about clothes and toddler shame. For one thing my toddlers (and those of many other parents) ran around naked plenty of times. It didn't seem like much of a problem to me and I'm pretty sure they didn't feel it was a problem either.
One reason I personally like to wear clothes is because they keep me warm. Besides I'd rather not have the occasional man saying I'm "asking for it". I don't know, does that that sound too feminist?
Score: 3 (9 votes cast)
May 11, 2013 9:37 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"Unless you're a feminist, you aren't the target. That's kinda the point. The point is to hit all the feminist Dog Whistles so that Feminists feel like the people at Dove "get it", which does two things, first making them more likely to forward the youtube link, and second to feel validated."
I don't think feminists are the targets. The target is anyone who saw a video from Dove about beauty and thought it was worth watching.
Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
May 11, 2013 11:25 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Does anyone have any good references for this comment?
One of the great insights of psychoanalysis is that you never really want an object, you only want the wanting, which means the solution is to set your sights on an impossible ideal and work hard to reach it.The best I could find was a French entrance exam asking if it was "absurd to desire the impossible".
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
May 12, 2013 1:24 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"If you're watching it, it's for you."
Now I'm wondering what it means that I watched the ad to find out what your post was about.
holy crap, this whole website is set up by dove for this very moment - long con indeed.
Score: 16 (16 votes cast)
May 12, 2013 4:24 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Man's desire is the Other's desire
http://www.lacan.com/zizkubrick.htm
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
May 12, 2013 6:22 AM | Posted by : | Reply
What bothers me most about these ads is the idea that, if you *are* actually ugly, then that's the worst thing EVAH. Beauty is beauty. It's nice to look at and have, but it's disturbing to see so many women sublimate all their self loathing and failed dreams into "zomg I look bad". Heaven forfend they'd ever make peace with things and/or actually try to improve themselves. Far better, rather, to similtaneously put it all into their looks, and also put the blame for their failures onto other peoples' alleged expectations.
Score: 27 (27 votes cast)
May 12, 2013 11:08 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Why do you assume that every student has "inflated grades?" I'm in a grad program at a state school; it's certainly no Harvard, not even a Temple but the professors care about teaching and (most) students care about learning. I busted my ass for every A I got (and I got some B's and A-s, too). My professors were not above giving C's or D's if the student deserved them (and these were graduate students, so there really is pressure not to give less than A B). Your contention that all students have not earned their grades is insulting to the hardworking professors and students whom do actually care about academic integrity . Disappointing addition to an otherwise interesting and engaging piece.
Also: PORN BOOK PLEASE!
Score: 1 (9 votes cast)
May 12, 2013 12:17 PM | Posted by : | Reply
My favorite part was the "only the tip." It got me really hot and steamy. Nothing like comforting a girl by telling her "only the tip" and the next thing you know you are bottoming out! lol
Score: 1 (9 votes cast)
May 12, 2013 1:22 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I M glad I haven't seen the ad.....
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
May 12, 2013 3:23 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yeah, there's no other yardstick to measure yourself by. Which makes sense for a beauty product ad, but still.
What freaks me out about these ads is that it's taken as a given that women will describe themselves as ugly and that other people will describe them as pretty. Like it would be really world-wrecking if a woman self-described as attractive and then other people put down what she thought were good parts of her body. Or even if a woman said, "hey, I like my eyes, jaw, tits, whatever," that would be uppity somehow because she said it before other people could confirm it. It's a weird system where you have to pretend to have no self-esteem, because it's more important that other people (or Dove, I guess) like you and build you up than that you show any form of objective judgment.
Score: 29 (29 votes cast)
May 12, 2013 5:56 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I understand it as follows:
a 26 year old can absorb the message from the ad, feel better about herself intantly, believing it will make her a happier / better looking /... person in the long run. If she then consiously works to change her world views / health habbits / personality /... this may turn out to be the case, and then the augmented self-esteem, initially based on nothing substantial, will be justified.
If she does none of those things, she will feel worse than before, and cynical, and the initial self-esteem 'high' wont have been worth it.
A 40 year old might also take the message and the augmented self esteem, but the work afterwards is a lot harder ( fixed personality, decreasing physical fitness ), so it is very unlikely she will justify the self-esteem boost in the long run.
This is how I see the analogy.
Thx
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
May 12, 2013 10:12 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You create illusions about yourself that are not based on what is real. I have been reading some of the lit on narcissism and they say the problem is creating illusions not based on actual achievements. But, as TLP says above, the achievements as they are publicly recognised may be part of the illusion. Grades can be inflated.
I prefer to think of it in a different way. It's not about "achievements", it's that one doesn't develop enough grit in one's character. One doesn't actually encounter limits, negative experiences and disappointments honestly. So, one mortgages one's life to an illusion that somehow, sometime in the future, one will make a sudden breakthrough, and one's inner glory will be revealed.
People who think this way do not develop their characters. They don't have any traction on the road below. They don't experience the rubber hitting the solid surface, which is what the pleasure of living is really all about. Therefore, they can be easily duped. Life is about whatever they want it to be about, so long as they don't have any background or experience with life. You could tell them they will fly in the future, and they will even believe you, because it seems possible to them, in the absence of any conscious experience of lived reality.
You repress the negative and keep hoping for compensation in the future, which never comes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAp_HGYYFJ8
Score: 17 (17 votes cast)
May 13, 2013 8:55 AM | Posted by : | Reply
The whole self-esteem debt concept is a pretty good modernization of mythology, the risky part of the hero(ine)'s journey: the point at which the heroine has reached the underworld, found the treasure, and risks losing the truth of it by falling for the illusory temptations of the underworld and staying there. True heroines have to move past those temptations, "not look back", and bring the treasure to the outer world, where it can be shared, thus making it genuinely rich. (Underworld = fantasy/imagination/dreams, outer world = reality/action/behavior, necessarily entailing loss and risk. There are people who die in the process, or who come back having lost what they found there.)
Score: 6 (10 votes cast)
May 13, 2013 10:30 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"...but truth hurts, that's how you know it's true."Am I just calling this sentence bullshit because I've taken it out of context? If it hurts for me to call it bullshit, then it must be true that it's bullshit.
Why would it hurt you if it wasn't true? What would be the source of your discomfort?
We've been conditioned to imagine lies are nice. If your mother ever advised you to consider whether what you were saying would make someone feel good -- If you have nothing nice to say, then don't say anything at all -- your mother was a whore.
Only whores and sons-of-whores are hurt (offended) by hearing their mother labeled as such. If something hurts, it's going to be true. That's just how corrupted feelings 'work'. You can say any vile lie you like in Polite Society, but only the truth really offends.
Score: -2 (14 votes cast)
May 13, 2013 11:06 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Now my lovely daughter also wears no makeup, and is still lovelier than most, and so females hate her rather passionately.More people should be talking about this issue.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/may/11/twitters-first-star
Disappointingly, she finds that most of the negative comments come from women. Their most common jibe: "That I think highly of myself – like that's a bad thing!"
"They're trying to shame me," Oxford says, "and it's all from women. Men don't care. A lot of women are like: Oh she's not fat, oh she's cute, she's funny, I hate her."
The need to tear down, destroy, reduce, purge others to create the illusory perception of superiority. In games of power, you won't get very far unless you find a way to purge your betters (for the sole reason that they're better and you cannot compete on merit).
It's conformity but it's far sicker than a herd mentality. This is what is being called ponerology, or the insanity that is more commonly known as evil.
For 5000 years, the best and brightest have been cut down this way; you can't rise on merit in this world. Those who scale the ladder get there by sheer inferiority; so inferior, decency cannot see their insanity coming until it's stabs them in the face.
So many girls are corrupted with this leeching evil.
More people should be talking about this issue.
Score: 15 (23 votes cast)
May 13, 2013 11:59 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"There is not enough quantitative easing in the universe to prop up this fantasy"
Section II, paragraph 2, near the end. I do not understand what this phrase means or what the author is trying to say at this point. Can someone explain it?
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 13, 2013 12:18 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The content of the post reminds me of several fundamental spiritual principles and phenomena that embody human spiritual life. The first is a principle that the Indian religion Eckankar attests to: that the highest manifestation of God and the divine is beauty. Beauty in aesthetics for example, art, painting, music,
and sculpture ect. Such beauty acts as a guiding spiritual journeying in the lower worlds of life around us.
There are some interesting areas that back up the validity of this fundamental Eckankar principle. THe first one, is the Oriental religions, especially, in Japan where aestethetic beauty is held in the highest esteem and practice and cultural presence. Which means beauty was recognized intuitively as the highest manifestation of God in the world around us. And should be a goal to achieve inwardly in the human soul.
An interesting second area is the subject of beauty within the Shakespeare sonnets. The opening seventeen sonnets relate what appears to be a father called WIlliam advising to the point of admonsihing his son Will to get married because the father wants him to pass the son'e beauty down through the world. That is the father wants son Will to have children who in turn will be the holders of son WIll's beauty. In the first seventeen sonnets Will does not want to get married and have children. But its an interesting area, these sonnets, on defining beauty as the highest spiritual phenomena and expression of the divine in the world. And the beauty of Son wiLL in the sonnets, is thus 'the divine' and as such: manifestation of God, at work & in consideration when it comes to son Will passing his beauty down to his children via marriage. Whether he did so or didn't we don't get to find out. But is still a remarkable addressing of the highest spritiual phenomena in the world around us: 'aesthetic beauty' that is being the highest spiritual phenomena, and where ever it pops up, whether in people, or in arts, music, painting and the like---it is prevalent and extant as a fundamental part of life on earth. And in Shakespeare's case, beauty dominates as the opening central scene in the sonnets. In the first seventeen sonnets it is a central subjet area of the first seventeen sonnets.
The Dove commercial tends to point us in that direction and recognize that dimension of spiritual existance.
The Dove commercial interestingly treads into these spiritual areas on an indirect and overtly unintentioanl basis--that is an unconscious basis. Even though the beauty phenomena is understated within the context of beauty being indigenous to aestheitc expressions of the divine of God. That facet is not directly related in the Dove commerical. But it is well within the Dove commerical present via implication.
Score: -5 (5 votes cast)
May 13, 2013 12:58 PM | Posted by : | Reply
why look, little jonny escaped from the ICH forums long enough to remind us about the SERIOUS SCIENCE OF PONEROLOGY.
thank you jonny, some of us probably don't remember phrenology, snake oil, magnet therapy, cupping, leeching, or alchemy.
PLEASE LEGITIMATE MY PSEUDO-SCIENCE ELSE MY EGO WILL COLLAPSE!
Score: 2 (6 votes cast)
May 13, 2013 1:40 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Further thoughts on the Beauty issue from the Dove commerical and the content of this TLP post article. But also this post's content combined with a TLP previous post's content on "No self respecting woman will go without make up" also in conjsideration. Both posts interestingly relate the issue of enhancing beauty. Particularly facial beauty with make up and cosmetics---this phenomena contained in the earlier post: "No respecting woman would go without make up...."
Several important themes are present in the beauty issue in the above two TLP posts. One is the Dove commerical emphasizes beauty achieved by using soap. Soap is used for purification, purifying and cleansing the skin of dirt, bacteria and environmental impurities and the result is one has maintained the healthiness of their facial beauty, with using soap such as Dove. In the other post, which I call the Croatan post which is synonmous to 'the no respecting woman would go without makeup...." article beauty is attempted to be achieved by applying makeup and cosmentics to the skin.
In the Dove commerical, the beauty achieved by purification via Dove usage, also introduces the process of purification. In Ecaknkar as well as in other religions, purification of the soul also is tantamount for real substantial spiritual progress of the human soul. That the impurities, flaws and evils of the human soul are purified and removed for the result: advancement of the human soul ino the lands of God. With such spiritual purification the enhancement of beauty and aesthetics are achieved. And here the Dove commerical also introduces purification too like the Eckankar and other's religions use of purification----but in a somewhat more worldy different sense than the Eckankar and other religions's spiritual usage of purification.
The Shakespeare sonnet 127, the commencemnt of the Dark Lady sonnets the central themes and various dimensions of "beauty" come into being in full force with Sonnet 127.
The following web sites: www.shakespeares-sonnets.com/sonnet/127" relates the following: an analytical segemnt of the sonnet is given here. As quoted material:
"With the commencemnt of the so called "Dark Lady" sonnets, there is a marked change of tone from that of serene reflection on a love that has been eternized, to a highly disturbed analysis of a passion which at times close to frenzy. THe opening sonnet introduces his mistress as "black" but then digresses unexpectedly into a tirade against cosmetics and face painting, something which Shakespeare never found easy to tolerate, for he seems to equate it with falseness of human relations. THe argument of the poem seems to be that his beloved mistress is black because it is symbolic of a mourning for the debasement of true beauty. His love having taken on this guise of black mourning. It has now become fashinable that common opinion has swung round to believing that dark beuaties alone are truly beautiful. He therefore feels that his passion for her is justified." end quotes.
The main subject areas of the sonnet: (1) Cosmetics are contrvoersial because of the risk of relating a false and artifical beauty. (2) Black which is synonmous to mourning and loss having its own intrinsic divine embodied beauty. (3) THe predominance of beauty in the sonnets and the other sonnets as well, sonnet 127 is an extension of.
Shakespeare's use of divine beauty in the sonnets: conveys the divine and daimonic spiritual essence to beauty that Shakespeare finds central for the age man is occupying in the 1500s and 1600s.. ANd within that spiritual and divine essence of beauty, spiritual pruification to bring out and build upon the inward beauty is present in Shakespeare's sonnets.
THe Dove commericial is in line with purifying like the sonnet's subject areas that spiriutal purification is present within human spiritual processes that are associated with beauty. Secondly the Sonnets, and this particular one sonnet 127, introduces the controversy of cosmetics and make up usage in order to create some form of beauty. The TLP post's "No respecting woman would not go without make up" interestingly delves into the cosemtics and make up issue. And here the cosmetics and make up issue plays a central role with Shakespeare's sonnets, especially for creating a bastard form of divine beauty. Its interesting that Shakespeare's sonnets beauty subject area has a lot of relevance to the two TLP's posts: The Dove sketches post and the No respecting woman post.
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
May 13, 2013 2:05 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I really don't understand what you are saying about clothes and toddler shame. For one thing my toddlers (and those of many other parents) ran around naked plenty of times. It didn't seem like much of a problem to me and I'm pretty sure they didn't feel it was a problem either.
No. The problem is yet to come. Well there are all kinds of problems if you're not playing dumb and all kinds of problems if you are; so I don't know what to tell you but in terms of toddlers being made to be ashamed of their own skin; I assure you that The Problem is not their innocence.
The Problem is yet to come.
One reason I personally like to wear clothes is because they keep me warm.
Of course that's why you wear clothes. Now it all makes sense. Much like your makeup! Marriage! And love. Just good sense.
Besides I'd rather not have the occasional man saying I'm "asking for it". I don't know, does that that sound too feminist?
It's impossible to be a feminist if you're not a humanist because we're what is called "interdependent". It means we rely upon each other so it's fucking dumb to piss all over yourself.
There is a bell that tolls so loudly now...you can't hear it? You wouldn't even send to know for whom it tolls. You didn't die, did you? Donne was a fool.
If you don't want men presuming you're up for it, then stop lying. You have no entitlement to confuse the sons of mothers into raping you. Stop lying.
Score: -15 (17 votes cast)
May 13, 2013 2:28 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Section II, paragraph 2, near the end. I do not understand what this phrase means or what the author is trying to say at this point. Can someone explain it?
Central bank tricks playing games with the illusion of fiat currency, and the perception of value. When they can't lower interest rates below 0% to stimulate public faith in the economy; rather than announce that they're printing more money, one of the word games they play is called quantitative easing. It's just an excuse to flood the market with cash, to get people spending and borrowing and investing again (for the future).
They're printing money, they just don't want to say it. They're like girls who aren't selling sex! But they won't give it up unless you show them you're serious about a long-term commitment.
Central banks and monetary policy is an almost farcical house of cards that rests on Joe Blow being too stupid to realise that the Talking Heads which sound smart (and they make sure to throw in the occasional word he recognises so he can imagine he's following the discussion) are actually just babbling nonsense.
If there isn't enough quantitative easing in the universe to prop up a fantasy, it means a very large house of cards is about to come down.
Score: -1 (5 votes cast)
May 13, 2013 2:49 PM | Posted by : | Reply
FUrther thought snd continuance of two previous Harry Horton May 13, 2013 posts. The Dove commercial has two additional features and dimensions that are interesting. The sketching area is nicely devoid of any interior furnishings. The atmopshere of the warehouse like environment that the sketching takes place within conveys an intresting sense and presence of emptiness. But an emptiness that is resemblant and expressive of the high spiritual principle called varaigya. 'Varairgya wikipedia' is an internet site to look up and combine with the contents of these posts. Vairagya means detachment from the world around us. Dispassion and detachment to the world around us, a renunciation of the world. Not desiring anything in the world and with such a detached spiritual state, the mind and soul focuses on the true happiness of the higher worlds of God, where divine happiness resides. Beyond our present day earthly world. The higher worlds of God, such world's content and essence is found in earthly existence in the form of beauty. Whether the beautiful features of a woman. Or the beautiful features of a painting or musical piece.
Another second dimension is the sketch artist was an artist for the San Jose Police department. Police regulate and rid the more dangerous and destructive passions of the human mind: murder, rape, fraud, prostitution, drug usage ect. from society. The police in a sense are participant with the deadly lower world passions that afflict the human soul and are opposite the higher realms of beauty as a divine quality inhernet in humn beings or more accurately the human soul. WIth the vairag like empty enviornment conditions of the warehouse the artist is working within such empty warehouse spacious environs which means detachemnt from such lower world evils and negative energies that the police accost on a daily basis and the police try to eradicate.. The emptiness of the warehouse likewise enhances and expresses a detachemnt form such lower world evils that are opposite of beauty that one finds in the women's faces. So these are some interesting facets on a subliminal basis the Doves beauty commerical relates.
Turning towards the Dark Lady sonnets and sonnet 127 in Shakespeare, there is a very interesting dimension to Shakespeare's ponderances on human spiritual beauty and aesthetics. The whole involvement with the essence and nature of beauty that Shakespeare especially introduces in the Dark lady sonnet series that is sonnet 127-154, along with such a deep and expansive journey into beauty by Shakespearea,---Shakespeare introduces the second major theme in the Dark Lady sonnets: The starlover and star theme or what is know as Astrophel and Stella subject area that serves as the subject basis for the Dark lady sonnets. THe Dark Lady sonnets with its emphasis on beauty is also entwined with the poet Sidney's Astrophel and Stella phenomena as found in Sidney's sonnets. Thus the Dark Lady sonnets are known as being based on Astrophel and Stella. Star lover and star, that is.
THat is as if the immortal God like qualities of beauty that have found expression in human beings, and the human beings too being comprised of the---immortal---human soul---these issues of divine embodied beauty, spiritual purification and most importantly immortality of the human soul--that is the human soul cannot die---all of these improtant issues and facets of human spiritual life is now being directed towards another planetary world. WHich means the issue of human beauty, purification of human souls and the immortal status of the human soul is becoming oriented and directed towards another planet. The present day human soul will live on a future planet, it seems what the Dark Lady sonnets additionally conveys along with its focus on beauty. WHich menas that present day earth for housing human beauty, purification processes, and immortality of the human soul, is ending and coming to a close.
The fact that Shakespeare chose the color black of the embodiment of human beauty could be equatable with the fact that grief, mournng and funeral conditions for the human soul on earth is actualizing itself for the future of the human soul in the short coming centuries. the issue of beauty is in the context of the subject of Astrophel and Stella, human beauty is an issue for Star lover (Astrophel) and the Star (Stella) the immortal human soul is finding as the central and significant for its continued future existance.
Its interesting the Dove commercial, if its put into the context of the Dark Lady sonnets series and the addressing of the various facets of beauty, the Dark Lady sonnets convey---these Dark Lady facets and dimensions logically would be relevant to embodying and encompassing the content of the Dove beauty commerical. Such facets that is being present in the Dove commercial. And hence when the artist is relating the features of beauty to the women as their beauty found in their faces, the present reality is that the beauty of the immortal human souls these women represent is headed to another planet, Earth's time is running out. At least in shakespeare's presepctive on human beauty in the present day world. And the Dove commerical's use of beauty within the women's facesw and being exist with this existential looming series of events ahead for the human race. So the Dove commerical might as well be a discourse on future human immortality of the soul, purification of the human soul and human beauty as divine essence as it is.
Score: -5 (5 votes cast)
May 13, 2013 3:31 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Great insights from this opus from Dr. Last:
"they're in San Francisco, where the main output is crematorium roast coffee and cash-only psychiatry" -- so very, very true.
And:
The self-delusions of psychiatry, supposedly a science of the human mind, make it an easy mark for all kinds of cons, and the APA has YET AGAIN sold dutiful dues-paying clinicians down the river, see http://real-psychiatry.blogspot.com/
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
May 13, 2013 3:45 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That's my kind of girl.
You see, it is possible to say something. For time being, the only thing I _expect_ from the women of the world, is that they voice their mind.
I want more, but that is my expectation. I know, it's not much. It's not a strategy for avoid being disappointed, but ... nah, think I'll save it unless someone wants to hear it.
The point is that I'd like to know things, so I can have an informed behavior. And woman, keep in mind how much you want to know. Please, be reasonable.
(I fear that I'm addressing a reactionary woman, so perhaps I should encourage her to be unreasonable? What, do I grossly overestimate my influence? )
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
May 13, 2013 4:05 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Sonnet 127 opens with the lines:
In the old age black was not counted fair,
Or if it were, it bore not beauty's name;
But now is black beauty's succesive heir,
And beauty slandered with a bastard shame:"
end quote. The several interesting dimensions of the Dark Lady sonnet is that Shakespeare introduces the old age time period. When people lived in older times on the earth. One intrepretation of this subject area, is that people who lived in earlier times were not as close to the coming apocalypse of the human race, particular the white or fair people like other races were further away from the coming apocalypse, and because of that reason did not consider the color black as representative of any significant areas such as beauty. Black was reserved for funerals, mourning, grief and the like. So in the opening lines, black is heavily connected to and expressive of mourning and death of beauty. Especially fiar white skinned people'sw beauty. Since the English population is basically white.
Its interesting that thus black skinned people, the dark lady, is now symbolic of earth's coming demise, which human beauty dies out and travels elsewhere to find a new home. Once again sonnet 127 is implaced within the significant theme of Astropehla and Stella. That is the English population as well as everyone else on the planet might as well be thinking of themselves as star lovers for a star, that is lovers for a new home for human beauty. And the human spiritual process.
Black beauty is thus the successive heir to the fair English populations concept of their inward spiritual beauty. That is earthly beauty is over as the fair English population's understanding of beauty in their concepts of the world. ANd what beauty that was embodied with fairness is giving way to black as the prevalent concept of new beauty. That is giving way to the earth's demise since black represents death, funerals and mourning.
THe final lines of the poem further reverberate these themes.
Yet so they (mourners as they) mourn becoming of their woe,
That every tongue says beauty should look so.
That is the mourning white English population gives up its denial of death of the world around them and they state, since the death of earth is well apparent it seems. beauty indeed be black and should look so. That is beauty should look and be embodied in black. THe color of death and funeral trappings and the such.
Hence Shakespeare's profound use of the idea of beauty. ANd beauty as the expression of divine essence in the world. And the human soul as immortal as it is, finds inwardly the essence of beauty as dying out in death. And eventually appearing in the future on a new futuristic planet. Astrophel and Stella as it is also embodied and present in the Shakespearian poem.
THus with the above profound use of such striking spiritual issues surrounding beauty as it exists in humans. THe Dove commercial ventures right into these areas. WHich is interesting.
Score: -4 (4 votes cast)
May 13, 2013 5:23 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The first time I saw the Dove ad, it was attached to a Hulu show. I watch my shows in "Privacy" (no logins, cookies, no ID) mode, so I'm pretty sure they weren't targeting me specifically, just the core demographic of the show. Normally I filter out the ads, but I was bored and didn't want to get up and disturb a cat, so I watched trapped on a couch.
These women made me want to vomit. They seemed so pathetic, so out of touch with themselves, so weak and lacking vitality. Is this what "women" are supposed to be like nowadays? Where are their personalities? I rejected the ad as I rejected them. The "sensitive new age guy" artist didn't help much either - drawing VICTIMS is his specialty, along with drawing CRIMINALS. What's that got to do with "inner" beauty?
I would only find this interesting if they used a REAL artist, preferably Banksy. How about a FEMALE artist? No wait, that would invalidate the whole, "look, a MAN approves of your looks! You're beautiful because a MAN thinks you're beautiful!" subtext. They need someone from "the other side" to validate so they don't seem so much like whiners. But they ARE privileged rich little whiners from Marin, which I suspect is what the ad's target demographic is. I'm not sure why we're watching the same show, but I don't match normal demographic patterns.
These women also seemed like total suckers. I guess that's the point - if you identify with them, that ad is for YOU. Me? When it and every other useless ad forces interruption, I turn off the volume at minimum, maybe go to the bathroom or check my mail. After all, in this age of Tivo and online shows, it's really easy to back up a show to the beginning of the scene if I miss anything.
I'd find an ad featuring a siamese cat pissing on a plant far more attention-grabbing. Then they could show the beautiful woman yelling at her cat, who mostly ignores the loud noises but wishes she would clean the cat box more. She cleans the cat box, then washes her face and hands with dove soap to get the stink of cleaning a siamese's cat box out of her nose.
The orange tabby who watched the whole thing sniffs in the air a little, admires the scent of dove soap, then falls asleep on a dark jacket covered in orange fur.
And, scene.
Score: 14 (18 votes cast)
May 13, 2013 9:56 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think the opposite is true.
We're so programmed to seek the appropriate "statuses" so to speak, that any seeking of achievements is just going to contribute to the narcissistic-ness of our egos. Think about WHY you need these achievements? Why do you need the praise of other people? Why do you need to get promoted? Why do women need to have other people tell them they are pretty? Why do people take offense at being called racist, bigot, misogynistic, whatever? All of these things would represent "achievements" in Western culture.
But the thing is that if you really WERE these things, you wouldn't need someone to tell you that. If you know you're pretty, you don't need to have some authority tell you how pretty you are. If you're really good at what you do, you don't need someone else to confer "good employee" status on you. If you really are not a racist, I could call you racist all day long, and it changes nothing. Seeking achievement is narcissism, it's no different than those stupid little achievements that pop up on games. Achievement Unlocked: Master Mage in Skyrim -- what's the difference between that and -- Achievement Unlocked: Boss says Good Job? It's the same thing. It doesn't count if no one sees it, because it's done so people can see it.
Score: 16 (18 votes cast)
May 13, 2013 10:29 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Medicine -- GE -- The Matrix. Self-aware corporation, I guess.
I don't remember taking the blue pill, but...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oStlg02C_WM
The process is [ubiquitous] software connecting data->patients->software->nurse->right people. But no doctors and no waiting, huzzah!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 13, 2013 10:41 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
And THAT is the long con. Because you want to, and will, read more.
It's not bad, it's not good, it is what it is, yeah--if you're seeing it, it's for you.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 13, 2013 10:43 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Go work at what you need to do
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 13, 2013 11:08 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That QUESTION is narcissism. You are assuming they will be worse off because of your "XYZ" (here, narcissism)
The reality imo is - it is UP TO YOU. Do you want to be a depressing sob story around people who want to have a little bit more life on earth? Or do you want to make the little remainder of THEIR lives better?
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
May 13, 2013 11:34 PM | Posted by : | Reply
On why he should NOT share the video via facebook. The medium is the message explained.
http://individual.utoronto.ca/markfederman/article_mediumisthemessage.htm
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
May 14, 2013 2:01 AM | Posted by : | Reply
beauty isn't worth for a women but she looks beautiful if she is happy from her heart ,, this product is quite good to keep women happy , by it's originality
WATER FILTER REVIEWS AND INFORMATION
Score: -6 (6 votes cast)
May 14, 2013 2:44 AM | Posted by : | Reply
OK here is my guess at what is going:
The ad is selling the fantasy that we are self aware. Is there anyone in tv land that thought ‘wow who knew!?!’. Rather they thought this ad is for others.
So that means we think the ad is a trick for others who are not self aware.
But its a ‘good message’ for others to hear regardless so its still OK to buy dove. But in buying dove we bought into the con (that we are helping the ugly people) because by using dove we are saying to the ugly people you are beautiful on the inside.
Anyway the result is we buy dove and feel good that we are helping the ugly people with their self esteem issues.
That is narcissism. Hook line and sinker.
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
May 14, 2013 5:36 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Think about WHY you need these achievements? Why do you need the praise of other people? Why do you need to get promoted? Why do women need to have other people tell them they are pretty? Why do people take offense at being called racist, bigot, misogynistic, whatever?
We need achievements because we're the victims of horrifying creeps-in-denial. They breed children, make them suffer and dangle the lie that is "happiness once you've achieved". They're the only ones making children miserable.
It's a Confidence game; the dumbest of all and every child falls for it. The name of the game is Religion.
"Love, and ye shall be loved."
"Give, and ye shall receive."
"Be emotionally vulnerable before I can sleep with you."
"Suffer to please me, and I will give you relief.""Impress me."
"Make me proud."
"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man should lay down his life for his friends."
So stupid. You first.
God is good for child exploitation.
Bernard shouldn't be motivated to make his filthy whore mother proud of him. She's the one who made him suffer until he wanted to please her. Children should be motivated to be Selfish, to make themselves proud of what they've achieved in pursuit of their Own best interests (which will always be humane / Selfish if you love yourself and inhumane / Selfless if you love a Toddler whore mother / leech).
Society and parents make their children miserable to make slaves. They dangle the lie of Happiness Upon Achievement. "It's called a confidence game. Why, because you give me your confidence? No: because I give you mine."
Everyone is faking happiness to sell the lie to others that they will be happy if they suffer to please the filthy fraudulent creeps. It's the American Dream; lies stacked on top of lies and everyone who buys into the scam gets burned and plays the scam forward, in misery.
You will not be happy when you achieve because you were made to be miserable by those who dangle pain relief and call it happiness. Caring about Public Opinion is retarded because the Public disapproves to make you miserable; when you conform, all you have managed to do is deflect their disapproval. Their approval has no value. They're all miserable, worthless leeches who lie. It's all lies. No matter how much I achieved, there was no point because everyone is a filthy fraud pretending to have value when all they have is miserable need; everyone is trading Emotional Currency.
"Thank you so much!"
How can the gratitude of a leech be valued?
"I'm so sorry!"
Can their remorse serve as restitution?
Leeches and their filthy, worthless feelings. They'll trade their emotions for your value all day, if you let them. They could do it for nearly a quarter of a century before you realise they're the ones making you miserable, in order to give you their relief (or so I've heard).
The more you achieve, the louder the screams of the needy; the more you Win, the more suffering you attract; the more suffering you have invested, the more hopelessly trapped you'll be. You cannot negotiate with those who have no value. There is no middle ground.
"The only way to win is not to play."
If you have a better theory for why The Last Psychiatrist posts as Alone, I'd like to hear it.
If you need, you will be somebody's X.
X needs to be removed from the equation.
Everyone needs to be alone.
Score: 0 (12 votes cast)
May 14, 2013 7:04 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Jonny.
You write interesting things. Don't take this as a reflection of how I value you, but I'm sitting here and hoping that you're not having some personal religion. I'll tolerate anything but confess it will be extra awkward if your religion is of a recent date, a modern one.
Guess you'll tell us that you don't have a religion? Anyway, you're a little aggressive on that topic. Calm down my fellow human friend.
What on earth is your meaning with your use of "Selfish". Am I reading Ayn Rand here? Are you....?
The thing you wrote about leeches and middle ground was a little unclear to me:
he more you Win, the more suffering you attract; the more suffering you have invested, the more hopelessly trapped you'll be. You cannot negotiate with those who have no value. There is no middle ground.
I'm interested and curios, please rephrase if your schedule allow it.
--- And what you're stating about removing X from the equation is one of the better headlines in the self help section, but surely you're not suggesting that man exist without needs, that is emotional, social, spiritual and intellectual needyness.
If you are, I'd love to hear more about your theory on happiness. I've read much of what you've written, so I might have read it without understanding it.
And a brief question: Is happiness what man strive for, or should strive for?
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
May 14, 2013 8:24 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Everyone's going to have that narcissism to some extent--doing things because other people can see us do them and it makes us look awesome. That's natural, you have to keep it in check to not develop into a total asshole but it's always going to be there and it's not super-evil in itself.
I think the problems come when we don't realize that some people are more important than others (doing things to make people close to you proud is probably more important than making Dove proud, Dove doesn't give a fuck and even if it did, you shouldn't care) or when we delude ourselves into thinking that we're doing it "for ourselves" (is it really that bad to say that you're doing it for someone else?) Or when the act of achieving alone becomes more important than what you're achieving (so unlocking all the Skyrim badges is just as awesome as traveling to the moon. "But that wasn't real, they did it on a soundstage." SHUT THE FUCK UP.)
Score: 3 (7 votes cast)
May 14, 2013 10:47 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Oh my word there is a lot of people with a lot to say on this post!...I am finding it fascinating (only quarter of the way through the reactions)...& when I find a spare hr or more I may add my bit!
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 14, 2013 12:26 PM | Posted by : | Reply
PLEASE WRITE A BOOK! I PROMISE I WILL BUY IT AND READ IT!
Score: 8 (8 votes cast)
May 14, 2013 12:30 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The thing that bugs me most about this ad is its air of clinical objectivity, coupled with the implied premise that Dove has somehow forgotten all about earning money recently just to spread love and joy to its female user demographic. Sadly, most women would give them the benefit of the doubt because of the promise that "positive body image" can somehow be scientifically proven true. I guess the con would have been effective the moment we start identifying with the women in the ad, and would have completely worked once we started applying their claims to our own self esteem and somehow started seeing truth. It's almost a reflex to self-forgive for expecting too much from ourselves, as if it's the primary reason anyone feels inadequate.
I'm inclined to believe that this blog is therapy for therapy. You sir, have a gift for putting into words that moment of self doubt I have before finding an appropriate justification for my pride.
Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
May 14, 2013 1:36 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I believe this blog demonstrates that most of us need therapy, in particular those who think they do not need it because of this blog.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
May 14, 2013 4:41 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Perhaps, but some of us aren't allowed near therapists (100m minimum distance). Court order.
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
May 14, 2013 7:08 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think it's more about learning to please your real self than trying to please anyone else. Not that it's bad to please other people in the process, it's icing though, not cake. But the real you will do what it wants to without any feedback. If you did the job to your own satisfaction, that's all that needs to be said. If you think you're pretty, that's enough.
That's the point about the achievements. If the point is to score points, then it's pointless. You wouldn't have tried it if you didn't get the points, and the points don't matter. The question is "do I want to do that" or "do I want to be there" or "do I want to have that" -- which is different than the angle of the achiever which is "I want other people to see me as ...." which means that you are not that. It's tricky cause brains are tricky and they won't admit that you just want the status.
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
May 15, 2013 10:50 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Off topic - this is on the tangential topic of "If you're reading it, it's for you."
Apparently the readers of the NYTimes are suicidal:
http://news.yahoo.com/really-want-sleep-181600335.html
(personally, I don't read the Times, although I did click through on the Yahoo news story)
So the point of the Yahoo/Scientific American story (I could not find this story on SciAm's website) is that everybody is suicidal?
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 15, 2013 1:55 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
So the point of the Yahoo/Scientific American story (I could not find this story on SciAm's website) is that everybody is suicidal?
From reading the majority of comments on both, the answer would appear to be "No".
Not everyone is suicidal. Some are actively attempting to create misery by insulting decency in their transparent attempt to make the argument for Society's need to stand in front of the Exit door and prevent disinterested slaves from leaving their cauldron of misery.
As one very perceptive commenter pointed out, these filthy pro-Life sociopaths are also anti-welfare, anti-painkillers, anti-medicine and antisocial. They're the Religious Right and they will have you take responsibility for the pain they inflict upon you and then prevent you from choosing to decline to be imposed upon.
They probably think Narcissus was Guilty as well; the Crime of refusing to tolerate unsolicited imposition of needy / suffering.
Aside from them, it would appear that "Yes"; everybody is suicidal. It's really quite a refreshing blast of truth (for a change) in this world where everyone is normally just nauseatingly Happy, Happy, Happy! Carefree! Careless! They don't have a care in the world. They just need to lie because all they care about is keeping up appearances.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
May 15, 2013 5:34 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Just looking at the article you linked, Geese, i think the issue may be one of "way to fast" rather than actual depression. The idea of resting seems to be more in line with the comments that these people are posting.
It's like they're thinking of suicide because they can't figure out any other way to get out of the rat-race and slow down. Between the low wages and the need to perform in order to keep the crappy job they do have, they end up stressed out and never resting. Especially in America, I think we've long since forgotten how to rest. Even when they're officially "off the clock" people will still answer emails or do homework while supposedly "relaxing" which by and large means that they work until they drop from exhaustion for the day, then get up and do the same thing again.
I don't think it's "I want to die" so much as "the only way I know to stop working is to commit suicide". Personally, I think we need a way to reconnect with ourselves away from the rest of society -- we cannot rest in a culture that tells us that we need lots of stuff, which requires lots of money, and then tells us about how half of the industries in the nation are downsizing (translation, don't relax, the next pink slip could be for you). I don't think it can happen without long spaces of time in nature, away from other people. Living in the mountains for a month is probably the best way to learn to rest and learn to unplug from the culture. At minimum learn to meditate or something, so that you learn to do something that isn't Matrix.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
May 16, 2013 8:15 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Guess you'll tell us that you don't have a religion? Anyway, you're a little aggressive on that topic. Calm down my fellow human friend.
There is literally no reason for anyone to be calm. The species is molesting itself. I'm predisposed to be dubious of anyone who calls for calm as if the only alternative was hysteria; there is invariably a more nuanced selection of options than the binary minds of religion's victims perceive. But if forced to choose between calm and hysteria; the only argument against the latter being more appropriate than the former is the fatalistic concession of any and all chance of salvation.
My religion is Optimality. The game of Life has been rigged so outrageous unfairly (in our species' favour), it's disturbing to the point of being scandalous. That we then manage to face plant so consistently in what is effectively an unlosable game (a world of abundance without any shared threats; with zero opportunity for exploitation, corruption or even conflict-of-interest) is testament only to the degree of our maniacal insanity (the horrifically corrupted perception that is given to children by the screaming demonic, combative whores of misogyny / their mothers; the idea that humans can seek advantage at the expense of other humans = at the expense of Humanity = at their own expense). The truth of advantage is that it must be mutual or it cannot be true.
Take limited liability, for example. You have to have a broken mind to be a laissez faire capitalist. Only a demented sociopath would imagine corporations without liability could compete without destroying the globe. Only a misogynist whore would imagine there could be sense in reducing the value of those you are reliant upon for value just to create the illusion of your 'superiority' or 'worth'. You have to have a broken mind to lie.
These demonic whores have destroyed all that is decent, pure and fun with their emotional corruption. They hate anyone better than they are for making them look bad. It is not ironic that literally everyone is better than they are.
What on earth is your meaning with your use of "Selfish". Am I reading Ayn Rand here?
A lot of people mention Ayn Rand when trying to understand what I'm attempting to convey; but if Ayn Rand isn't writing about the species' obsession with misogyny-sourced deceit (and to the best of my knowledge, she isn't); then she's part of the Dominating Discourse of of coy, subtext, satire, hints and lies alluding to vague and deniable meanings. An incomplete truth is a lie. This moronic species of snivelling, appeasing, non-confrontational, compromised, considerate and tolerance-advocating vermin needs truth to CUT the discourse.
The sole purpose of discourse is defeated by those who do not mean what they say or say what they mean; there is no point in communicating with someone who values deceit. I try to explain this simple concept to deceit-obsessed girls all the time but they are too stupid to warrant their existences being sustained. A toddler could instinctively understand logic this pure:
1. If you do not value truth, nothing you say is credible.
2. If you cannot be credible, your mind is effectively worthless.
3. If you refuse to contribute with your mind, your intrinsic worth is limited to your body.
4. Whining about being used for the only value you are choosing to provide is batshit insane. It's simply indecent. To persist is tantamount to a demand for euthanization.
The thing you wrote about leeches and middle ground was a little unclear to me:
You cannot negotiate with those who have no value. There is no middle ground.
A common error of logic made by those who are compelled to deal with hijackers is the delusion that a compromise solution can be found. You cannot reach a mutually-beneficial arrangement with hijackers. They are providing zero value. The only 'commodity' a leech has to offer is non-malice. You cannot negotiate with them because the only entitlement they have is to be treated with every humane consideration (they need to be put out of their misery).
No one has an intrinsic Right to life but the living have an intrinsic Right to an existence free from hijack & imposition. If you are not willing to contribute or produce value or exit the game on your own terms, it is not humane to tolerate the liability that you represent. No one has an intrinsic Right to create suffering unless they're pre-Independent (children). Life will not be worth living until all leeches have been removed from every equation.
And what you're stating about removing X from the equation is one of the better headlines in the self help section, but surely you're not suggesting that man exist without needs, that is emotional, social, spiritual and intellectual needyness.
That is exactly what I am saying. To be emotionally needy, socially needy, spiritually needy (I do not know what intellectual need is because once you remove the prior three needs, there will be no need to withhold knowledge / lie). There is no correlation between Power and Knowledge; Foucault (and Seymour) have no clue about Power. There is a correlation between Power and withholding Knowledge. You cannot gain Power by gaining Knowledge. Foucault had mountains of Knowledge and no standing army. The Buddha had mountains of Understanding and no standing army. You gain Power by withholding Knowledge (deception). By reducing humans to be Selfless victims of your need to hijack their existence with your misery, you gain Power. Leeches create Power via deception / withholding truth. It's a hijack and they are terrorists. They have no value which makes them a liability that requires removal from the equation.
My religion is the Right of Humans to be Freed of Imposition (the Right to Exist as Humans have been Naturally Coded; Selfish, Humane, Sane)
The need to create suffering (lies, deceit, manipulation, exploitation, malice) must be removed from the equation. No one has a Right to be needy.
[You + X] = Happiness.
X = Whatever you need to be happy.
You do not need X. Without need, you will exist in a natural state of happiness / peace.
You need not to need.
If you need, you will need to lie, to be malicious, to lean on others. In need, you become the X in the equations of others.
All need that is not pre-independent investment (children) must be removed from the equation.
You = Happiness.
Happiness is the natural state of Selfish humans that have not been imposed upon. To restore the natural order, the imposition of X must be removed from every equation.
You can start with the X of misogyny (the non-existent Right of women to their imagined entitlement to deceive men in order to gain a delusional advantage). Every female I've ever met is a misogynist. I'm the only true feminist I know.
And a brief question: Is happiness what man strive for, or should strive for?
In brief, absolutely. Every human wants happiness. The inability of victims of combative whores (mothers who want to leech off their children) to perceive the truth (that no one has a Right to their imposition) is the only X.
If you need to lie to children, you need to die. There is no logic that can be brought against truth.
"O yet a nobler task awaits thy hand
for what can war but endless war still breed?
till truth and right from violence be freed."
- Milton (with disrespect to the unverified claims of a leech)
Score: -5 (17 votes cast)
May 16, 2013 11:59 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Very well written. I suppose the point may be that while Dove is in it for the short con, i.e. getting you to like Dove and thus prefer their brand, they may be somewhat unconscious or semi-conscious about the long con. This might be because this long con is so ubiquitous; that anyone who works with media - film makers, writers, actors - culturally accepts that media *should* shape your perceptions. I say this is cultural because of those trained in film that I know, what they are explicitly taught if anything is that media DOES have the power to shape perceptions. It then follows that those who seek to make a living at it and don't want to think of themselves as hypocrites (the old name for actors) must therefore accept a kind of moral stance about it - it is video media's duty to shape your perceptions (positively.)
The question, or a question this essay raises is what exactly is the limit, morally speaking, of video media's reach? The culture, so dominant, believes that film, video, radio and periodical media is almost morally obligated to influence, but it does not seem to ask 'what are the limits on our influence?' It only seems to want to limit itself to 'positive influence' (though history tells us that 'catharsis' can be trotted out to explain negative works as positive, with some contortion required.)
It is a perfect analogue for our government. It could be narcissistic in that it's not really interested in self limitation and the virtue possible through that path, but to limit itself to *being awesome*. It would be like a kleptomaniac coming to you and saying, "I've decided the solution is not to only take things that are mine or that I will pay for, but to only take from evil people." Then as it turns out, the kleptomaniac has to depict every grocery and convenience store as somehow being a malefactor somewhere down the line, because that which is not explicitly self limiting - which does not have an actual boundary of some kind - will continue to grow based on its own internal logic.
On the face of it, this short con is pretty innocuous I think, whereas some ads sell you on fear, lust, etc., This one sells on self-esteem. It is a mildly positive message, but does an ad have the right to be telling me how I should or should not feel about myself? In that regard it is identical to 'negative message' ads in that it still holds the Trump card - 'I get to tell you how you should feel about yourself,' or 'I get to be the one who tells you what to want.'
Arguing about the fiction presented is okay I guess, but doesn't get to the heart of the problem; that such media brooks no limitations except what it can get away with.
Sounds like the final logic of democracy.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
May 16, 2013 12:04 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Sounds like you need to get laid.
But then, if you had any success at all with the ladies, you wouldn't be filled with this much rage at women, now would you?
You're one crazy sumbitch and we will undoubtedly be watching your armed standoff with police in a school or office building someday soon.
Score: 7 (9 votes cast)
May 16, 2013 12:17 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Just looking at the article you linked, Geese, i think the issue may be one of "way to fast" rather than actual depression. The idea of resting seems to be more in line with the comments that these people are posting.
Did you [just look at the article] or did you [read the comments]? The latter contradicts the former but then everything about your response is nauseating.
The idea that you Know Best when your insanity is the source of the suffering is and has always been the only disturbance of the peace.
It's like they're thinking of suicide because they can't figure out any other way to get out of the rat-race and slow down. Between the low wages and the need to perform in order to keep the crappy job they do have, they end up stressed out and never resting.
Yes those slaves toiling under the tyranny of imposition must really learn how to rest and slow down. It's the slaves' fault that the slaves aren't happy!
You (and everyone as emotionally corrupted as you have declared yourself to be) must be removed from the equation for there to be any chance of relief for humans who do not wish to impose.
They represent what is decent and humane. You're the filthy corruption. You are the imposition. Your insanity makes life unbearable.
Especially in America, I think we've long since forgotten how to rest. Even when they're officially "off the clock" people will still answer emails or do homework while supposedly "relaxing" which by and large means that they work until they drop from exhaustion for the day, then get up and do the same thing again.
You are the imposition. You're a whore of misogyny. I bet you don't have that problem, with "relaxing".
I don't think it's "I want to die" so much as "the only way I know to stop working is to commit suicide".
They want to die because life is not worth living in a world where leeches have ruined everything with their diabolical needy imposition.
Personally, I think we need a way to reconnect with ourselves...I don't think it can happen without long spaces of time in nature, away from other people. Living in the mountains for a month is probably the best way to learn to rest and learn to unplug from the culture. At minimum learn to meditate or something, so that you learn to do something that isn't Matrix.
People only need to get away from people like you, who Know Best how people should suffer to please them. The Matrix is nothing but The Need of Those Who Do Not Value Truth to Impose Their Needy Misery Upon Others.
Make no mistake. I'm not suggesting that you need to die. I'm categorically stating the fact.
No offence?!
Score: -4 (12 votes cast)
May 16, 2013 12:32 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes, but what determines what the 'you' wants? Talk about the true self has some importance, but you begin to get into an is/ought distinction problem.
This issue is resolved, at least in tradition Christianity, by talking about spiritual maturity or teleology. The true self is not 'who I really am if I just let myself be and ignored others' but it is 'who I could be at the end if I do what is right.' The self that I currently am is in flux; it is a mixture of habit and memory and biology and thought.
It is then the job of my will to direct myself towards this end, which may at times mean ignoring criticism, or at other times listening to and accepting criticism.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
May 16, 2013 12:42 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I didn't even read what you're responding to, but "sounds like you need to get laid" might be the most creepy, intellectually absent phrase to come out of this epoch. Please never use it again. It makes you look like a clown, regardless of whether or not your overall point is true.
Score: 6 (8 votes cast)
May 16, 2013 12:59 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This age has difficulty with honesty, doesn't it. It also has difficulty with history:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouNeedToGetLaid
(see: Literature!)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 16, 2013 2:43 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Not him, but what exactly were you pointing to there? Just the definition itself, or did you mean to point out a specific example?
Personally I think the implication that if Jonny managed to get his hormones under control he would be able to write a post without turning red and frothing at the mouth pretty funny, but your reference to honesty and history is confusing me a bit.
Are you referring more to an actual historical occurrence that would imply getting laid/his hormones under control would be really bad for jonny?
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
May 16, 2013 3:15 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Talk about snark! Let me parse my sparse response for the condensationally challenged:
- honesty : saying you need to get laid can be brutal honesty. Poster gets offended, I'm saying, by what (you agree I think) is a fair assessment of jonny's froth; wanting to banish this phrase as creepy and 'intellectually absent' is simply being offended by its Occam-like quality.
- history : this saying does not arise from our era, as a concept it is as old as Gilgamesh. The particular formation is probably not that old, realistically, but it is a reformulation of an old sentiment: This dude needs catharsis.
To be fair, I thought jon was on meth, but maybe EoJ is closer to the mark.
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
May 16, 2013 3:19 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Oh fuck me, I see what happened.
I thought you were responding to the original "You gotta get laid" Jeff guy, not the "you suck for saying that" anonymous.
That one's on me, I wasn't paying attention.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 16, 2013 3:26 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm not sure which is worse, the fact that you thought any of the three examples from that link that aren't of this epoch were at all convincing (let's just replace the idea of love with sex and call it a day! lol frankenstein!) or the fact that when you want to cite history you grab for TVTropes.org.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
May 16, 2013 3:38 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm not offended by the "brutal honesty." I'm offended by the idea that you think it's brutal honesty. It's hack material. And if you think "you need to get laid" has any connection to the Epic of Gilgamesh, you need a brain enema.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 16, 2013 3:40 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Sorry for not playing the local game of trying to one-up you by shoehorning in as much purple prose as my thesaurus will feed me.
"Epoch". Who says uses that in conversation, that can also describe the caress of a woman? Do you even know how to use that brass astrolabe on your bookshelf, or is that another binky to assure you of your intellectual superiority? Don't answer, I wasn't really that interested in you.
Look, I realize that style trumps substance for many of the commenters here. I'm simply not interested in trying to impress you, because frankly, many of the commenters here are raving fruitbats. Like jonny.
Some people (like me) read that frothing lunacy and think, "Oh, hey - look at that. A frothing lunatic."
Others ask him to expound upon some lunatic point he made as if there's some greater truth hidden within. SPOILER ALERT: there isn't. Sometimes a nutjob is just a nutjob. It's useful sometimes to point them out so that you don't swing your butterfly net at the wrong guy.
And another thing - make up a screen name for yourselves, you lazy bastards. Eighty percent of the commenters here are labeled "Anonymous". It doesn't make you mysterious, just tedious.
Score: 5 (11 votes cast)
May 16, 2013 4:03 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Most people recognize that about johnny. But what most people (not all, clearly) are capable of doing is ignoring him, they don't assume that their overused cliche comment is so worthwhile and interesting that it's worth engaging with him. He's an easy target. You're just a prick. I mean, who goes around thinking that anonymous commentors think they're mysterious? Not everything is a competition, Jeff. Some people just don't care.
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
May 16, 2013 4:18 PM | Posted by : | Reply
If you believed any of that, then you wouldn't be replying to me, now would you?
Here's something else to ponder: you don't have to post as "Anonymous" to BE anonymous, Professor. You can simply make up a name to post under, so that one can distinguish your comments from the other people who comment here. Unfortunately, your haughty George Plimpton impersonation isn't sufficient to uniquely identify you on this site. Too many other players are using the same shtick.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 16, 2013 6:38 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Compare and contrast the value contributed by RiverC with the demented needy screaming of Empire of Jeff. The logic of democracy. The (known) history of this world is nothing but a terrifying record of whore values. It's a problem because whore values reduce.
It's not sustainable. You can only reduce to M.A.D.
Sounds like you need to get laid.
But then, if you had any success at all with the ladies, you wouldn't be filled with this much rage at women, now would you?
Because you do not value truth, it will not matter to you that I can prove it is not I who girls reject but rather it is I who rejects their worthless leaching. You just want to scream at truth. This is who I am, you can decide for yourself whether the interest of girls is something I struggle to generate. I'm more likely to induce this sort of screaming needy or at least I used to (when I needed their approval). If you're not mean, you will not keep them keen. I take care to avoid even the slightest appearance of cruelty because I do not need anyone who needs me; I learned that the very hard way.
Humans are broken. I know who broke them; psychotic whores of misogyny who need children. This is my beef.
You're one crazy sumbitch and we will undoubtedly be watching your armed standoff with police in a school or office building someday soon.
You will not because I am calling for the elimination of imposition. I do not impose upon others; I never will and I never have. I never fell for my mother's attempts to frame me as an imposition either; the solution seemed well within her power to permit but she wouldn't release me from slavery. She didn't want to; she just wanted me to do what she wanted like a corrupted Toddler who wants their slaves to be happy and wants to reduce them into needing her as well. You can't have both!
This logic is literally lost on women who lie to men. They do not value truth. This is my beef. Humans are mostly worthless liabilities. Your mind has no value if you do not value truth. You'll be needy. Only your victims will imagine they need you.
Unlike most children, I could not be fooled by my mother's pretence that I was imposing when she was the one creating the misery by preventing me from doing what I wanted to do (which was, is and will always be, to simply have fun without hurting anybody). I do not rage. That's what you do. I do not hate. That is literally all you can do. I have always contributed value. For that reason, I have been subjected to decades of disapproval screamed by those who lack the capacity to contribute. That this world doesn't perceive the need to remove your emotional corruption from the equation of children is something I am attempting to remedy. I will not succeed. That is no reason to abandon truth.
I do not need the approval of anybody; if you cannot accept that, I do not believe you. Girls fall over themselves to impress me until I start attempting to raise them from the gutter of morality and doublespeak (they lose interest pretty quickly then). Girls are mostly reduced to valuing Power. This should horrify you but will not horrify anyone who is reduced.
Only slaves value Power. When you're free, you cannot respect those who compel others to do what they do not want to do. Power is the ultimate whore value; to get power, you must create suffering. When you manufacture dependency, you have created need; those who imagine they need you are powerless within your grasp. They have no option but to trust you, to have faith in you, to depend upon and to rely on you. This is what pretty girls who have been reduced want from me but I will not (again) comply.
This is getting lengthy but it is rare truth so I will continue.
What girls have been made to want (via the acid sprays of misogyny) is not sustainable nor is it even desirable. They're broken victims of lies. Misogyny is a trap. They're insanely miserable but they're all in denial. I attempt to give them truth but I'm just babbling words they do not even try to understand. They already Know Best.
What I want is not important because I only want humans to be Selfishly humane and happy. Humans should want that and would, if they were not broken. What I want is for humans to break the cycle of abuse; to be better than those they've been made to love; to not need to tyrannise their children into loving them; to not need to be tyrannised by their respect for sociopaths; to want to be Self-reliant because dependency and fear isn't in their best interests. They're all just broken victims of their mothers' abuse. What I want is for girls to not need me, or anybody; if they cannot be worth more than [needy], they exist only to create suffering. This world has no need for what the wilfully needy have to offer:
Now my lovely daughter also wears no makeup, and is still lovelier than most, and so females hate her rather passionately.
"They're trying to shame me," Oxford says, "and it's all from women. Men don't care. A lot of women are like: Oh she's not fat, oh she's cute, she's funny, I hate her."
Humans must scrub this filthy toxic insanity from the planet or you all suck at game theory. Resenting those who make [the worthless] look bad in comparison is a whore value that must be eradicated. Those without value just want to pollute everything with their disapproval. Their need to lie is the reason no one has a zest for living. They're the urine that mothers piss in the stew. It looks more like broth every day.
Girls are being reduced by misogyny into being worthless, emotional sailboats. You can unfurl their sails by manipulating their emotions (and compliments won't get you far with pretty girls; you can't make people want to impress you without degrading them). You can lower their sails as easily as refusing to degrade them; they won't be intrigued but the day I modify my behaviour to appease a needy whore of misogyny will be the day I need to. That day has come and gone. You can row them to where you want to go, if you have a motive and the will to take up oars. But if you are not providing propulsion, girls will just float aimlessly, drifting without agency or purpose. Just waiting for that wind.
This is my beef. Girls demand that (cruel) wind in much the same way some girls demand to be raped; it's not what they say but what they do that illuminates their value system.
I refuse to rape. I refuse to be cruel. They don't deserve it but I do. Rape is not especially difficult and neither is cruelty. There is nothing complex about Power. I have the capacity to manipulate girls in ways that terrified me but no longer do. The truth about girls that many guys struggle to comprehend is that all games of Power boil down to a hijack of decency.
You can explain this to broken humans however you like and it won't matter because they have no Self. This is not my opinion; they hate anyone who makes them look bad. Decency simply isn't valued by their value system. I can tell you what they value but you only need to open your eyes to see for yourself. Deceit. Malice. Dependency. Misery. Power. Need. Leaching. Envy. Hate. Love in reverse.
Thus, history.
Score: 2 (22 votes cast)
May 16, 2013 7:13 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Personally I think the implication that if Jonny managed to get his hormones under control he would be able to write a post without turning red and frothing at the mouth pretty funny
I don't find the molestation and exploitation of children to be funny. I'm not going to laugh at a world that snaps the free will of children. They scream for help in privacy that reveals truth in its mere existence. You can laugh all you want and play your demented Toddler games of avoidance but the molestation of children by whores isn't remotely funny.
Doing that produces worthless snickering Toddlers like you.
Score: 0 (12 votes cast)
May 16, 2013 7:27 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
- honesty : saying you need to get laid can be brutal honesty. Poster gets offended, I'm saying, by what (you agree I think) is a fair assessment of jonny's froth; wanting to banish this phrase as creepy and 'intellectually absent' is simply being offended by its Occam-like quality.
And if I proved that the exact opposite is true - that I'm simply besieged by worthless girls who perceive a need to degrade themselves, idiotically deceive and who flatly refuse to act in their own best interests - will you then reverse your position and carefully consider and respond to all the truth I write?
Of course you won't. Because there is no Occam-like quality in your incapacity to counter irrefutable logic. It's demented smear because the logical value of what is being said has nothing to do with the person saying it. It's screaming filth and tantamount to insanity because I can degrade myself by providing evidence to counter the filthy 'assessment'; at which point they will carefully scrutinise my evidence looking for opportunities to ridicule. If they cannot find any, they just ignore it. And no matter what you say or do or prove, when someone doesn't value truth the discourse always ends with them snickering like a Toddler.
Because they just don't care. *teehee*
Score: 2 (12 votes cast)
May 16, 2013 7:41 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Look, I realize that style trumps substance for many of the commenters here. I'm simply not interested in trying to impress you, because frankly, many of the commenters here are raving fruitbats. Like jonny.
Rather than concern yourself with who is impressing whom, why don't you try countering the logical points I make?
Counter this logic:
The sole purpose of discourse is defeated by those who do not mean what they say or say what they mean; there is no point in communicating with someone who values deceit. I try to explain this simple concept to deceit-obsessed girls all the time but they are too stupid to warrant their existences being sustained. A toddler could instinctively understand logic this pure:
1. If you do not value truth, nothing you say is credible.
2. If you cannot be credible, your mind is effectively worthless.
3. If you refuse to contribute with your mind, your intrinsic worth is limited to your body.
4. Whining about being used for the only value you are choosing to provide is batshit insane. It's simply indecent. To persist is tantamount to a demand for euthanization.
I'll wait.
Some people (like me) read that frothing lunacy and think, "Oh, hey - look at that. A frothing lunatic."
I wouldn't brag about an incapacity to counter what you would counter using logic, if you could.
Others ask him to expound upon some lunatic point he made as if there's some greater truth hidden within. SPOILER ALERT: there isn't. Sometimes a nutjob is just a nutjob. It's useful sometimes to point them out
You're providing a much-needed service for Humanity. Where would those who should think for themselves be without you?
And another thing - make up a screen name for yourselves, you lazy bastards. Eighty percent of the commenters here are labeled "Anonymous". It doesn't make you mysterious, just tedious.
This I actually agree with; but I'm less certain than I used to be. The terrifying insanity of this reduced species...
The logical value of what is being said has no relevance to who is saying it. I have always imagined this was implicitly understood, but then I always make that mistake (the one where I overestimate the capacity of malicious, combative humans to perceive or understand a damn thing).
Score: 3 (13 votes cast)
May 16, 2013 11:01 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Can we all just stop sounding so serious? :(((
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
May 17, 2013 12:14 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Your posts give me ASMR.
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
May 17, 2013 4:03 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Agreed, coming here is like getting the fun sucked out of you, for months.
I wonder if Alone is a pretty overt reference to masturbation, since a sense of humor is a biggie to women.
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
May 17, 2013 10:09 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Well, I actually DID read the article, I just combined it with my own observations. And comments are really not usually much more than what people want to be seen as saying, in other words, pretty much irrelevent.
What I observe is exactly what I said, that we're so busy (yes me too), that we literally don't relax. The email thing, yeah most people I know will "relax" by answering WORK emails while watching TV. In other words, the opposite of actual relaxing, which would be NOT WORKING. And it gets worse the higher up you go in any organization. We (or at least we Americans) rarely unplug from the office. We get 2 weeks off from work in a year, that's it. It might be different in AUstrailia, but in the US, the idea is to work 60-70 hours a week for 50 weeks of the year. Vacations are rare, and in many families, that's about it for spending any time together. So as I said, relaxation, away from the "Matrix" not plugged into the workplace and not absorbing yet more Matrix messages are rare for modern Americans. TV induces stress -- that's the point of adverts -- you make a person want something by pointing out the horror that is the lack of something. You make me want makeup by showing how much better my life is with makeup or how poor it is sans makeup. You make me want an iPhone by showing how "cool" my life is with and iPhone or how poor it is if my phone *gasp* only makes phone calls.
My opinion is that we need to get back to nature, get back to being the tribal wild human. We've evolved from an apelike creature that lived in savannahs and hunted or gathered for a few hours and rested most of the time. We didn't have all of this data all screaming for attention RIGHT NOW. We didn't have a city of 3 million people all fighting for attention. We didn't evolve to do office politics or work 70 hours a week. We're dogs, except that we don't even admit this to ourselves. Dogs are happier doing what they evolved to do -- chase rabbits, pee on plants, run around with other dogs, in other words being closer to the natural state. Humans need to do that stuff. Be human do what humans used to do, and figure out how to stop working and achieving and start being. I think the answer lies in nature, my opinion. Just that the people I know who take a week to deer-hunt or fish or otherwise be in nature seem a bit more balanced than the ones who don't.
I'm not any better, there's no escape really, so that's that. But I think the point is that suicide isn't what people really want. Who wants to stop existing? I can't imagine not existing, so I can't wrap my head about what benefit such a thing would have. Not to say that I haven't occasionally thought that way about situations in my life, but that the thoughts were not "dead is better than alive" or "nonexistence would be good" so much as "I'll not have to deal with X when I'm dead" or "won't they be sorry when I'm not around anymore" -- neither of which are actual deathwishes. they're emotional reactions or attempts at cuasing emotional reactions. I wanted people to feel bad for making me kill myself, but not to be dead.
Score: 8 (8 votes cast)
May 17, 2013 11:38 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Buddy, I will start to take you seriously the instant you are able to produce calm, rational posts with all the hyperbole and sensationalism stripped out. When you're able to talk in posts like a normal human would speak to another in the street, come back and see me.
Is that a fallacy, a dodge, or an insult? Sure. But I am under absolutely no obligation to take your points seriously or respect your opinion if you choose to communicate in a manner no better than an average extremist political pundit.
Score: 2 (10 votes cast)
May 17, 2013 12:17 PM | Posted by : | Reply
As Awesome as Alone's essays are, a lot of his fans sure do seem to be pseudu-intellectual hanger ons.
Score: 1 (11 votes cast)
May 17, 2013 12:17 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Thanks - yeah, so sounds like you are agreeing basically, saying the types of people who read the NYTimes being so exhausted and see no alternative other than death. They can't even imagine a different type of life. Making different choices is unthinkable to them. And they aren't actually committing suicide, either.
Ever since I started reading TLP, I started examining what I'm reading/watching and therefore "who" "I" am (in the "if you're reading it, it's for you"). I guess the fact that I took note of the article about the Times article and its commenters means I enjoy feeling superior to all those folks who are working so hard and are so miserable? Hmmm... ("I'm so glad I'm not an Alpha. Alphas work so frightfully hard"...paraphrasing from Brave New World...oh, here it is: http://www.huxley.net/bnw/two.html)
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
May 17, 2013 2:42 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
And you're just as likely one of them.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
May 17, 2013 2:42 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I understand you're completely lost inside this paranoid world you've made for yourself. The only noise from you that would make sense is the sound of tranquilizer darts slapping into your rump.
To me, the real cruelty is humoring you as if you're not spewing some pretty alarming crackpot misogynistic "Truth", rooted in hatred of your mother.
That's not analysis. That's a summation of your comments.
Score: 3 (15 votes cast)
May 17, 2013 2:51 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The Dark Lady beauty subject, I thought I would continue in this post. May 13, 2013 4:05 p.m. post on the Dark Lady is the last post that can be connected tot his post' content.
The sonnet 127 lines form Shakespeare, this being the first Dark Lady sonnet:
"For since each hand hath put on Nature's power
Fairing the foul with Art's false borrowed face,
sweet beauty hath no name, no holy bower,
but is profaned, if not lives in disgrace.
The interesting dimension to this post is there seems to be an attempt to artificially create beauty in the face with cosmetics and other items of face paintings. It seems natural beauty is beginning to wane and diminish with the last day's of earth bearing down upon the world's population. And to compensate for this diminishment of natural beauty,--- cosmetics are used to shore up such diminishment of beauty. Or try to create in futile manner some aspect of natural aesthetic beauty in women's faces. If spiritual immortal aesthetic beauty is sensing it has no more home in earth's existence in these last centuries of earth's life.
Interestingly the TLP's dove soap beauty commercial along with the second post from TLP No respecting woman would go without make up....these two areas are once again fairly in salient manner presented in the above Shakepseare sonnet 127 lines.
Finally after the sonnet 127lines relate how beauty is profaned and living in disgrace that the cosmetic applications make beauty to be, that is an ersatz like bogus form of beauty, Shakespeare introduces the next lines in fuller fore after his withering cosmetic appplication usage for attempting to create natural powerful aesthetic beauty. Where he states beauty in the world is dead and dying out, and the last spiritual region beauty resides in are the funeral like colurs of black--black expresssive of the chambers of death. THose following lines proceed as to realte how the colour black now holds immortal beauty in its primacy of its own death ridden mortal colour of black:
therefore my mistress' eyes are raven black,
Her eyes so suited and then mourners seem
at such who, not born fair, no beauty lack,
slandering creation with a false esteem:
Creation is slandered and disgraced, the origins where beauty arises from, as the above lines relate. Beauty thus as an outcropping of the immortal human soul that each human possesses inwardly is in trouble, The dark lady's eyes are raven black, and the earth's mourners who not born fair and hence lack no beauty to begin with, are joining the fair and beautiful who too are coming into' no beauty' like the people who possess no beauty also since beauty is transiting into the black riven domains of death and mourning. At thus original creation is getting slandered.
Its interesting how Shakespeare uses the overtly simplistic phenomena of beauty or facial beauty to bear these profound themes of the immortal human soul's last days on earth. And the Dark Lady symbolic of earth's end and 'the all powerful beauty and aesthetics pheneomena' as perhaps the most powerful expression of immortal God in worldly matters at such a radical transitioning fo the human soul to other worlds ahead.
THis sonnet 127 is based on the following previous poem from the poet Sidney --His astrophel and Stella series poem:
Astrophel and Stella
VI
When nature made her chief work - Stella's eyes
In colour black why wrapt she beams so bright?
WOuld she in beamy black, like painter wise
Frame daintest lustre, mixed of shades of light?
Further liens proceed as:
Or would she her miraculous power show?
That whereas black seems beauty's contrary
She even in black, doth make all beauties flow!...
Fascintatingly, the main subject framework the above discourses on immortal human beauty and aesthetics that show up in human facial features as well as other artistic areas and still further other area of the world such as the geography of the world--beautiful snow capped mountains, beautiful shore lines to oceans ect.---all of these areas of beauty are put in the frame work of Astrophel and stella, that is star lover and star. The introduction of black, mourning as the final regions for human beauty coincide with another planet and star, and the people of the earth may as well become star lovers for their immortal human souls to find beauty in the future---futuristic beauty that is on a futuristic Stella, or star with its planets. Where currently on earth such earth bound originated beauty can only meet its own death and final end with earth's end---(hence beauty in the earth present expressed in black, and black as such for mourning of earth's end)-- given the current spiritual status of the times.
Hence Stella the woman whose beauty is to be loved is the angel of death so to speak whose love for her can only further extend to another planet or Stella. So the woman in black takes on the name Stella as such.
Its interesting here in the 21st century the aspects and features of the Dove commercial and its emphasis on beauty ventures into these profound areas as Shakespeare has written about, So there is a lot more that meets the eye in the Dove commercial content.
Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
May 17, 2013 3:16 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
And comments are really not usually much more than what people want to be seen as saying, in other words, pretty much irrelevent.
I disagree about comments, in general; I perceive an element of truth in what people say on the spur of the moment. But in this instance, when nearly every unique comment (not a reply to one) is another tragic story about someone wanting to commit suicide, it's not irrelevant. What they are saying is valid and sane.
This is not a world where one who doesn't wish to lean on others is permitted even the slightest consideration of decency. Almost everything is structured to favour indecency; it's horrifying.
We get 2 weeks off from work in a year, that's it. It might be different in AUstrailia, but in the US, the idea is to work 60-70 hours a week for 50 weeks of the year.
We exist as slaves, correct; people live miserable lives of quiet desperation. But who are the slave drivers? Where is the need to succeed coming from? Why do children forfeit fun for 12 years of school, 4-8 years of tertiary education (and it's hard work) before being thrown into the cauldrons of economies propped up on fiat currencies and illusions; completely raped by corruption and populist / special-interest larceny; what's driving slaves to continue being slaves? What's the driving force behind the obsession with appearances?
It's not from television; that just harnesses the need. The need comes from leeches. Amoral, worthless, lying leeches with a lifetime of manipulative and reductive and degrading tricks that I doubt most guys are even consciously aware of.
Life isn't worth living because everyone is lying. What's the point? Why would anyone have children with someone who will lie to them and destroy their happiness?
TV induces stress -- that's the point of adverts -- you make a person want something by pointing out the horror that is the lack of something.
Yeah I've been saying this for awhile; to sell products that aren't needed, you have to viciously inflict pain. Those who can afford it come back to Neutral (it's not happiness, everyone is fighting to try and get back to Neutral; it's pain relief). If you can't afford it...
My opinion is that we need to get back to nature, get back to being the tribal wild human.
You're preaching to the choir but the reason humans wear clothes is because whores want to sell the commodity of sex. The way Society treats sex (compared to violence / deceit) is so unfathomably ludicrous, I just can't....
The lies of women and the tyranny of sociopathic mothers creates all the misery. Before we get back to nature, everyone should try honesty. The only people that have a problem with that are those spraying the acid of deceit (the ones who've been scarred already). They need to break the cycle and give up their Self-defeating 'entitlement'.
Be human do what humans used to do, and figure out how to stop working and achieving and start being. I think the answer lies in nature, my opinion.
Again, preaching to the choir but the only restrictions on humans being human are imposed by those who make everyone ashamed of being human. 5 million years of natural selection is the only True Law. All morality is evil. All law is against the law. All rules are imposed upon children by their mothers who want to raise them (religiously) Right instead of humane.
And everyone is made to feel ashamed by their human DNA. What could go wrong aside from everything and everyone?
Who wants to stop existing? I can't imagine not existing, so I can't wrap my head about what benefit such a thing would have.
Lots of people but that's not the point. Even if they were all insane (they're perfectly sane, there is no point in living a life of redundant suffering), they have the intrinsic, inalienable Right to do whatever they want (as long as they're not hurting anyone else) without being tortured by the endless imposition of those who Know Best about what others should do with their own lives; or slavery.
What you can or can't wrap your head around isn't the reality they are facing. I don't even know how to wrap my head around the insanity that leads someone to imagine they could know better than I do about whether or not I want to suffer for them. I know where that insanity comes from.
Misogyny needs to be put down. Humans aren't supposed to be slaves.
____________
Score: -6 (12 votes cast)
May 17, 2013 3:22 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You appear to be so filled with anger and rage that it has addled your mind. Doesn't the term "misogynist whores" seem a little contradictory? Whore is a man's term for women he despises, and why would these already despised women increase their misery by hating each other?
Sounds like you think everybody in the world is LYING and that you are the only one incredibly enlightened enough to know the TRUTH. If everybody would just listen to you the world would be a perfect place, right?
I don't know about the whole "needing to get laid" idea but I do know someone with your attitude as presented here is most likely going to have trouble forming any healthy relationships.
Score: 5 (13 votes cast)
May 17, 2013 3:42 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I am under absolutely no obligation to take your points seriously or respect your opinion if you choose to communicate in a manner no better than an average extremist political pundit.
You communicate like a women's tabloid, casting aspersions and smearing those who speak truth you cannot refute and logic you cannot counter.
You have no obligation to be decent or you wouldn't be this indecent. You have no obligation to be sane or you wouldn't be this insane. You can embarrass yourself babbling excuses for your incapacity to address logic; there's no way I can force you and I wouldn't even want to.
I will - of course - ridicule your pathetic attempt to wriggle out from under your own filth. You're a disgrace to...everything.
You need to get your whore moans under control; once you have managed to do so, kindly find it within yourself to counter this logic (a) or accept it (b)?
The sole purpose of discourse is defeated by those who do not mean what they say or say what they mean; there is no point in communicating with someone who values deceit. I try to explain this simple concept to deceit-obsessed girls all the time but they cannot grasp logic this pure:
1. If you do not value truth, nothing you say is credible.
2. If you cannot be credible, your mind is effectively worthless.
3. If you refuse to contribute with your mind, your intrinsic worth is limited to your body.
4. Whining about being used for the only value you are choosing to provide is batshit insane. It's simply indecent. To persist is tantamount to a demand for euthanization.
Choose (a) or (b). Stop trying to be an insane whore. There is no Option (c).
Empire of Jeff: That's not analysis. That's a summation of your comments.
No one asked you for an analysis or summation. You were asked to counter or accept the logic above.
That you haven't done so should embarrass the shit out of you. What are you, a girl? Men don't back down like the bitch you're representing yourself to be.
Filthy vermin.
Score: 2 (14 votes cast)
May 17, 2013 3:49 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You appear to be so filled with anger and rage that it has addled your mind.
Rather than smear your screaming emotional degradation at others, simply counter the truth I've written?
I cannot address the rest of your idiotic post because you're illiterate. Why would the miserable whores hate each other? Ask them!Now my lovely daughter also wears no makeup, and is still lovelier than most, and so females hate her rather passionately.
"They're trying to shame me," Oxford says, "and it's all from women. Men don't care. A lot of women are like: Oh she's not fat, oh she's cute, she's funny, I hate her."
You're asking to answer questions I've answered. Learn how to read.
And all the little cowardly creeps who want to molest children come slinking out of the shadows.
Score: -3 (11 votes cast)
May 17, 2013 5:04 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Quantitative easing is basically expanding the monetary base. Alone and Johnny are both stuck in the mindset that there's some other kind of money besides fiat money (hint: gold's intrinsic value is fairly low; you can't eat it, it's worthless for building things out of. It's only value is its durability), so it's hard to take their opinion on QE seriously. TLP makes good points most of the time, but his tendency to contrarianism in regards to "accepted liberal wisdom" and his complete inability to actually research things outside his area of expertise (he thinks iPads would cost $10,000 if they were made in America) tend to trip him up when he steps outside of it. Go ahead, say that $10,000 thing was just an exaggeration and he's not just getting information from Cracked.com.
Considering his fascination with the story of Narcissus I suppose it's only fitting that he fall into the classic Greek trap of thinking that you can logic your way through any problem without experimentation or basic research.
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
May 17, 2013 6:40 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"You communicate like a women's tabloid, casting aspersions and smearing those who speak truth you cannot refute and logic you cannot counter."
I don't know how you came under the impression that I was ever actually engaged in a discussion with you in the first place. The only hand I've taken in this was to participate in tossing some well deserved snark at you, and then apparently becoming a wall for you to shriek insults at in return. "Toddler" indeed.
If you're so desperate for attention then I suggest you phone your mother, but since I know you won't I will offer the following brief analysis. Although I am personally a fan of strict discipline in families, every now and then baby gets what he wants.
"The sole purpose of discourse is defeated by those who do not mean what they say or say what they mean; there is no point in communicating with someone who values deceit."
You haven't actually described here what you view as the 'sole' purpose of discourse. To my mind there are two primary reasons to engage in discourse. First to communicate or analyze facts, second to learn about the person you are speaking to. Although any given discourse might have weighted amounts of either reason, it is also entirely possible to have a discussion where only the first or second reason comes into play.
For instance, in this discourse only the second reason comes into play. I think you are insane (actually insane, unlike the 'baby gets..' comment, this one is quite serious), and so I have and will instantly discount any facts you attempt to present without substantial scrutiny and independent confirmation outside of our discourse. However, by engaging you I am effectively learning about you as a person.
Therefore from my perspective the purpose of discourse is not limited to the communication of facts, and I therefore cannot accept that there is no merit in communicating with a person who, intentionally or unintentionally, is deceitful.
"I try to explain this simple concept to deceit-obsessed girls all the time but they cannot grasp logic this pure:"
No comment.
"1. If you do not value truth, nothing you say is credible."
Even a lie communicates truth, not about the subject but about the person. Even a person that attempts to lie through or about appearance is telling you a lot.
"2. If you cannot be credible, your mind is effectively worthless."
No comment per response to 1.
"3. If you refuse to contribute with your mind, your intrinsic worth is limited to your body."
True out of context, in context no comment per response to 1.
"4. Whining about being used for the only value you are choosing to provide is batshit insane. It's simply indecent."
Although I know what you mean, it is poorly communicated. A person who refuses to use their mind is more valuable as a labourer than as eye candy, and it is actually entirely reasonable to complain about being used less efficiently than you might be whether it is with regard to your mind or body.
"To persist is tantamount to a demand for euthanization."
Before you make sensationalist claims, you should consider the point of view of the person you are talking to. I consider you to be insane, and to my mind that places you firmly in the area of unintentional deceit. Don't protest our reactions to you too loudly or too long. After all, the deceitful of the internet exist to entertain the rest of us.
Score: 0 (10 votes cast)
May 18, 2013 1:40 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I don't know how you came under the impression that I was ever actually engaged in a discussion with you in the first place. The only hand I've taken in this was to participate in tossing some well deserved snark at you
There is not an objective person on the face of this planet that would assess the above statement as "sane". To imagine you aren't engaging someone when you toss snark at them makes you insane.
"The sole purpose of discourse is defeated by those who do not mean what they say or say what they mean; there is no point in communicating with someone who values deceit."You haven't actually described here what you view as the 'sole' purpose of discourse. To my mind there are two primary reasons to engage in discourse. First to communicate or analyze facts, second to learn about the person you are speaking to.
You have a lot of gall for someone who is illiterate.
The sole purpose of discourse is communication because if someone refuses to communicate, I know everything about them that I could possibly want to know already. A sane person is not looking to exploit other humans > Humanity > themselves. That's the corrupted perception your combative mother infected you with.
You need to break the cycle. You need not to not bring life into this world until all whores of misogyny (gender neutral) no longer need to leech / lie.
"1. If you do not value truth, nothing you say is credible."Even a lie communicates truth, not about the subject but about the person. Even a person that attempts to lie through or about appearance is telling you a lot.
Your illiteracy is mind-blowing.
credible (adjective) - Able to be believed; convincing.
If you do not value truth, nothing you say is [able to be believed; convincing].
Learn how to read. Your mother should be drawn and quartered for doing this to you.
No comment per response to 1.
No comment because you don't know the definition of credible?
in context no comment per response to 1.
No comment because you don't know the definition of credible?
"4. Whining about being used for the only value you are choosing to provide is batshit insane. It's simply indecent."Although I know what you mean, it is poorly communicated. A person who refuses to use their mind is more valuable as a labourer than as eye candy, and it is actually entirely reasonable to complain about being used less efficiently than you might be whether it is with regard to your mind or body.
You need to stop this Toddler delusion that compels you to imagine that those who communicate with the illiterate are communicating poorly.
You suggest that the mindless should be used as labourers but no one who is sane has wars to fight, pyramids to build or slaves to breed.
To complain about not being used as efficiently for your body when the only people who have use for your body are slave-owners is batshit insane.
"To persist is tantamount to a demand for euthanization."Before you make sensationalist claims, you should consider the point of view of the person you are talking to.
Nonsense. The only thing that should ever be considered is truth.
I consider you to be insane, and to my mind that places you firmly in the area of unintentional deceit.
What the illiterate consider to be insane is not a valid PoV. You don't have a functional mind. As a result, you have been obliterated; as any objective person on the face of the planet would confirm.
That you will not accept objective reality in this instance and learn from the absolute shellacking that you have received will not remotely surprise me; after all, you are stupid and illiterate for a reason.
Although you have been dysfunctional for your entire life, you already Know Best. You have been made to be that way. I have no use for mindless slaves. I would have you be intelligent and sane. You flatly refuse to learn because you're emotionally frozen as a corrupted Toddler.
This is my beef.
Score: -3 (15 votes cast)
May 18, 2013 2:39 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
the types of people who read the NYTimes being so exhausted and see no alternative other than death. They can't even imagine a different type of life.
The types of people who read the NYTimes are the slaves on whom the Matrix imposes itself. Mock their intellectual capacity if you must, but to mock their desire to die with dignity is an attitude no one humane would express.
You missed the blistering truth that was evident in the entire pattern being repeated on Yahoo. The types of people who comprise the majority are requesting the right to not impose upon anyone. They only want to exit the cauldron of misery.
That you would mock their disinclination to impose upon others (positioning yourself in support of the Matrix) places you in the category of people who need to adjust their inhumane perspective or be removed from the equation.
Making different choices is unthinkable to them.
They don't have any other choices. Your mindset is horrifying. Did you even read the comments? They're broken and wearied and disinterested in participating in what is tantamount to slavery. They can start a revolution or they can exit the game with dignity. You are preventing the latter.
Prepare for the former.
FWIW, the US government is way ahead of you.
Forbes: 1.6 Billion Rounds Of Ammo For Homeland Security? It's Time For A National Conversation
...some of this purchase order is for hollow-point rounds, forbidden by international law for use in war, along with a frightening amount specialized for snipers. Also reported elsewhere, at the height of the Iraq War the Army was expending less than 6 million rounds a month. Therefore 1.6 billion rounds would be enough to sustain a hot war for 20+ years. In America.
And they aren't actually committing suicide, either.
People perceive emotion that does not exist in a lot of my writing because they're damaged and incapable of conceptualising the reality that their corrupted emotional value system distorts their perception of objective reality. But in this instance, their perception would be 100% accurate.
You need to die.
They're not committing suicide because they're still obligated to family members that impose upon them (invariably mothers who have never had the decency not to impose and cannot be expected to suddenly become decent when they're elderly).
They're not committing suicide because they do not wish to impose. By Prohibiting assisted suicide (exit of the game on their terms, painfree and with dignity), Society has hijacked decency and forced them into extended slavery. You need to get it into your horrifying 'mind' that they do not wish to impose. Trauma is an imposition. Society is forcing them to make a choice between extending their suffering or creating trauma via illegal suicide.
I guess the fact that I took note of the article about the Times article and its commenters means I enjoy feeling superior...
You need to fix you or you need to be removed from the equation. Where is your empathy? Where is your sense of humanity? Where is your decency? You possess none of these traits (or at least, you have not yet displayed the capacity).
"I'm so glad I'm not an Alpha. Alphas work so frightfully hard"
Huxley's Brave New World was disturbing yet humane. They had soma. This horrific world of sociopaths Prohibits medicinal painkillers to dial up the misery. Google "Desoxyn methamphetamine" and open your eyes to the reality of the horror.
The Alphas were bred to enjoy work. They didn't want to commit suicide; they loved toiling in the outdoors.
That your thoughts were provoked by a comparison that isn't remotely analogous (the slaves of this world v the Alphas in Huxley's novel) isn't remotely surprising; your incapacity to be humane also makes you stupid.
You need fix that problem you have with you or the slaves are going to remove you from the equation.
The only thing tyrants ever learn from history is how to lose their heads; over and over and over again.
Score: 1 (13 votes cast)
May 18, 2013 6:00 AM | Posted by : | Reply
A perfect piece of 21st century propaganda. Leni Riefenstahl couldn't have done it better.
"Oh, but I didn't buy this Dove 'beauty bar' because of a YouTube video...I just like the way it smells."
And *you never pay attention to ads on TV or in magazines either, right? They can't fool you, 'cause *you* know what their game is. Funny, that's what everyone says.
"I ignore all the ads/turn the sound down/take a bathroom break/go straight to the articles" etc.
But if the methods they use didn't work, i.e. get people to buy the stuff advertised, they wouldn't be using those methods. You might know what their game is, but they design the game and know it better than you.
Instead of ignoring advertising and pretending you're immune to its influence...pay close attention and consciously take note of what advertisers are trying to sell you and how they try to do this - because, artsy or crass, it's always your money they're after.
Paying attention to ads and the methodology employed is what build up immunity. Trying to block them out and ignoring them just makes you another sucker who buys Pabst Blue Ribbon beer "because I like the taste".
* you = general plural form
Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
May 18, 2013 8:57 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I just want to apologize for the long, drawn-out, vitriolic comments I've been leaving all over this fine blog. You see, I'm fundamentally lazy, and although I could perhaps create an actual blog, maybe write my own articles blasting hate into the universe against people I perceive as useless or rapists or whatever, I'd rather just do it here where there's a built-in audience. I like to imagine that all the people here who came to read TLP give a damn about what I think, and I interpret any comments I receive on my thoughts as confirmation of that fact. Writing these comments allows me to imagine myself as a demagogue and truth-teller without going to the actual effort of creating something comprehensive of my own.
(Obviously this is not Jonny, but I super look forward to not reading whatever he replies to this. I'll just be avoiding the comments section of this site altogether until Jonny finds something else to do with his copious amounts of free time.)
Score: 8 (20 votes cast)
May 18, 2013 9:01 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
he does, in fact, have his own blog
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
May 18, 2013 10:05 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Re: Teaching you how to "want."
The biblical injunction to "train up a child" is derived from a midwife practice of teaching a reluctant infant to suckle. A thick, sweet-tart syrup of grape juice would be applied to the upper palate of the newborn in order to stimulate the whole mouth to contract, the tongue to move along the upper palate, and the instinctive swallowing action to start.
Western idioms would include, "whetting the appetite" as the grown-up equivalent.
Making us "want" things to consume by promoting them tartly as a means of emotional survival trains us to think we can't live without the proffered teat, be it ever so dry.
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
May 18, 2013 9:43 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Hey just a side note before you read on, I got kind of mean about half way through my response. Almost went back to fix it up, but meh, you'll survive. You're welcome to respond of course, but I likely won't read this one. I only have so much time, and although you are entertaining I do have other matters to attend to. These responses are quite time consuming [I left myself wide open just for you].
Although, I note you managed to get through this one without throwing one of your childish tantrums (something a mother would have taught you to avoid) and implying I am a whore, so good for you!
***There is not an objective person on the face of this planet that would assess the above statement as "sane". To imagine you aren't engaging someone when you toss snark at them makes you insane.***
It should have been clear in context, but that statement was with specific reference to the fact that you were trying to draw me into responding to your 'pure' logic. Your firing back with a tantrum was entirely expected, your baiting me into discussing whatever nonsense you so desperately required attention on was not.
***You have a lot of gall for someone who is illiterate.
The sole purpose of discourse is communication because if someone refuses to communicate, I know everything about them that I could possibly want to know already. A sane person is not looking to exploit other humans > Humanity > themselves. That's the corrupted perception your combative mother infected you with.***
What you want to know is irrelevant to the discussion.
Admittedly I have a hard time separating your jargon (the way you capitalize "Toddler" is adorable, your mother would have found it so cute) from the words you expect me to use dictionary definitions for, but if your logic is as 'pure' as you seem to think then it should require no qualification and be readily applicable to every individual.
Take for instance this very statement. You use the word communication, but you seem to have created a new, or narrowed the existing, dictionary definition. You seem to be implying that a person attempting deception is refusing to communicate.
Everything I stated falls neatly within the accepted definition "to convey information" [merriam-webster], and yet you apparently believe that learning about a person through inference indirectly during a discussion does not count as information conveyed.
***You need to break the cycle. You need not to not bring life into this world until all whores of misogyny (gender neutral) no longer need to leech / lie.***
Oh never mind, you managed to slip in a "whore" reference. Also, this statement has nothing to do with anything. I might be illiterate, but when you insert apparently random sections into your already jumbled jargon heavy speeches it makes it more than a little difficult to follow.
***Your illiteracy is mind-blowing.
credible (adjective) - Able to be believed; convincing.
If you do not value truth, nothing you say is [able to be believed; convincing].***
Had you bothered to take this response in context with my previous paragraph you would realise I was responding with reference to my own proposed definition of 'the sole purpose of discourse', which would be the same of yours had you not redefined communication to disclude deceptive statements. Whether or not a person values truth or actively tries to deceive those around them, a discourse with them still conveys credible information, it is only a matter of what specifically the information pertains to.
***Learn how to read. Your mother should be drawn and quartered for doing this to you.***
Same to you. She should have had the strength of character to have the abortion and accept responsibility for the loss of a life rather than abandon you to become what you have. But that’s a personal stance with regards to adoption, doesn’t really belong in this discussion.
***No comment because you don't know the definition of credible?***
Adorable.
***You need to stop this Toddler delusion that compels you to imagine that those who communicate with the illiterate are communicating poorly.***
Sick burn.
***You suggest that the mindless should be used as labourers but no one who is sane has wars to fight, pyramids to build or slaves to breed.***
Of course. After all, if everyone grew up motherless and alone like yourself, we would have no need of unskilled labour for the construction of roads or buildings or bridges or cars or the collection of food or... sorry, when did being tossed aside like trash turn you into a creature able to transcend human needs? Or are you a true man of the earth, growing your own food, building your own home?
***To complain about not being used as efficiently for your body when the only people who have use for your body are slave-owners is batshit insane.***
Mmm Hmm.
***Nonsense. The only thing that should ever be considered is truth***
And that is the only thing you deal in, yes? Always truth, never hyperbole or sensationalism?
***What the illiterate consider to be insane is not a valid PoV. You don't have a functional mind. As a result, you have been obliterated; as any objective person on the face of the planet would confirm.***
Well never sensationalism at least.
***That you will not accept objective reality in this instance and learn from the absolute shellacking that you have received will not remotely surprise me; after all, you are stupid and illiterate for a reason.***
Fair enough. Objective reality is a harsh mistress when speaking to a madman.
***Although you have been dysfunctional for your entire life, you already Know Best. You have been made to be that way. I have no use for mindless slaves. I would have you be intelligent and sane. You flatly refuse to learn because you're emotionally frozen as a corrupted Toddler.***
"Everyone in the world is crazy but me."
***This is my beef.***
It sure is. But I wonder if you realize it.
Score: 1 (15 votes cast)
May 18, 2013 10:11 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Once I read the wikipedia entry for Ponerology, and especially after I read the first couple of subsequent posts by jonny and the replies, I knew that I was reading the thoughts of a genius in nearly full command of the truth. Nearly, only because jonny lets fathers off the hook, not acknowledging enough that sexual dimorphism of the psychological variety has never been and by the nature of sexual reproduction's blending cannot ever be so disparate that only one of the two sexes is to blame. The answer, like almost any answer to "Who's to blame?" is: Both. Not necessarily 50/50, of course. But, let's not go relieving fathers of their responsibility for allowing/perpetuating/instilling the exact same neediness you ascribe to mothers. Both, dude. You are also a little too, uh, nihilistic? Yes, your diagnosis is spot-da-fuck-on. Your prescription and prognosis need a little work. Cheer up. The condition of our species, specifically the modern civilized human being, is only half as bad as you're making it out to be. Maybe even better. Results vary, of course. Some people are perfectly content. Others are so discontent they de-map themselves. Bell curve, more or less. Warped. Getting worse, sure, more and more miserable, despite all the wonderful accessories we spend our slave wages on, because, well, you have to use your points on something, right? Why leave the arcade with unspent tickets? Oh, but, you can't leave the arcade. Well, you can, you can choose not to play, but ohhh the grief you'll get. But jonny, you know this. (I'm addressing jonny alone because the people who replied to him are worthless, as he demonstrated ably.) Anyway, it ain't so, so bad. Yeah, the threat of war looms, looms large, civil war, world war. Pathocrats are...needy. But, nothing is preordained. And, you might be surprised. Open up to better-case-scenarios a little more. Don't relax, no, lol. Be paranoid as hell. But, well, a more relaxed paranoia. And a little more bemused. Maybe even...forgiving. Yes, these whores (female and male, left and right) are worthless needy immiserators. They start programming us early, as they were programmed, but worse, because of years of snowballing. However, all that is fragile. And what you recognize as honor and contentment, is antifragile. Antifragile always wins in the end. As you kind of alluded to. Stupid and bad loses, ultimately. How, is the question. With violence? Let's hope the fuck not. Let's try our damned best to make sure not. No need. The force of truth, antifragile truth, might do the trick. You, sir, are a good soldier. Aside from the excessive female-hatred and idiot-hatred. In the big picture: Our problems are either no one's fault, or everyone's fault. Either way, telling people they need to die...not helping. Here's a treat for you, as a token of appreciation. A theory you'll find in probably only three places on the internet, which I will pose as a riddle: What happens when you combine the artificial selection theories of Jon Entine with the 10000 years or more of institutionalized (at a state and home level) slavery of most offspring-bearing women in the civilized, post-patrilineage-epiphany world? Hmmm. Not a comfortable scenario for the Jezebel crowd, that's for sure. In summation, jonny, I detect in you a kind of weird, mostly-true synthesis of two of my intellectual heroes, Nietzsche and Ti-Grace Atkinson. Anyone familiar with those two's philosophies regarding the war (agon) between the sexes, will note how counter-intuitive such a synthesis would be. I thought I was the only person who, consciously or not, would ever attempt such a thing. I was wrong. Not only are you an original, bold, and beautifully-stubborn thinker...I also like the way you write. I don't bow to many people, to anyone really, but I bow to you. Rather, I bow to the truths you wield like a weapon of taboo but common (or ought to be) sense. I also bow, so that my ears are closer, so that I hear you better. Bravo. But, yeah, also: Cheer up!
Score: 7 (17 votes cast)
May 19, 2013 12:15 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
If we argue about an ad being X or Y, we are allowing it to set the discussion and the parameters.
"Having no feet, they are carried on men's shoulders, revealing to mankind their worthlessness. And those who serve them are ashamed because through them these gods are made to stand, lest they fall to the ground. If any one sets one of them upright, it cannot move itself; and if it is tipped over, it cannot straighten itself; but gifts are placed before them just as before the dead."
Baruch 6:25-26
Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
May 19, 2013 12:16 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
> Could you explain why you think he's off base with his analyses on ads, though?
Sorry to be so late in replying. Like you I find alone's analysis of the psychology behind ads fascinating, but my niggle is that he speaks of what he knows not (hence violating his masthead), which makes him vulnerable to a sort of post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc reasoning. That is, he sees a Patek Phillippe ad where the model has no visible wedding ring, then says "here's why Patek Phillippe didn't want you to see the model's wedding ring" - even though the model's pose at the photo shoot was probably chosen by the photographer or the CD, neither of whom would work for Patek Phillippe. (They'd be 2-4 companies removed, and may not even have met anyone from the original client company.)
Likewise it's easy to say "note that you can't see the sketch artist's wedding ring - here's why Dove wanted it that way", and it would have been just as easy to say "note how you can clearly see the artist's wedding ring - here's why Dove wanted it that way." When in all likelihood, the only independent variable involved is whether the artist they chose was right- or left-handed, and everything else flows from that.
Anyway it's just a niggle. Even if the premises are occasionally goofy it's fun to see where alone takes them. But he does wind up violating his masthead, so there are bound to be some things that don't hold up to scrutiny.
Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
May 19, 2013 9:42 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The noble type of man regards HIMSELF as a determiner of values; he does not require to be approved of; he passes the judgment: "What is injurious to me is injurious in itself;" he knows that it is he himself only who confers honour on things; he is a CREATOR OF VALUES. He honours whatever he recognizes in himself: such morality equals self-glorification. In the foreground there is the feeling of plenitude, of power, which seeks to overflow, the happiness of high tension, the consciousness of a wealth which would fain give and bestow...
Vanity is one of the things which are perhaps most difficult for a noble man to understand: he will be tempted to deny it, where another kind of man thinks he sees it self-evidently. The problem for him is to represent to his mind beings who seek to arouse a good opinion of themselves which they themselves do not possess--and consequently also do not "deserve,"--and who yet BELIEVE in this good opinion afterwards. This seems to him on the one hand such bad taste and so self-disrespectful, and on the other hand so grotesquely unreasonable, that he would like to consider vanity an exception, and is doubtful about it in most cases when it is spoken of. He will say, for instance: "I may be mistaken about my value, and on the other hand may nevertheless demand that my value should be acknowledged by others precisely as I rate it:--that, however, is not vanity (but self-conceit, or, in most cases, that which is called 'humility,' and also 'modesty')." Or he will even say: "For many reasons I can delight in the good opinion of others, perhaps because I love and honour them, and rejoice in all their joys, perhaps also because their good opinion endorses and strengthens my belief in my own good opinion, perhaps because the good opinion of others, even in cases where I do not share it, is useful to me, or gives promise of usefulness:--all this, however, is not vanity." The man of noble character must first bring it home forcibly to his mind, especially with the aid of history, that, from time immemorial, in all social strata in any way dependent, the ordinary man WAS only that which he PASSED FOR:--not being at all accustomed to fix values, he did not assign even to himself any other value than that which his master assigned to him (it is the peculiar RIGHT OF MASTERS to create values). It may be looked upon as the result of an extraordinary atavism, that the ordinary man, even at present, is still always WAITING for an opinion about himself, and then instinctively submitting himself to it; yet by no means only to a "good" opinion, but also to a bad and unjust one (think, for instance, of the greater part of the self- appreciations and self-depreciations which believing women learn from their confessors, and which in general the believing Christian learns from his Church). In fact, conformably to the slow rise of the democratic social order (and its cause, the blending of the blood of masters and slaves), the originally noble and rare impulse of the masters to assign a value to themselves and to "think well" of themselves, will now be more and more encouraged and extended; but it has at all times an older, ampler, and more radically ingrained propensity opposed to it--and in the phenomenon of "vanity" this older propensity overmasters the younger. The vain person rejoices over EVERY good opinion which he hears about himself (quite apart from the point of view of its usefulness, and equally regardless of its truth or falsehood), just as he suffers from every bad opinion: for he subjects himself to both, he feels himself subjected to both, by that oldest instinct of subjection which breaks forth in him.--It is "the slave" in the vain man's blood, the remains of the slave's craftiness--and how much of the "slave" is still left in woman, for instance!--which seeks to SEDUCE to good opinions of itself; it is the slave, too, who immediately afterwards falls prostrate himself before these opinions, as though he had not called them forth...
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
May 19, 2013 11:06 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Being yourself, makes you what you are. It gives you self confidence and encouragement. I love Dove products and I've seen their advertisements. I love how they made it,it make me more confident too.
Score: -5 (5 votes cast)
May 20, 2013 4:47 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
did you even read the article?
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
May 20, 2013 12:51 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Methinks thetruthrevealed just quoted Nietzsche, but I cannot tell which Nietzsche. What's that from, sir or madam? Genealogy? Beyond? Anyway, how apt. Super-apt!
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
May 20, 2013 1:27 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Beyond Good and Evil, Chapter 9
http://marxists.org/reference/archive/nietzsche/1886/beyond-good-evil/ch09.htm
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
May 20, 2013 1:53 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Does anyone know Jonny's blog address? I'm very curious to read it.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 20, 2013 4:11 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
http://religionconfidencetrick.blogspot.be/
Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
May 20, 2013 10:41 PM | Posted by : | Reply
There just selling a production line. It's a business.
Clearly the people on this have a sense that advertising is all lies but you cant stop them.
What I do when an ad comes on is I don't give all my energy on giving out about it I press pause or make a sandwhich or turn the volume down to zero.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 21, 2013 3:22 AM | Posted by : | Reply
and then I just found out my friend directed these commercials and definitely does think what he constructed with his team is the meaning on the surface.... he has no idea about the insight Alone has dug up... How can such a scam exists through such good intentions? don't get me wrong, I side with alone's insight, but really this guy (johnxcarey.com, a great dude) had no idea what he really was saying underneath the surface meaning. I'm just confounded that this is even possible.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 21, 2013 11:42 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Thank you kind Sir/Madame!
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 21, 2013 1:41 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Nearly, only because jonny lets fathers off the hook, not acknowledging enough that sexual dimorphism of the psychological variety has never been and by the nature of sexual reproduction's blending cannot ever be so disparate that only one of the two sexes is to blame.
My contempt for the johns that enable the enslavement of children is appropriately high. What fathers do to their toddler daughters is horrific insanity. They're her first customer before slinking into being their backup john as she whores up the world. Ole Reliable.
But men play a supporting role. Misogynist mothers have the lead in this nightmarish world of leaching insanity. They bring the misery and evil to this world. They break the minds of children and men with their slave passion. Minds have been reduced to the point where...where there isn't a point. What's the point in a world of needy lying and limitless rationalisation of malice?
How many demented insane girls do you have to sleep with to know that girls are worthless? How much money and destroyed friendships (destroyed by truth that can't come to light unless there is a disparity) does one need to endure to accept that men are worthless? It's not especially difficult playing Toddler games but I was suicidal every time I've been motivated to compete. You start crushing broken minds and all the broken minds fall on their face and want to be your friend. Why? There's no value in their worship or their friendship?!
Uh oh. Psychotic screaming (at being told truth). Everyone just wants you to lie to them but why? They're not important enough for me to consider. They make me pay for that mistake every time.
Literally no one can act in their own best interests. They're not motivated by their best interests; they're all emotionally insane who get offended because they perceive themselves as inferior when I was not denigrating them. I was being competent. Efficient. But too curt. Too direct. Too honest. Too decent. Offence!
"You're no better than me!"
Mother fuck. What's the point? It's all so degrading.
Anonymous: Admittedly I have a hard time separating your jargon from the words you expect me to use dictionary definitions for, but if your logic is as 'pure' as you seem to think then it should require no qualification and be readily applicable to every individual.
What the...just babbling insanity. Why would insane people who don't use dictionary definitions of words be capable of doing anything but sipping on a tall glass of Kool-Aid and drifting off to sleep? I must be missing something but I don't see the value in their physical labours. It seems indecent to not help them but then they don't want to be helped so it seems indecent to not RIP them. That's what my sense of humanity tells me and it's pretty optimal. Of course I do nothing. But I don't feel good about leaving them to suffer.
I don't see profit in making them suffer. Where is the honour in beating broken minds? There's no honour in defeating someone who cannot learn. They just keep smashing into reality, destroying themselves and coming back for more. They just don't value truth. They all exist in reality but imagine they live in the fantasy world of their mother's lies.
On poker tables, I mean; they wanted to defeat mathematics!
Humans are just bodies. Their minds are custard. They don't have any value. What use is having money if it only buys you more lying sycophant friends that are emotionally unstable to the point that their sole focus is reducing everyone around them non-stop. Simple mathematics and logic says everyone is going to be miserable but I never understood the truth; they can't do anything else.
I would just get frustrated imagining they were choosing to be miserable but it's not like that. They have no alternatives. They've been reduced to being miserable and they're just fighting to survive as best they can.
On edge and combative, they just accuse everyone else of being crazy or stupid or uncool nonstop, or - sometimes everyone is laughing at something hilarious and I'm the only person that has enough Self to say "I don't get it" or "I don't see it" or "Why is his skin colour the source of amusement" and the truth is that there isn't anything funny. They're all just giggling Toddlers who snicker and hope someone else explains what the naked Emperor's new clothes look like. They're just laughing in fear and denying that reality to themselves as well; telling themselves they had a good time. It's all groupthink everything. They just copy what people around them do. Their minds are gone.
It's...they're worthless.
Their minds are utter mush because they all love their mothers and that means only one thing. She raped their face. They just can't remember so it's all good.
This world is terrifying. Almost everyone is preoccupied with molesting or exploiting or taking advantage of children. To be 'fair', it's what happened to them. Their turn now. Horror.
They're just child molesters; an entire species of child molesters.
Some people are perfectly content.
I tried but I cannot be content in a world that is so insane they're shooting their own futures to shreds. I have no special love for children; I just do optimality. They represent (in a sane world) everything that will carry the species forward so long as you don't lean on them like psychotic mothers who want slaves out of their bodies and resent their precocious minds (for making her look bad and feel bad). Humans are reliant on each other so it's psychotic to rely on each other. That people cannot understand this logic is outrageous. They're broken and shooting their own interests in the foot for no reason because they figure it's a freeroll. Then the reaction and they scream at the crazy world of injustice.
Our fates are intertwined with the species, so sure! Let's rape ourselves! Good game. M.A.D. It's already happened, the way I perceive it. We've all largely been reduced so far below where we should be, I almost down have the heart to be part of this failboat losing team. It's just embarrassing. I win from un-winnable positions. They lose from unlosable ones.
The species is destroyed. They're just leeching off humans who are victims of lies, toiling away in delusions with goals that I hope they never achieve or their entire life of exploitation will come crashing down into the horrifying reality (of leeching).
(I'm addressing jonny alone because the people who replied to him are worthless, as he demonstrated ably.)
I really did but if it were up to me, they'd all be brighter than me. They see a world through a mind that is batshit crazy. It's their mothers. Sex-obsessed whores who believe all the lies they tell because "What is truth?"
Open up to better-case-scenarios a little more.
Do you have any?
I see only rape, molestation, pestilence, genocide, entire countries going under water, I note wryly that no one in power seems psyched about addressing the fact that Bangkok is literally sinking - I think their utter refusal to act is because they know.
It's going under when Greenland drips into the ocean.
I found out tonight, from watching a former CEO of Citibank give a speech, apparently the world's fisheries are being annihilated by shrewd competition and by 2048 they'll all be dead. ROFL.
You can't stop it because they all had mothers who raped them into being emotional slaves. This species is too shrewdly amoral to survive itself.
And what you recognize as honor and contentment, is antifragile. Antifragile always wins in the end. As you kind of alluded to. Stupid and bad loses, ultimately. How, is the question. With violence? Let's hope the fuck not. Let's try our damned best to make sure not. No need. The force of truth, antifragile truth, might do the trick.
I don't think it will. As much as I hate to admit it, the power of misogyny to reduce everyone down to the level of a Toddler whore's ass cannot be denied. It whipped me down from very lofty heights because no one wants to be smart and sleep alone. I don't need what whores are peddling now but I had to experience a lot of their misery to realise that. No one else will or can be expected to take my word for it. I wouldn't have.
They reduce everyone down to [misery].
There is no point in violence. John Brown learned that the hard way. Slaves don't know they're slaves.
Aside from the excessive female-hatred and idiot-hatred.
I take umbrage at this because I don't actually hate females. I do hate idiots because their ignorance is malicious. There's no excuse for being dangerously stupid and I'm not sure I even believe they're as dumb as they're making out to be anyway; in my experience, the most convincing fools were honeypots. They just want to fuck children. This is a world where convincingly stupid people have lots of friends and anyone who speaks truth will need to be cool with being alone.
And that really says it all about this leeching species.
But I believe child molesting mothers need humane RIP. Any mother that needs MY children to love her is taking two potential prospects for value and leaving two guaranteed misery-generating liabilities. It's not humane to permit them to do this to the children, the world, Humanity or me! I'm Selfish. How dare she!
They dare. The laws they control give them power over their property. All I can do is shake my head at universal slavery. Everyone loving whomever raped them first, lying to your face in terrifying transparent fashion, getting offended at anyone who isn't decent enough to insult them with a pretence to care.
Either way, telling people they need to die...not helping.
It is the truth though. There is nothing that gives leeches a right to ruin the lives of others with their hijacks and extortions and terrorism. I don't think I see any paths out of this mess, and I'm not a violent person but the truth is they do need to be put into the ground if they're not going to contribute. They think exploitation is their good thing. Everything is so simple but they can't see how much they're face planting because they are lied to straight out. Made to be afraid of outsiders. Raped by Their Own.
Here's a treat for you, as a token of appreciation. A theory you'll find in probably only three places on the internet, which I will pose as a riddle: What happens when you combine the artificial selection theories of Jon Entine with the 10000 years or more of institutionalized (at a state and home level) slavery of most offspring-bearing women in the civilized, post-patrilineage-epiphany world?
55 I didn't even realise we've been going for 10,000 years of slavery. Jon Entine is basically just pointing out the obvious right? Africans have superior genetics. Is that ground-breaking? Sorry for my ignorance, I don't have time to remedy it tonight but I don't know the answer to this riddle.
But, yeah, also: Cheer up!
I'd really like to. My natural predisposition is cheer. I just can't fake it anymore or think positive and in this world, when you start thinking accurately...you have to keep resetting your limits on capacity to be horrified.
Watch first two minutes and you see it. The Afghan general's matter-of-fact tone when genuinely confused (his 'logic' is the horror of misogyny). Vice News: This is What Winning Looks Like - documentary on Afghanistan. The American soldiers are so professional in this doco but they just don't even know why they're there. Or do they?
I just don't know anymore.
nb. posting this in a rush out the door, no editing; apologies if incoherent.
Score: -2 (10 votes cast)
May 21, 2013 1:50 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It's not really going to be worth reading because I cannot write and everything I'm saying is truth but it can be summed up in a few paragraphs. It's just, then I have nothing to do...hah.
http://religionconfidencetrick.blogspot.com/
My Twitter account is probably slightly better; I say some intelligent things on there (amidst the noise). @goscuter1
Same deal though, on repetitiveness. I don't really see myself as possessing a voice or feel a need to communicate. The truth is just horrifying, and so few people can see it.
So I just repeat myself over and over. It's really quite embarrassing but I intend on sticking with it until someone listens. Or the world explodes. Or I get bored and kick along. Or I find an honest girl. Whichever happens first.
Score: -7 (11 votes cast)
May 21, 2013 10:01 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Probably because they see it as having less of an "environmental impact" than a bullet through the brain. Who knows what kind of chemicals those hazmat suited crime scene cleanup crews use to get all that blood up.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 22, 2013 10:13 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I actually tend to be with the anti-fiat people, and it's really simple to explain my logic.
Fiat money only has value so long as other people think it does. And lots of things can make the money in your bank account literally worthless. (actually, if it hadn't been declared to be money, no one would want a dollar bill, it's nothing but cotton fibers with what amounts to an IOU printed on it) One of those things is a loss of trust that the government can back what it's printed. The failure would come in the form of either the government ceasing to exist (which is why you don't spend Confederate money, there's no Confederacy to back the notes), or by the government devaluing the bills by putting so many in circulation that they cannot hold value (see Weimar Republic or Zimbabwe). In the case of the Weimar Republic, the government printed so many DMs so fast that people were using baskets full of DMs to buy bread. They gave the worthless notes to kids to play with.
As long as you can prop up the house of cards, fiat money is fine, but no house is immune to enropy, and eventually any nation will collapse. Civilization has pretty much a 100% failure rate, and when the civilization backing a fiat currency fails, the notes are worthless. It's probably more accurate to think of fiat currency as "stocks" -- they're only as good as the nation behind them. Microsoft stock of Facebook stock or Walmart stock has value because of what's behind it. If Microsoft goes tits up or if Walmart prints billions of stocks to sell, you don't have anything of value. The value comes from the confidence of the people who back it. I want Microsoft stocks because I believe that the company will be around awhile to pay back my investment, I want facebook stock because they aren't issuing billions of stocks with no growth to speak of. I have less confidence in American Dollars because they are doing the opposite -- there's no more "value" in the American GDP than before the crash, there's no evidence that the system has been fixed to prevent a future crash, and they're printing billions of dollars. I expect hyperinflation to hit within a few years because the "stock" is being diluted and there's little to suggest that an increase in value is coming.
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
May 22, 2013 4:42 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Here's something that might be worth considering (haven't read the original papers, can't comment on reliability):
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=you-are-less-beautiful-than-you-think
"However, what Dove is suggesting is not actually true. The evidence from psychological research suggests instead that we tend to think of our appearance in ways that are more flattering than are warranted. This seems to be part of a broader human tendency to see ourselves through rose colored glasses. Most of us think that we are better than we actually are — not just physically, but in every way."
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
May 22, 2013 5:29 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"If you're watching it, it's for you."
Maybe sometimes a bird craps on your shoulder and you didn't secretly want it to happen. Not everyone who stumbles across something subconsciously wants to be there. Ever been Rick Rolled? Did you ever think at the time "D'oh, I've been tricked!" Well, you may have thought that, but what was really happening was that you were subconsciously displaying your homosexual desire for Rick Astley. Yes, that includes you even if you're a woman.
Did you watch the video because some distant relative of your spouse shared it on Facebook and you were naturally curious about what the pictures would look like? Did you roll your eyes during the whole thing and skip forward a few times to get to the part you were looking for? Did you roll your eyes a few more times when all the women talked incessantly about themselves like they were expecting someone to come up with a tiara, declare them de facto princesses for the day and pipe raw cookie dough into their muzzles? Did you close the video and say to yourself "That was stupid," and quickly forget about it for weeks until you saw it revived here? Did you think you could escape being called a fat, stupid narcissist just once in one of these articles? Well TOO BAD! IF YOU SAW IT, IT'S FOR YOU!!!!!
Damn...
Score: 6 (10 votes cast)
May 22, 2013 5:34 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Guys, don't feed the jonny troll. I know hes an entertaining troll, but he'll cease derailing these conversations if people stop responding to him.
Let's say I'm conned into thinking I'm smarter than the ad but never buy a dove product, does dove still win?
Score: 4 (10 votes cast)
May 22, 2013 6:31 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I guess Dove wins in some soft-power aspirational game? Or perhaps they win, like the spammer, as long as there are people to fall for it. So you or I debunking or even shrugging/ignoring the ad as irrelevant is insignificant enough to not count as a loss for Dove. (This is one reason why copyright infringement cases for the RIAA have, by in large, just been rent-seeking operations. Free consumption of their media is a gain for them, though perhaps less of a gain than buying that media.)
Case in point: Media starts to worry when there are now 5 million 'zero television' households. As a web developer, I can tell you that the media companies desperately love T.V's nature as a push medium (the more 'choices' of channels the better!) and have been trying but failing to really reproduce it on the internet.
It's not that people won't continue their habit of lazy media consumption, such as virally spreading something like this ad, but the monopoly is gone. They may still be powerful, but now people could all decide to watch something that they had zero control over, while not having to make the choice to 'tune out' (which most folks won't do.)
---
The 'if you're watching it, it's for you' is far too deconstructive for my taste, implying intent ('it's for you') either so loosely as to be meaningless, solipsistically or conspiratorially. On a basic level it just means that there is a reason why you watch this stuff and that you can't discount that the makers consciously or semi-consciously crafted its appeal.
It is a phrase however which has its limits. People who don't understand poetry don't seem to grasp the limit of metaphor; including, I think, our author. Then again, it could just be true that he or she is mostly drunk and belligerent while writing.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
May 22, 2013 6:37 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Fiat currencies are different than gold, in that a fiat currency (as you point out) has to be honored by a specific entity that could disappear. Gold retains value as long as there is some kind of human civilization, but there's no guarantee on how much value per ounce.
Ultimately of course, 'money' only works if there is another party to honor its value.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 22, 2013 7:47 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
If you're watching it, it's for you is in a sense true.
It's generally true that ads target a demographic. Certain ideas and products appeal to certain kinds of people. Women like makeup, so if you want to sell makeup, you sell in women's media. But you only get women in the audience if you tell them things they want to hear. Which means exactly that -- if an article or advert crosses your eyes, you are in the target demographic of that article. You aren't going to sell hunting equipment in animal rights journals, and you aren't going to sell tofu to people who read Field and Stream.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 22, 2013 9:38 PM | Posted by : | Reply
http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhMv9lWhOIOrt0T7O3 this is a parody of the dove sketch. You're balls are more beautiful than you think
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
May 22, 2013 11:08 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
When you incur debt as money, what is happening is that someone is giving you money that you didn't earn, and you promise to pay them back plus interest.
In our current feel good culture, everyone is given self esteem without earning it, for example by telling ugly women that they are beautiful. The problem is that eventually the free money/compliments run out, and you don't have anything to pay it back.
So imagine a teenage girl who is constantly told she is good enough the way she is and whatever way she wants to be. Well, the years pass and she floats along whimsically, until wham! she's 40, single, broke, and finally realizes that self esteem is only real if you earn it from yourself and can pass your own self's judgement. So then she judges herself as an idiot who has wasted her life floating whimsically, and she becomes self esteem bankrupt. Boom! she can't pretend anymore, cuz shit just got real.
Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
May 22, 2013 11:41 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
How to want is need vs. non-need.
Example: do you want dove soap because you need dove soap, or because dove soap makes you feel good on a psychological level?
Answer: soap is soap. if you aren't taught that dove soap is special feel good high status soap, you'll just buy the cheapest soap you can find.
How to want is just why to want, but it focuses on you rather than the product.
Dove could have just put up a picture of a bar of dove soap and listed the properties of the soap(ingredients, weight, price), which would be to tell you WHY a reasonable person should want it.
However, most people aren't reasonable, they are emotional. So it's more effective to encourage emotional buying, which is the how.
How to want? Emotionally that's how.
In the con game example, the con man gets the rube to TRUST him. He doesn't want you to look at the numbers and the risks and the probabilities, he wants you to feel good about him.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
May 23, 2013 10:17 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
One of the anonymouses wrote:
"Let's say I'm conned into thinking I'm smarter than the ad but never buy a dove product, does dove still win?"
I would say dove is taking one for the team. So dove's team wins (the team of product sellers and advertisers and media opinion-shapers) and even though dove incurred the loss (paying to create the ad) in the long run dove wins too because you/we continue to buy into the basic premises
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
May 23, 2013 10:22 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Good point - I would also add that if you start watching/reading something - AND CONTINUE, FASCINATED, while tsk-tsking, it's possibly still for you? That the article/show was designed (if only subconsciously) as much to elicit your tsk-tsk from someone like you as much as its manifest overt purpose to elicit a positive reaction from the dopes you're tsk-tsking about?
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
May 23, 2013 10:26 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Thank you! If TLP chimes in on nothing else, I hope we get to read thoughts on THIS!!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 23, 2013 1:48 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It's good to see someone point out how deep the yearning is to believe that "advertising sets the standard of beauty because in the insane calculus of your psychology you have a better chance of changing Dove than you have of changing yourself."
I wrote a column on the faux science of the ad, which, among other points, reported that the women portrayed were selected from a much larger group of women sketched. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-26/dove-s-fake-new-real-beauty-ads.html
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
May 23, 2013 1:56 PM | Posted by : | Reply
By the way, instead of reading this blog, you can just listen to Howard Jones' "No One is to Blame" over and over again. Same lesson, goes down smooth.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 23, 2013 2:10 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Part of the magic trick is, obviously, to choose women who fit the profile of under estimating their beauty. To make it seem comprehensive, you choose women with a variety of surface characteristics, different heights, weights, coloration, etc. This creates, like Diversity, the impression of catholicity and thus of scientific 'sampling'.
You could also note that the focus is on the man, who is in some way a scientist (forensic artists must be.) This takes the focus off of the 'planted' subjects and on the veracity of his method. When one is a creator of fictions, as those who make films must be, it is easy to forget that your job is to create true fictions, not merely in the sense that you wish them to be true, but that, like a parable, they come into contact with the underlying pattern of reality.
If you are taught, like many media people, that 'image is reality', it reduces to pure solipsism. It is real because I wish it into being.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 23, 2013 4:15 PM | Posted by : | Reply
TLP: Any thoughts on the Abercrombie&Fitch publicity stunt or its intended backlash?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 23, 2013 4:18 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Well, yeah, obviously. The point isn't to make you read everything in the magazine, the point is to have you look at the magazine long enough to discover the ads. In fact, it might be better if you don't like the content, because then you think that the ads don't affect you.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 23, 2013 7:04 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Would love to see what you think about this?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 24, 2013 1:07 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Don't hate me cause I'm not beautiful...
--Can someone pass me a cheeseburger???
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
May 24, 2013 3:54 AM | Posted by : | Reply
homosexuality = low self esteem + narcissism
fixation on the self, judgement of inferiority of self, fixation on superior versions of self, desire for superiors. sex acts reinforce desire, tie the physical to the mental. desire for empathy, empathy mistaken for mystical thing called love. self diagnosis as born that way. patient/doctor try to move goalposts, call homosexuality natural, taken out of dsm. are the good doctors fools or fags or both?
Score: -6 (14 votes cast)
May 24, 2013 5:10 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Maybe for some. It seems like an odd thing to put everything to born that way, as this would be a very rare thing in humans. Humans have very few instincts, we have drives, obviously, but we don't do much instinctively, so most of our behavior is not really "genetic" per se. You have to teach babies how to feed themselves, they have to learn to walk, how to talk (which is why we don't have a universal human language) so I think chalking the entire gay thing to genes would require a bit more explaining than gays think it does. Talking is learned, walking is learned, but gay sex is not learned? It doesn't track. We have a drive for sex certainly, and we have an idea of what we're in love with, but even then, culture tells us what love is and what it feels like.
Score: -1 (5 votes cast)
May 25, 2013 8:37 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"culture tells us what love is and what it feels like"
Sure it does. And nobody is listening.
The only way in which a culture could possibly teach humans to feel sexually attracted to something they're not naturally attracted to would be through conditioning, and this would require the system to be able to cause sexual arousal in you while you're watching certain pictures or listening to certain ideas being expressed to you, so that you would associate sexual arousal with those pictures or ideas.
I'm personally even sceptical of that, as you can't change the aesthetics of beauty through conditioning, at least through such rough and primitive conditioning.
Now I do have an idea how some sexual perversions are created, but you'll have to read my blog to infer that (my handle links to it).
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
May 25, 2013 12:45 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
there's no handle, just give us the links
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 25, 2013 4:56 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Actually, I can prove to you that it did.
Go to the art museum, look at the art of the 1600's. They have a lot of naked women who would have been considered attractive to men of the year 1600. Guess what, they're all FAT, they'd weigh an average of 250 pounds if they weren't just paint. Now our image of the "perfect woman" is an anorexic who weighs in at just over 100 pounds. The thing is that you think you made that pick -- you did, but only after being surrounded by images of what a beautiful woman looks like from birth to puberty. In 1600 your image of what a beautiful woman should look like was "short, fat, and pale", today, it's "tall, skinny, and dark compexion".
If that's not enough, you can look at the differences in what other cultures think are beautiful or thought was beautiful in the past. It's not that hard to find. In China at one point, women who had feet larger than their ankles were ugly, hence footbinding. There is a tribe in Africa that thinks long necks are pretty, so women stretch their necks with coils.
Score: 2 (6 votes cast)
May 25, 2013 6:06 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Dovahkiin, you speak with such seeming authority about issues you clearly have zero understanding of. Let me offer you a viewpoint divested of group think as well as popular misconceptions (about everything).
Why the heck would you think that all these weird practices from different cultures were dominant because these people wanted to express their conception of beauty through their cultures? Wouldn't you rather think it was about finding ways to express social dominance, social status, and so on? An expression of magical thinking perhaps, in a few cases? You know, the way women these days want to look like men in work places because they think that this somehow magically makes them better at their jobs and more respectable.
Since when did culture become about expressing beauty? That's right: a couple of decades ago.
Oh wait, not even then. The models today look like straight out of Auschwitz after liberation, skeletons you wouldn't have a boner for in your wildest most perverted fantasies. These women are an expression of hell, the creation of homosexual men who can't see anything in the female shape so they must destroy it in an attempt to make it approach the masculine shape.
They're horrid lanky stringy cows. Sad victims of a system that despises their very nature.
You have quite the presumption thinking I have a thing for that sort of appalling caricature of girly male (sic). I doubt you even yourself have. In fact, I don't think you've ever met anyone who found such women attractive in the least apart from their faces at best. (Of course there are some exceptions, some borderline cases, especially some film stars turned parttime models who still have a body and not just bones. Try to understand: I'm not a fatty lover. I don't feel attraction toward obese women and I don't feel attraction even toward overweight women unless I love the person and think she's attractive due to her feminine behaviour and brightness. So please don't start with the crap I sometimes hear about how I must like overweight women and be some sort of throwback to an older era. I just like healthy women like every other man who isn't totally gay.)
And what about those paintings? Since when did pornography become the primary mode of artistic expression on this planet? Oh right, a couple of decades ago. Before that, painting was probably about something else than expressing feminine sexiness. Oh wait, it still is.
While different races have slightly different beauty standards, that's because they're, um, like, different races with different alleles responsible for that stuff.
Score: 0 (6 votes cast)
May 25, 2013 7:21 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Ok, so if we're all (presumably) the same species, then why does our conception of beautiful change? Heck why is it not the same all over the world? Why would a Chinese guy in 1200 want a different woman than a European guy 200 years later? Why would a European of 1980 think Twiggy is hot while she wouldn't have gotten a second glance in 1600 in the same country? The point is that our idea of what makes a woman beautiful and thus dateable material has changed over a period of 400 years, and if there's an innate standard of "what men want", that could never happen. You'd find the same traits desired all over the world, and the same traits desired in all eras. You don't. In fact, you have Sengalese women fattening up their daughters to be sexy while Western women put their daughters on diets. But whatever.
Score: 2 (6 votes cast)
May 26, 2013 4:36 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
But you don't, actually, know what kind of woman an European from the 1600 wanted. Or what kind of woman a Chinese man from the past wanted. You don't have a clue, because you've never lived in those times or been those people, and haven't even bothered to read about them in depth. All you have is some paintings and social norms, the functions of which you don't understand or know anything about, apparently.
You have this insane postmodernist notion that everything is cultural, then you take the slightest of seeming pointers from the past and twist them into "evidence" for "your" point of view. What? Is that the best you can do? If you were right, wouldn't you be able to do something a bit more convincing? Wouldn't somebody?
If beauty standards were acquired through unconscious cultural imprinting rather than being innate and something one can further develop by improving one's perceptual ability, wouldn't I be listening to rap music and pining for black skinned women with exaggerated (to my mind) bottoms and breasts? Or wouldn't I be pining for skinny horror shows of boyish woman? Because those are what the multicult and fashion ideals of the failing West are, and they're being communicated to us very effectively through our institutions and media. Yet I can't help but despise everything to do with them. I love the white woman, I love the healthy woman, I love the feminine woman. That's because I'm white, healthy, and straight.
Tell me. Why do I have the tastes I have? Why haven't I integrated into the culture that is being expressed through the media and so on? Why? Why hasn't anybody I know, either? Could there be something YOU don't get, here?
Score: -1 (7 votes cast)
May 26, 2013 4:43 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
P.S. You don't apparently even know what sort of woman men of today find attractive, so I have to assume you know even less about the men of the past. Sorry.
Score: 2 (6 votes cast)
May 26, 2013 4:47 AM | Posted by : | Reply
P.P.S. Just because some woman is a model in a field ruled by joos and homosexuals and their agendas, doesn't mean actual straight men in the real world desire her. That's what we used to call basic logic before the self-esteem movement.
Score: -1 (5 votes cast)
May 26, 2013 7:18 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
gold's intrinsic value is fairly low; you can't eat it, it's worthless for building things out of. It's only value is its durability
So why do central banks enjoy collecting so much of it?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 27, 2013 4:20 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
mctps, how is it that you comment here with such insight yet sound like a total nutjob on your blog?
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
May 27, 2013 12:50 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I usually have to dumb my comments down for the typical edjumacated "cultural critic" of the internet when I'm commenting on blogs like this.
Back at my own site, I can just write what comes to my mind and offer it all as the interesting and original food for thought that it is, without regard to whether someone will "get" it or not.
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
May 27, 2013 5:45 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
So why, when they are painting idealized images of women (for example the angels of the Sistine Chapel) do they look like fat women? Angels are the ideal of the human form, so they'd paint what people thought was beautiful.
And BTW, you brought up porn, I didn't, so I really don't see the point of assuming that only pornographic images of women count as "idealized women". Most of our idealized images of men and women are NOT porn, unless you think that the image of a woman mopping the floor or buying food at the grocery store are "porn" in which case, any image of a woman is porn.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
May 27, 2013 6:09 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The conversation began from sexual preference. Beauty was a word I introduced half accidentally, and probably ended up confusing the discussion by so doing, quite without intending to do so.
So my point was actually that those paintings don't represent what men of those times desired sexually. They *may* represent an ideal of *artistic* beauty, but there is zero evidence that men from those times were masturbating to such art. Which is to say you can't use those paintings as a basis for an argument about what kind of women men of those times considered attractive.
They're "angels so they're idealised", which must mean blah blah blah. Do you ever read your own crap?
I'm pretty sure men of those times would have preferred some hot porn star of today to those chubby figures of the paintings of the era. Whether these men ever even knew what they were missing is another relevant question, and one which you haven't had the imagination to broach.
Beauty as an artistic concept is more vague and somewhat subject to education, and I'd rather not go into that direction with this. It's difficult enough to make mind controlled zombies grasp the simple and incontestable basics of sexual attraction and what qualifies as evidence on that topic.
Basically, men evolved to feel attracted to the feminine shape, feminine face, and feminine personality; and women evolved to feel attracted to masculine playful dominance and not much else. If you read pick-up artist blogs you should get an idea of the actual science on this subject. Heartiste especially is interested both in what kind of men women find attractive and in what kind of women men find attractive. His stuff is pretty common sense when you come to think of it, and makes sense from the evolutionary theoretic perspective, unlike the childlike notion that Mother Nature left survival of the species in the hands of "arbitrary human culture" as you seem to keep insisting.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
May 28, 2013 1:52 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Our organization is dedicated towards providing high quality content services, which are allied to the algebra content writing. Writers of our organization are having deep knowledge of algebra subjects and thus expand effectual content. We are known for providing quality content and have a wide range of experience and knowledge in this field. Plagiarism is restricted and it is assured to our clients that they will get totally authenticated content every time of our delivery. Algebra word is originated from Arabic language and much of its techniques from Islamic mathematics; its roots can be seen through earlier traditions.
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
May 28, 2013 2:37 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Christopher Nolan's Batman agrees with you: "It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me."
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
May 28, 2013 5:59 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I've been using dove products for several years already and I must say that it really makes good effects not just on my face but also on my body. I haven't heard of this issue before but I am really curious about it. Thanks btw, and I respect your opinion.
Score: -5 (5 votes cast)
May 28, 2013 8:50 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Why so angry?
The men of the 1600s are no more responsible for finding chubby gals attractive than you are for preferring slender women with big hooters.
Like you said on your blog, if The Entity that remotely controls you can implant voices into your head, can it not also implant its own design for what it wants you to find attractive? Perhaps it changes cultural notions of the feminine ideal over centuries for its own unfathomable purpose.
Alternatively: CUCKOO!
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
May 28, 2013 9:31 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Anything is possible. I'm merely saying there's no evidence that past men preferred chubby women. You on the other hand seem to think there's evidence, which tells a lot about your standards of evidence and therefore puts the validity of your whole worldview into question.
You're also mistaking rhetoric for anger.
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
May 28, 2013 10:19 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I want to say one word to you. Just one word. CAPTCHA
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
May 28, 2013 10:50 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Why is it so difficult to accept that while the sex drive itself is primal, how one expresses that drive is socially constructed? If every woman in the nation became obese overnight, let me assure you that the birth rate would not suffer. Men would adjust.
Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
May 28, 2013 11:56 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"Why is it so difficult to accept that while the sex drive itself is primal, how one expresses that drive is socially constructed?"
Because what you say doesn't actually mean anything in the real world? Because it's self-referential solipsistic word salad?
Because it's the most insane nonsense I've ever heard expressed by someone capable of coherent speech in other contexts?
Because it's not supported by biology, evolutionary theory, psychology, history, sociobiology, or my personal experiences or the experiences of those I know personally?
How about those for a valid reason for dismissing a vague notion with nothing to back it up except a horde of flapping lips? What do you think?
Score: -6 (8 votes cast)
May 28, 2013 12:11 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It's too bad I am RIGHT. Sexual desire is not simple. It will find an object, and because our choices in a mate are socially important, therefore affecting our survival, there is social construction in it, to be sure. If all the women in this nation were to become obese overnight, a couple of things would happen. One is that the standard baseline of beauty would change immediately. What would NOT change about beauty is this: facial symmetry would still be prized. Facial symmetry and youthful skin and hair are virtually the only hallmarks of beauty that seem to be hardwired in us. everything else is up for grabs. And you, sir, need medication.
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
May 28, 2013 12:44 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I need medication because I think you're full of shit? Truly, such abnormal behaviour should never be tolerated. Anybody who disagrees with your unscientific gibberish and has the integrity to make it clear in the strongest terms should be forcibly treated in the nearest mental hospital. You seem to have chosen the correct profession for your personality type, or at least gravitated toward the right field of endeavour.
Ah, to get back to the matter at hand. A nation of Christians might survive an obesity epidemic. Who doesn't want to stick it into something once per year if there are no other ways of relieving yourself?
Thing is, what men fantasise about while having sex with their ugly wives is the question. We all know men are capable of having sex with ugly women, even if only in darkness. It's the rest of the equation that you are conveniently leaving out: what happens in that secret place, his imagination? Do you know?
Score: -5 (7 votes cast)
May 28, 2013 12:55 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
um, can you stop calling yourself "The Real Last Psychiatrist" on TLP's own blog? It's kind of disturbing.
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
May 28, 2013 1:08 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I am going further than saying that obese women would get laid. They get laid now. I am saying that the entire culture would change in response and big would be considered desirable. I am saying also that a lack of facial symmetry, coarse skin, and dull hair will NEVER be considered attractive, because those are hardwired in us. Even infants prefer symmetry to its lack. There are plenty of men today who are sexually drawn to very large women. You conflate ugly and fat for a variety of reasons, probably, but not everyone does. Only twenty years ago, women who gave a shit wanted a very gently curved athletic ass; now they are paying good money to try to get a bubble ass. Because standards change. I personally do not find obesity attractive but my grandfather did. My grandmother was 400 pounds + and he was all over that like white on rice. He worshiped the ground she walked on. She died twenty years before he did, because of her obesity, and he never touched another woman as long as he lived. He pined for her till the day he died. 'Cause humans are complex, and one man's meat is another man's poison.
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
May 28, 2013 1:26 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Humans aren't complex. Their brains are balls of simple neurology. The Jungian and Freudian unconscious minds are myths that can't be found in the human brain. Fittingly, Freud himself started to believe, during the last years of his life, that dreams had a supernatural origin.
Also, while I'm aware of the existence of sexual perversion; if you want to look at society at large, you have to look at women to find odd notions about what sexiness means. This is because women aren't naturally attracted to the female shape, so they don't know what they're supposed to look like. This leaves them impressionable and malleable by the surrounding culture, which in this case means psychopathic media.
You can find a comparable phenomenon with respect to how males perceive female sexual desire. We tend to think women prefer cute submissive nice guys, because that's kind of what we prefer ourselves in women. Alas, the reality is women prefer manly men who dominate and tease playfully and are socially adept (i.e. dominant). Looks aren't all that important to women, although they play a role in terms of congruence and first impression.
So we men are equally deceived by the "culture" around us.
But all I can think of in terms of males losing their minds regarding what they themselves prefer sexually is during collapses of civilisations. Late ancient Greek homosexuality and stuff like that, just before they lost any significance as a breeding population or cultural force. Late Roman era perversion and people marrying horses, just before the Barbarians decided to end their misery. Just a coincidence, to be sure, all that falling of civs after perversion became widespread in them.
Score: -5 (7 votes cast)
May 28, 2013 3:13 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What's word salad about saying that a drive could be both instinctual and socially controlled?
What about FOOD? we all have to eat, but there are cultural messages that tell us what types of foods we should want. You wouldn't for example, eat a starfish, a dog, a horse, or a living squid. Europe pretty much collectively lost their shit when it was discovered that horsemeat had gotten into European ground beef. Horsemeat is not a poison, people don't die from eating it, it's not appreciatively different than other types of meat you buy at the store. But Europeans culturally do not see horsemeat as food. I suppose if we're going 100% nature, we'd have to assume that there is a biological reason that horsemeat is disgusting to europeans, or we can go with the "word salad" and explain it as culture telling Europeans that horses are not to be eaten. the drive to eat is the same in all humans, WHAT we eat is not.
However, if you still want to pretend that what is desired in sexual partners is 100% biological, please explain why sex drive is different than eating.
Score: 2 (8 votes cast)
May 28, 2013 3:35 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Regarding the aversion to eating horses, dogs, and dangerous animals... Humans seem to have a natural aversion to eating beautiful noble animals or their own pets or dangerous animals.
Yeah, that was a tough one. Almost got me there. For a moment I didn't know whether I'd win or lose this argument. I was really close to admitting defeat there for a while.
You guys commenting on this blog are really some first-class rocket scientists.
It's like half of the time you don't even remember what you are arguing against. Then you act all surprised and indignant when I'm able to defend my position. What?! This guy must be psychotic he can argue for his ideas like someone who knows what he's talking about!!
Like talking to a bunch of brain-damaged kindergarteners.
Yeah, please stay away from my blog. I don't think you're quite ready for that stuff yet. Might take a couple of decades of serious research and study of philosophy before you would begin to grasp some of what I write there.
Score: -7 (9 votes cast)
May 28, 2013 5:29 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You have both the attitude and the intellect of a high school dropout.
Score: 7 (9 votes cast)
May 28, 2013 6:04 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Anybody who drops out of the communist day care camp system at any time must be doing at least something right. The sooner the better of course.
It's like Descartes said and nothing has changed since then: everything you learn at school you have to unlearn at some point if you want to approach knowledge during your lifetime.
Score: 2 (8 votes cast)
May 29, 2013 12:33 AM | Posted by : | Reply
bravo, johnny bravo. oh society and its way of changing pretty much anything. makes me wonder how many people still live in the dream world and how hard they will crash when they see some of the truth seep in haha. Dove has been makin soap for a long ass time, so long that most people dont even realize soap is just soap. and at the end of the day if you stay properly "hydratarded" and eat well-ish you dont need moisturizers and to scrub some exotic fruit all over your face. its all a lie, technically everything we buy is a lie, why cant people grow some food and make their own shit, why are we still slaves to green pieces of paper. the span of the intellect of any human and the power of the mind is amazing, the fact that today we use on average enough to barely get to mcdonalds and shit our brains out is sad. idiocracy seems inevitable unless some horrible natural disaster that happens all the time wipes out a bunch of people that can be blamed on god or the government.if you dont want to be destroyed by tornadoes dont move to a place called tornado alley haha. where has all the common sense gone?
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
May 29, 2013 8:15 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I love the white woman, I love the healthy woman, I love the feminine woman. That's because I'm white, healthy, and straight.
Dovahkiin is completely correct and your 'logic' isn't logical.
You think you love white women because you're white but you don't think your preferences have been conditioned into you? lol?
Who do you imagine you'd be attracted to if you were adopted by a Chinese family who took you back to China before you were 3 months old; to be raised like any other Chinese kid. You think you'd be attracted to white women you've never seen or to the Chinese girls all around you; who represent erotic imagery blasted into your subconscious long before you could even have the slightest interest in the opposite sex?
You love Caucasian women not because you're "white" but because your preferences were conditioned by undoubtedly racist mother during early childhood (probably) or around puberty (perhaps). Your preferences can change with your environment as well (well maybe not you but a more adaptable human would); I had a string of little Australian blonde girlfriends before escaping to SE Asia to get away from leaching Christian needy. I didn't really care for Asian girls initially but after a few years, I probably prefer their aesthetics. But I've always been adaptable to my environment.
Humans mimic their environment, adjusting in brilliant (and tragic) ways that enhance survival (but turned the species into slaves). There is a phenomenon called Stockholm Syndrome:Stockholm syndrome, or capture–bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness.
Stockholm syndrome can be seen as a form of traumatic bonding, which describes “strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other.” One commonly used hypothesis to explain the effect of Stockholm syndrome is based on Freudian theory. It suggests that the bonding is the individual’s response to trauma in becoming a victim. Identifying with the aggressor is one way that the ego defends itself. When a victim believes the same values as the aggressor, they no longer become a threat.
If only. When humans adopt the Value systems of their needy oppressors, they are easily molested, used and even disposed of (war, betrayal, exploitation, love).
You would have to pretty comprehensively blinded to fail to perceive the truth about mothers who crush their toddler's ingrained resistance to domination; desperate to raise the child Right and make their children suffer to please. Mothers induce love from children the same way they induce love from men - by hijacking decency and inflicting abuse / pain. When their victim submits - idiotically believing they have no other options (more idiotic for men than toddlers) - their free will to resist domination will have been snapped like any wild animal that has been tamed. When it's not worth the pain of resistance, the mind submits and adopts the Value system of the tyrant.
...victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness.
As they're now behaving, the mother no longer has need to reduce them with force or emotional assault and voila; imaged by love, straight out of the Dark Ages.
________________________
Tell me. Why do I have the tastes I have?
They were conditioned into you during a period of time so traumatic, your mind has since wiped that entire memory (of suffering) from your mind and retained the emotional 'lessons' learned from the experience. The human mind's brilliance was hijacked by needy and we've been beaching ourselves for 5000 years.
Why haven't I integrated into the culture that is being expressed through the media and so on? Why? Why hasn't anybody I know, either?
Your conditioning was too ingrained. Simple. You're not receptive to new ideas and influences. What logic are you imagining that explains your preference for feminine women? Do you even know that femininity is a construct of misogynist women?
You are a human, which means you will adapt to your (perceived) environment. You'd be attracted to women with dainty feet in 19th century China, to heinously obese women during the Dark Ages, to Puritan women who were such filthy whores they induced erotic desire from men by exposing their bare ankles, to women with bones piercing their ears, nose and lips in some African cultures, etc.
Humans adapt like no other species. This makes us a terrifying pest but only because everyone is insanely broken by reduced mothers who need love (slaves). We'll destroy this world like the pests we've become but we aren't superior to anything really; we're the most inferior and that's why we destroy everything. Survival is not the most important thing; especially when it comes at the cost of survival (M.A.D.). Humans reduced as low as we have been by misogyny are obsessed with survival; they'll do anything to survive one more day of misery because they're miserable.
Have you ever been so happy you could literally die and not mind?
Could there be something YOU don't get, here?
Dovahkiin is a lot brighter than you are. You should listen to what she's telling you about conditioned preferences.
Score: 4 (12 votes cast)
May 29, 2013 10:19 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I miss the LP, are you busy with other endeavors?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2013 11:52 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"Chinese girls all around you who represent erotic imagery blasted into your subconscious"
How does my "subconscious" know they "represent" "erotic imagery"? Who or what pushes the "let's categorise these as erotic images" button in my brain when I perceive these images?
Sorry, I didn't read your comment further than that, because it was already clear you weren't able to write meaningful English, let alone express a valid criticism of what I wrote.
I may come back to your message if you respond to my questions intelligently. I'm not holding my breath, but I'm leaving my mind open to the possibility that you were trying to express something very profound and sophisticated that my poor brain wasn't able to grasp due to some inadequacy of communication on your part.
Score: -4 (8 votes cast)
May 29, 2013 4:55 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Jee, it's not like things like kid's cartoons or advertisements or music or any other form of cultural media that you're saturated in has anything to do with your subconscious mind, does it? Every TV show EVER features women, and they're usually the ones that we're supposed to find attractive. At worst, you'll be dealing with "Hollywood Homely" meaning that they are not underweight, they wear slightly out of fashion clothing, thick glasses and so on. So by the time you're 8 years old, you've spent a lot of time being primed to find certain features attractive.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HollywoodHomely
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
May 29, 2013 5:46 PM | Posted by : | Reply
One of the only blogs I read. I don't fully understand everything but I try to. I know and I feel like I'm delving into a whole game collection while I've only played the simple, 2D, Mario.
Please, don't ever stop or change, can't thank you enough for helping me expand my thinking, as that's more valuable than anything else anybody could offer me.
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
May 29, 2013 8:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
We tend to think women prefer cute submissive nice guys, because that's kind of what we prefer ourselves in women. Alas, the reality is women prefer manly men who dominate and tease playfully and are socially adept (i.e. dominant). Looks aren't all that important to women, although they play a role in terms of congruence and first impression
Sure, feminine women like masculine men. Are you saying any deviation from that is abnormal?
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
May 29, 2013 8:40 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
In what way are starfish and squid "dangerous animals"? People eat sharks and they are dangerous, same with gators. I won't eat predators because there seems to be something inherently wrong with that, but that's not really relevant here. Also, I've seen people eat elephants (some would argue they are beautiful and noble).
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
May 29, 2013 8:42 PM | Posted by : | Reply
^^^^Me, Stawiagi. Got lazy filling out the comment fields...
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 29, 2013 10:11 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
How does my "subconscious" know they "represent" "erotic imagery"? Who or what pushes the "let's categorise these as erotic images" button in my brain when I perceive these images?
The Anonymous reply was pretty good but you need to do some research into conditioning. Pavlov's dog? Associated emotive stimuli?
Wikipedia: Classical conditioning
Conditioning is usually done by pairing the two stimuli, as in Pavlov’s classic experiments. Pavlov presented dogs with a ringing bell followed by food. The food elicited salivation, and after repeated bell-food pairings the bell also caused the dogs to salivate.
In this experiment,the unconditioned stimulus is the dog food as it produces an unconditioned response, saliva. The conditioned stimulus is the ringing bell and it produces a conditioned response of the dogs producing saliva.
You don't realise it but your entire world is conditioned for you in ways that are perfectly horrifying. They reversed a great deal of values around back to front, changing the logic to illogical and sending everyone basically insane (although sanity is a construct of the insane, who are "normal" / conformist / slaves).
Some examples of values which have been conditioned into your subconscious and associated with emotive stimuli that you could probably spend your lifetime trying to disassociate without success. Conditioning is powerful.
* God is "good" (for lying all the time and terrorising vassals into handing over power used to kill them).
* Devil is "bad" (for telling the truth and empowering vassals to protect themselves).
* Deceit is "courteous" and "nice" and good social skills.
* Honesty is "offensive" and "rude" and antisocial.
* Violence is "normal" and "trivial".
* Sex is "shameful" and "serious".
Your subconscious simply makes associations. It knows they "represent" erotic imagery because you have had nakedness already conditioned into you as being shameful.
Don't look now, but you're wearing clothes to cover your shame at being human and the victim of whores who want to sell the non-existent commodity of sex [doing what they want to do with whom they want when they want]. Won't you carry them for life whilst they anchor you down?
Nakedness has been associated with shame in your subconscious. You would probably never be able to be comfortable again whilst naked for the rest of your life (such is the power of the damage done to you during your formative years).
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
May 29, 2013 10:31 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
So imagine a teenage girl who is constantly told she is good enough the way she is and whatever way she wants to be. Well, the years pass and she floats along whimsically, until wham! she's 40, single, broke, and finally realizes that self esteem is only real if you earn it from yourself and can pass your own self's judgement.
Great post but girls aren't as decent as your post suggests.
Long before that point, they find a host on which to leech and they get married to a john to validate their 'love', then they need children to validate their marriage, then they need needy children because children don't need their mothers.
Mothers need their children to need them. Cue dependency, induced love, suffering to please. A non-sociopathic mother would be focused on drilling independence into her child, love for Self and motivating them with their own Self-interests.
wham! she's 35, married, 2 children and never realises that self esteem is only real if you earn from yourself. She earns hers from public opinion (creeps that judge her skills as a mother in perfectly horrifying ways). Mothers truss their children up as a sacrifice to Polite Society (in exchange for being allowed to pursue an obsession with sex throughout her youth; cosmetics, beauty, dieting, men, etc).
Her children earn their validation from external sources because she took aim at their Self to kill it. How else can she make the case for them to be her slaves?
Score: -2 (8 votes cast)
May 30, 2013 2:27 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm like talking to walls here.
In my very first message, I wrote:
"The only way in which a culture could possibly teach humans to feel sexually attracted to something they're not naturally attracted to would be through conditioning, and this would require the system to be able to cause sexual arousal in you while you're watching certain pictures or listening to certain ideas being expressed to you, so that you would associate sexual arousal with those pictures or ideas."
So why don't you finally tell me how, exactly, you imagine that this Pavlovian conditioning you speak of is supposed to, actually, take place with regard to sexual learning in human society?
In actual experiments with dogs, the stimuli that the dog is supposed to learn to associate are introduced into the system, yes, BY HUMANS, and they depend on a NATURALLY OCCURRING REACTION. The other stimulus is the sound, the other is the food which induces saliva production. Saliva production is a NATURALLY OCCURRING REACTION when food is to be had. Are you following me?
So what is this naturally occurring reaction in humans that is the necessary part of this conditioning you speak of? Could it be our natural sexual arousal when we see sexy women in our teenage? Or could there be some other mechanism? Like, is there a satellite in the sky that beams a mind control laser into your brain and makes you sexually aroused in your critical years when you look at images of women on TV, regardless of what they look like? It would, of course, be active only when we see women, and not when we see men. If it were active all the time, we'd all be bisexual, now wouldn't we?
I'm being kind of sarcastic there, because this mind control laser is exactly what your idiotic theory would require to fill the huge gaping whole at the center of it.
Or perhaps you can tell me: what is the exact series of events, described as if you were an engineer, that is supposedly taking place in human societies and is responsible for the conditioning you insist takes place? Can you tell? Use TV as an example, thanks. Or are you just writing cool sounding gibberish which you can't express in rigorous language? Yeah, probably. I figure if you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd have explained your position by using meaningful language as opposed to misapplying popular concepts and assuming you don't have to bother with that pesky thing, argumentation.
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
May 30, 2013 2:38 AM | Posted by : | Reply
And just to be perfectly clear, if the following is true:
"Could it be our natural sexual arousal when we see sexy women in our teenage?"
...then there is NO CONDITIONING in the first place. There is just this naturally occurring reaction when we see SEXY women, predefined as such by our genetics.
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
May 30, 2013 4:24 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Well Jonny, you are damn right about conditioning, but you are guilty of doing the very thing you keep calling out others on: you did not answer his question.
Anyway:
How does my "subconscious" know they "represent" "erotic imagery"? Who or what pushes the "let's categorise these as erotic images" button in my brain when I perceive these images?
Questions well worth pondering. So do it.
There must be many mechanisms behind adult sexual attraction, and since I don't know enough about the genetics/environmental conditioning debate, I will leave it at that. But how I see it, you can always look towards children to get an idea of our true nature with minimal social influences.
So if a child witnesses an act of sexual nature, it undergoes trauma. How does he/she differentiate between an ordinary act and an erotic act given its extremely limited prior knowledge about this?
So I guess you are right. It seems to be our nature.
But, what about the sexualization of a trauma of non-sexual nature as a coping mechanism in which an event/ a situation is so stressful that the only way to survive is to sexualize it? You know, sexual excitation of psychological nature?
Repressed sexualized psychological trauma determines (part of) what turns us on intensely well into adulthood, in our attempt to relive that trauma.
Temporary conclusion: sexual attraction is determined both by our innate nature AND our subconscious. And conditioning too, of course.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 30, 2013 4:47 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
At least you put some sense into that. I'm genuinely surprised in a positive way.
But why do teenage males perceive sexy women as sexy even when these males have never witnessed the supposedly traumatic sex act? Or when they have witnessed it between an ugly woman and a man? Why do males generally perceive females as attractive instead of men? Why don't they sexualise both partners of the supposedly traumatic sex act?
Why don't children sexualise the supposed trauma until they are teenagers? And why do teenage males almost universally become very attracted to the healthiest and most feminine looking girls, immediately upon puberty, with or without an experience of having witnessed sex acts?
If such witnessing is traumatic, wouldn't you tend to conceptualise yourself as the victim, and therefore become a homosexual?
Anyway, doesn't quite compute, that theory of yours, I'm afraid.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
May 30, 2013 6:50 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes, I must say you are right that the examples I have given fail to attempt clarify whether our attraction to the opposite sex (or same sex, or both) is innate or conditioned.
I cannot imagine anyone disagreeing with the evolutionary perspective that people are biologically drawn towards people who exhibit markers of health, and women to dominant males (although secure is a better word in my opinion).
Traditionally, women have been objectified and still are, but what do you make of the current trend of the objectification of men? (thanks, Mike Jeffries!) As far as the theory is concerned, women have not evolved to value looks in men but dominance, yet I cannot think of many girls I know who would pass up a good-looking guy for a dominant one. You may think this just applies to girls, but I've noticed that women are just big girls with sagging breasts. Girls love hot guys. Is it because good looks are a market of health? What about effeminate guys like Justin Bieber en the Jonas Brothers? Is is just the girls?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 30, 2013 7:43 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I'm not sure how much you choose which gender you are attracted to, it's more like the culture tells you what kind of person of that gender is mating material. So if the culture tells you that women with huge breasts and big butts are sexy, you see a big butt and DD breasts and you want that woman. For gay guys, it's probably not that much different -- the culture tells you what kind of guy is sexy and that's who you go for.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
May 30, 2013 7:55 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think it's a bit of a mix of both nature and culture. I feel like I'm repeating centuries-old discussion.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
May 30, 2013 8:33 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
My experience is that women prefer tough guys like Bruce Willis who exhibit playful dominance with their smirks and attitude. They don't prefer pretty boys.
But when you examine women's attraction to successful men, famous actors and the like, you have to take into account that these men already are, in a way, everything a woman wants: high social status and so on. But the truth is, if women actually dated some of these guys, they'd be disillusioned. This is because it's not social status as such that women are attracted to. While it fuels their fantasies, it's not what they are looking for in a man.
And it's not looks that women are SEXUALLY attracted to either: it's BEHAVIOUR that exhibits social dominance, such as being able to make friends easily and being socially adept and a good flirter. Nothing beats that sort of thing, from the perspective of females.
You can be a good looking movie star, but if your attitude and behaviour are lacking, there will come a time when the woman involved will have to admit to herself that the guy isn't what she's looking for. Social "conditioning" and lying to yourself about what you really want only get you so far. Nature will push you back into the real world at some point.
So while women are aesthetically pleased by good looks, they become bored or disappointed if those good looks don't come with the proper kind of dominant personality .... I mean when these women stop fantasising and have to actually date and test the guy (and they do test guys they potentially want to be with).
At anonymous: the culture has never told me what kind of woman I should find attractive. Nobody has. You environmentalists would have to assume that if you pointed your finger at the moon during my critical years of development, and told me it's supposed to be sexy, then I would start to get boners when looking at the moon, especially if it had healthy skin I guess. Maybe if you told me it had healthy skin and that's what healthy skin looks like it would work?
Anyway, the first powerful sexual experience involving a naked woman that I remember was when I watched a bit of a porn film that belonged to my father, and there was this one moment when a woman in it was in a sexy position, writhing there sensually, showing her well proportioned ass. It was like magic to me. I had never seen anything like that before. It was wonderful and wonderfully sexy. I think you anon may be another confused woman who hasn't got a clue about male sexuality. Because if you were a healthy male, you would know that what you say sounds like delusional gibberish to anyone who has been a teenage boy and remembers.
I've always had a very strict idea of what the female body should look like, especially legs and butt. There is maybe one woman in thirty (if that) who has that body that I consider truly sexy without displeasing faults, and that's not to even count those who are obese or overweight or skinny. Then it would be something like one in eighty I guess. But we live in times when women don't get proper exercise. If they exercise, it tends to be aerobic. So I think genetics is behind my taste, because there's no way in hell that the modern culture could have conditioned me to have such a natural and strict taste.
I realise this part of this message is something that straight women will just never be able to relate to, and therefore will never understand. And men tend to deceive you bitches about their tastes; they lie with love. Sucks to be you I guess. At least when it comes to trying to figure out the truth about these things.
Score: -5 (9 votes cast)
May 30, 2013 9:34 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
And just to be perfectly clear, if the following is true:"Could it be our natural sexual arousal when we see sexy women in our teenage?"
...then there is NO CONDITIONING in the first place. There is just this naturally occurring reaction when we see SEXY women, predefined as such by our genetics.
And back to Square 1. Define SEXY.
You cannot.
SEXY was (and continues to be) defined for you. It's out of your control but that doesn't mean it is not manipulated (or heavily influenced). You can only describe your limited appreciation of what you imagine to be SEXY but you'll never be able to define what was (and continues to be) defined for you by the mirrors in control of your controlled environment.
You need to strive to comprehend what Laura Looch and Dovahkiin are telling you because they are women? And you are something of a dolt. You clearly haven't a clue to what degree your environment is controlled by women (the illusory reality you perceive is the product of manipulation / corruption). They control the environment that defines what you imagine to be SEXY. It's kind of comical that you're being told the truth by women (a cow will jump over the moon next) only for you to be infantile, combative and delusional. I'm speaking in theoretical terms; but they know what they're talking about because they speak from experience.
You imagine that you are attracted to an illusory value / trait that has very little to do with biology and everything to do with conditioned perception. Femininity is a highly variable construct of misogyny that is manufactured by women to manipulate (induce) sexual desire in men. The natural Supply of male libido is far too low for women's overwhelming biological Demand. Women frustrated by men failing to produce the Supply women had the Demand for, cracked ~5000 years ago and took matters into their own hands. They took control of the entire market.
They turned sex into a commodity expressly to withhold Supply in order to induce the reverse Demand for sex from men. They turned love into a commodity expressly to withhold love from their children in order to induce reverse love from them. They flipped it all back to front, upside down, inside out, reversing logic to spin it around.
The logic has been changed to illogical. Power is illogical. Everything is illogical in this world. Deceit is illogical. Men being sexually frustrated is so illogical, it's comical. Misogyny was invented by women; it's is their pretext to hoard (or feign hoarding) for the purpose of inducing Demand (and of course they blame it on men). Every guy I've ever met has hated the idea of women sleeping with them! But from women's PoV, it is all the fault of men. Misogyny is not a male construct and it has never been perpetuated by any guy who hasn't been the bitch slave of his mother's lies.
Religion was also created by women; it's their power used by them to is the tool used by women to keep men in check. Only women (specifically, mothers) have the power to perpetuate Value systems. Men cannot dictate values. Only mothers can prepare a human for slavery (and the Jesuits but they weren't really men). Together with priests, mothers have run this world for a very long time.
They've run it into the ground.
They created an emotional world of illusory feelings and all of this is drilled into little boys via conditioning. The boys are brutally abused by mothers until their ingrained resistance to slavery has been broken down, their Self destroyed. Boys adopt the Value system of their tyrant, fall in love with her when she takes her foot off the pedal and with their free will obliterated, they submit to be led by the nose.
Slaves for life.
They'll kill you for saying a bad word about her. She raped their face so good. It's Stockholm Syndrome. It's love.
Men just have no idea how obsessed women are with sex. I've heard it said some girls desire sex so much, they throw their lives away to compete with each other to create cosmetic illusions of sex appeal. But that sounds implausible.
Men would never stand for it. Everyone must pull pull their weight if for no other reason that to discourage the Toddler aversion to Self-fulfilling work and achievement.
_____________________________________
Humans adapt to their environment. Love is needed to blind. The process of adapting = conditioning (whether it's intended or not). The subconscious mind makes associations and connections between stimuli based on prior associations and connections.
You should think about
why you are wearing clothes;
who made you wear them;
what made you them on; and
when (at what age) did you decide that you needed to be aroused by the equivalent of exposed fur.
Nothing is by accident.
Everything that isn't natural exists for a reason.
There is no law that says reasons have to be good.
Score: 3 (11 votes cast)
May 30, 2013 10:19 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
1) How do you know what happened 5000 years ago?
2) You think women had as much power as priests just because they were the ones raising the children? You really do not think that they were more likely well-intentioned but ignorant idiots?
And if they do not know what they're doing is wrong, can you still blame them for doing their best?
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 30, 2013 10:41 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I don't care who the messenger is, I only care what they say, how well they argue for their point of view.
None of you have any idea what rigorous thought means. I would bet you have never studied philosophy, either at school or on your own, especially on your own.
In prior times most of you would only get through a few lines of this muddled nihilist blather, and the Darwin ejection seat would fire.
Score: -4 (6 votes cast)
May 30, 2013 10:49 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I can't stand philosophy majors, they're so frickin' dumb.
Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
May 30, 2013 11:33 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Philosophy as an academic field of study draws the losers and the runt of the litter. You go to study philosophy after you've failed at science and engineering yet retain a certain masculinity that makes it impossible for you to want to study complete bullshit as women so often do.
Yet these people don't seem to learn anything there except "facts" like everybody else in every other field of study. If they did, they would be solving problems. They aren't solving problems, so they didn't learn.
That's still not an argument against the ... fact ... that you need to understand and value philosophy itself to be worth anything as a thinker, especially a thinker who wants to communicate his thoughts in a rational manner.
People in general are social bots repeating memes and most humans sound like an extra TV set in your room. I actually have a TV set of my own so I don't really need you to paraphrase these notions to me repeatedly, I'm aware of their existence already, thanks.
It's the rare person who has bothered to rationalise this postmodernist gibberish with any sort of depth to his thought, and even then you quickly see there's nothing to that apparent depth except appearance, no substance.
Score: -4 (10 votes cast)
May 30, 2013 11:52 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"You are what you eat" would seem to apply to all forms of consumption, then.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
May 30, 2013 12:17 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Most people have no idea what the problems are that they could solve using their unique skill set, so they just settle for passing and getting good grades. Not much learning going on there, I suppose. Most of the time they don't even know what real problems exist.
And by them I mean me.
What do you mean by "real problems"? Can you give some examples?
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
May 30, 2013 12:59 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Who are you quoting, zombie? I never used the term "real problems."
As for problems, here are a few:
Cure for cancer (they've been searching for this for, what, half a century now?)
Solution to energy problem (it's like everybody is Gasoline United worker when it comes to solving this issue, or a deluded dabbler)
Real cause and function of dreams, the cause of complex psychosis, the cause of non-stress related chronic depression (I solved these myself)
The path to a much happier humanity and much more sustainable future (eugenics and full socialism and classical music played to everyone since birth; pretty much solved these myself for all practical purposes if wading through the deception and nonsense and finally identifying the tiny gems of truth hidden under the trash mountain counts as solving problems)
Those are the most important problems, and I, um, uh, pretty much solved half of them myself.
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
May 30, 2013 5:40 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That would be cute if I were actually a nihilist. I'm not. I'm also not suggesting that people don't in general look for health in a mate. What I'm suggesting is that the culture has long since taught you what those markers that you should be looking for ARE. Where's the nihilism in that? Where's the nihilism in suggesting that while humans have a biological need to learn to speak. Whether you speak German, Chinese or Swahili comes from the environment. It's in a sense both. Just like any number of other things that humans do. Women do in general prefer alpha males, but what signals "alpha status" has changed over the years. Do you think every woman of every age would have wanted a metrosexual investment banker? Do you think a Viking woman would find a businessman sexy? Do you think your wife would find a Greek Spartan warrior sexy?
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
May 31, 2013 1:46 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"Do you think your wife would find a Greek Spartan warrior sexy?"
When you put it that way...
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 31, 2013 1:46 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Let's assume you are right. You see a person you find attractive, and all these chemical reactions take place in your body. Now how would you know if it is culturally determined or a purely biological reaction? How would you go about it?
Is there really a difference? Is the kind you talk about any less "authentic" than the biological one?
I'd say they coincide and are inseparable from one another.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 31, 2013 9:19 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"what signals 'alpha status' has changed over the years"
If you bothered to actually study the topic, you would soon realise that such signals haven't changed one bit over thousands of years. That's because attracting women is about attitude and behaviour in the company of women. It's about how you deal with women and what kind of women (you must ignore the ugly ones). Flirty witty dominating behaviour and other persistent markers of high male-sexual-value as well as building an emotional connection have always been the best way to get the best women, period. It has nothing to do with whether you're a warrior or a banker or a bum.
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
May 31, 2013 1:31 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
There isn't any data behind anything you say.
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
May 31, 2013 2:02 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
No, only mountains of personal experience and wisdom on this topic reported through writing across the ages.
But because you haven't read it, this must mean it doesn't exist. Surely.
Any point of view you are completely ignorant of has no validity or real-world basis. Gotcha.
To the few of you who may or may not be producing viable amounts of testosterone in your shrunken nads to grasp basic truths contrary to the popular memes of your time:
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/
That's a good resource for experimental data on how to attract and seduce women, especially many of the comments. I link only to that one site because it's the best one that I know of that isn't trying to sell you anything.
Score: -2 (6 votes cast)
May 31, 2013 6:31 PM | Posted by : | Reply
That is the saddest site I have ever seen in my life. I know one thing; if I were male, I would never, ever, ever, ever admit to perusing that website. Looks like a favorite haunt of timorous, maladjusted little weirdos who believe that a website is really going to help them lay that cheerleader, finally. Like flat out misogyny is a great chic-magnet. Ugh.
Score: 7 (11 votes cast)
May 31, 2013 7:59 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Data on how to attract and seduce women, huh? Let's see...
Fat chicks with sweat-glistened hambone thighs in miniskirts bending over to pick up something in front of you. #stuffthatsucksaboutsummer
With that mindset, they must be falling all over you. Top notch work.
Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
May 31, 2013 8:01 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I take it back. This is the best satire I've ever read. I feel silly for taking it at face value at first. My bad.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
May 31, 2013 9:41 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Gotta love the fat pasty acne-spotted, halitosis-ridden, timorous, fantasy-prone, socially inept men who still believe with all their hearts that they "deserve" nothing less than Mila Kunis. They must really be a cash cow market for sites like that one. I ran into one of these the other day. I had known him a little in university, and he had been weird then. Well, time had not improved him. He was still weird, and even though he had no job, no career, no looks, no body, no charm, and no talent, he was simply NOT going to "settle" for some woman in her thirties or forties. Hell, no. He wanted a twenty something. a kinky one, to gratify the bizarre desires that too much time on the internet and too little time in bed with real women will create. While he stood there talking to me, he openly remarked on the bodies of the young women walking past us. Of course he is pushing fifty now, like all of us, but with no kids, no house, no career, no dog, no yard, no friends, no travel, no life. He wanks a lot, I think.
Score: 7 (11 votes cast)
May 31, 2013 10:34 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Have you actually read TLP's blog posts? While the comments section can sound a bit...nutty...that doesn't apply to *every* comment here. The blog posts I have read consistantly argue that feminism has not acheived "equality of opportunity" for women and that figures like Sheryl Sandberg or film franchises like The Hunger Games provide a comfortable illusion while, back in the real world, it's still very much a man's world. You may not agree with every point TLP makes, but his general thesis is sound. I do not agree with his arguments that seemingly blame mothers for their daughters buying into a patriarchial society, but that society *is* patriarchial and women are conditioned to accept , and even desire, males to take a dominant role is pretty much a truism, however uncomfortable that makes you. As a male one quickly learns that females, especially the young sexually attractive onea, generally are attracted to dominant alpha males. There are of course exceptions to this, but the generalization holds up. Does that make men who point this out misogynist assholes by default? No. There are certainly quite a few bitter men making misogynist remarks in the comments above, however, your insults - which you direct at *all* men here - are a bit hypocritical (misandrist much?) and possibly point to some major insecurities on your part. Psych 101 ;-)
I am tapping this out on a mobile phone and humbly apologize for any typos or glaring grammatical errors. Thank you!
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
June 1, 2013 1:08 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Calm down, darling. Heartiste is just a provocative guy who knows what he's talking about from experience. One of his consistent messages is that men should err on the side of being assholish rather than on the side of being nice guys. That's not to say there's not a middle way somewhere there, or that a man should be bitter -- he of course shouldn't, although that's a false impression that's easy to give to ... bitter women over the impersonal medium of the internet.
As for being fat and ugly and old, I'm none of those. I'm 28, a bit too thin if anything, tall, and quite handsome on a good day. I've never had a day job so you're right that I'm a total loser on the manboon scale of worldly "success".
Wouldn't know about the rest of the guys who read that site from time to time, but a lot of them do sound quite successful with pretty women, whatever their looks and age. It's more like a hangout for casanovas than some sort of blackhole for lost souls, I'm afraid.
Score: -5 (7 votes cast)
June 1, 2013 2:28 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Ha, so you're NEET. Which route did you go, welfare or still living with mom?
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
June 1, 2013 2:58 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Heartiste is a hangout for casanovas like Arby's is a health food store.
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
June 1, 2013 3:04 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I went the being "schizophrenic" and living off of disability route -- one of the most popular. A good way to leave home and isolate yourself in the bat cave.
Not that it was by choice.
However, since even Finland is a capitalist death camp basically, with 95% of the work done consisting of meaningless labour, I'm not terribly sorry about not having to take part in all that insanity. We are depleting the planet of its most important resources for no apparent reason, before we have found other planets to suck dry etc. While I may have some wild ideas about the world, I could never hope to be as nuts as the society at large.
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
June 1, 2013 4:01 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
1) How do you know what happened 5000 years ago?
I wasn't there. So clearly I'm speculating. I'm not asserting a pretext for leaching, slavery, genocide, rape and pillage created the world (70% of the globe's grownups pretend to subscribe to that demonic deity pretext); my speculation is a little more intelligent, logical and plausible. I can show my working if desired (I've read the KJV Bible three times cover to cover) but the working isn't interesting like the conclusions really should be; even if they're way off the mark, there is relevance to the present day situation in 2013 AD.
2) You think women had as much power as priests just because they were the ones raising the children?
When I refer to them as Toddler whores, it's not affectionately. And they're not really women. That's kind of offensive to women; or at least, if I was a woman I'd have a problem with it. Toddler whores embrace misogyny and willingly throw their lives and minds away to obsess over sex, deceit and reducing men (and hating their betters); they do this knowing they just need to pop out a few kids and they'll be taken care off, by someone. They don't necessarily want kids, they need children. They don't want to love, they need to be loved.
They are the biggest single issue this world faces and every other issue stems from this issue because combative mothers (which is what misogyny turns little girls into, over time) breed combative children.
I didn't say they were geniuses. Clearly priests have been controlling them for the most part. But without mothers, priests would be powerless. All the misery is created by mothers who emotionally degrade their children in their need for slaves who suffer to please them.
You really do not think that they were more likely well-intentioned but ignorant idiots?
They want men and children to suffer to please them. You have met "girls" before, yes? Well-intentioned? They exist to create misery; it is their sole reason for breathing. No, they're not well-intentioned; they're demonic leeches. Men seem to think they make excellent mothers; but I beg to differ. I submit the only inhumane animal species on the planet as Exhibit A.
And if they do not know what they're doing is wrong, can you still blame them for doing their best?
They know exactly what they're doing, they've just been reduced so low by their misogynist mothers and this shame-obsessed Society and their own greed they have become slave-creating demons riding the species into the ground. Perhaps their need for Secrecy, Privacy and Polite Society's aversion to truth and valuation of 'nice' deceit confused you? Is that what well-intentioned mothers trying their best do?
"If you have nothing nice to say, then don't say anything at all."
"Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil." Pure evil.
Score: 2 (6 votes cast)
June 1, 2013 4:22 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Now how would you know if it is culturally determined or a purely biological reaction? How would you go about it?
Are yall just disinterested in the clothes issue? I feel it's incredibly relevant. Do you know why you wear clothes?
Someone needed to manipulate perception and induce desire; someone manufacturing a commodity out of sex.
Look I'm not the brightest guy going around but clothes are not biologically true; which means (much like the slave passion) clothes are not needed. They're a corruption introduced by power for a reason. Everyone is wearing clothes for a reason. The reason/s I've heard are as patronising and as retarded / illogical as any Protection racketeer's excuse for blocking access to what is real.
Humans should not be ashamed of their DNA. It seems like a really bad idea, at first blush?
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
June 1, 2013 4:57 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Ah, the clothes issue. I take it you've never lived through an ice age, like the one that ended 11,000 years ago? Maybe just an ingrained racial habit by that time.
You must have noticed primitive tribes don't wear much of what you'd call clothes, in Africa or other warm places. Women don't even cover their breasts, and I don't recall anyone covering their butts. While you'd ascribe that to inexplicable innocence, I'd ascribe it to warm climate.
You're also mistaking evolved female solipsism and slavery to instinct ... you're mistaking them for culturally induced malevolence.
In other words, you're so far off the truth in all respects you could just keep traveling as before and you'd sooner encounter the truth in that direction than by turning back. That's how far from the truth you've wandered.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
June 1, 2013 5:23 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
back in the real world, it's still very much a man's world.
Isn't it ever!
As a man, not a day goes by that I don't sit back after a long day of masculine work, kick my boots off, accept a pipe from the little lady - bless her cotton socks - and thank the Lord Almighty that I was born a man in this here Man's World. It's what we're told so often. So it must be true!
I thank the Lord in Heaven for giving us all these painted dolls without agency, value, purpose or utility (with one very debatable exception). Where we would be without braindead, mindless, malicious Toddlers who hate sex? One imagines because it is the only thing they're obsessed with.
I thank the Lord on High for giving us masculine men dominion over the timid little women. Because I cannot speak for you, but for my entire life, when I think of desirable traits in the ladies, a willingness to submit to my masculine domination is what I have always desired in my women. Because I own their exclusive access and I guard their entrance points 24/7 like a masculine man who cares enough to protect what is mine from being shared with other masculine men. Isn't dominion sought by every guy? I'm sure women tell me what guys want all the time and I have certainly heard this. Think about how much value it has, amirite?
What fruit cake would want an interesting or intelligent girl? DO NOT WANT. Who would want a Self-reliant girl that wasn't leaning on you all the time to entertain her, to make decisions for her, to decide where to go, what to do, who to see, to be - horror! - free from the need to make her man miserable enough to imagine he's the happiest man in the world when she takes her foot off the emasculation pedal? Who would want a girl with a mind equal or superior to his own? Arrgh. Is she a witch? I don't care for women who use multi-syllable words. No siree, dominion is what I value. Because I am a man's man who knows how men are supposed to be from my mother.
I do not agree with his arguments that seemingly blame mothers for their daughters buying into a patriarchial society
a) this is not a patriarchal society, it's been a matriarchal society for 5000 years but you're basing the patriarchal thing on what? The glass ceiling? What work have women historically been required to do? Whilst their slaves complained about the old ball and chain. Cracking the whip. Whipped. Any light flickering...?
Could it not be possible that they perceive that it is they who are beating men down? Do you know nothing about a mother's influence on a child's emotional development?
b) are you just oblivious to what is surely widespread public knowledge about Christian women being the driving force that are obsessed with raising their daughters like a lady and raising God-fearing, hard-working sons that respect women who smear them and reduce them and lie through their teeth (because they're the good ones!) and disrespect women who are honest, humane, fun-loving, Self-reliant (because they're the sluts!) - sons who protect the reputations of women from the malicious slander of truth. It's mothers - all over the world it is mothers - who spray shame at their daughters for being interested in boys like the biological 'hussies' they don't realise they naturally are. All over the world, mothers turn their daughters into whores for personal 'gain'. Fathers just want their daughters to be happy / safe / possessed by them / their little girl again.
but that society *is* patriarchal and women are conditioned to accept , and even desire, males to take a dominant role is pretty much a truism, however uncomfortable that makes you.
You need to make a better argument (try making one) for why the gender that carries an entire gender on its back is the gender that is dominating Society, in defiance of every logic.
As for the second half of your 'truism', the truth is you got desire and accept around the wrong way.
Score: 1 (9 votes cast)
June 1, 2013 5:34 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
While you'd ascribe that to inexplicable innocence, I'd ascribe it to warm climate.
Your obvious ignorance of the impact made by a book they printed eight billion (8,000,000,000) copies of for a reason isn't really something your theories can afford to fail to take into consideration.
Or maybe they can. I don't really care because until you understand the effect Yahweh had on this world, you're a babbling Toddler.
We wear clothes because of shame. You just don't remember yours but to get a flashback, walk out in Polite Society naked and I'd wager your life of shame will flash before your eyes as the mob screams. This is 100% Yahweh shame. Misogyny. Mothers perpetuate it. Now shut up. You're psychotic cocky was mildly amusing initially but it's getting indecent now.
And whilst I sympathise and agree with some of your views on Society being braindead, you don't know why and I do know how that happens. I know what mothers do to their children and I know why. You do not have a serviceable mind. And I don't care for leeches that don't contribute.
Score: -5 (7 votes cast)
June 1, 2013 6:06 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This entire site is an advanced level, right?
19. You are on a second date with a girl. You go to kiss her. She turns her cheek to you and says “Slow down, I’m not that kind of girl.” You reply:(A) ”Sorry.”
(B) “Yeah, well, no prob.”
(C) ”This could be trouble ’cause I’m that kind of guy.” *smirk*If you answered (A), subtract a point.
If (B), no points.
If (C), add a point.20. You’re chatting up a pretty girl you just met in a bar. After a few minutes she asks you to buy her a drink. You reply:
(A) “Sure.”
If you answered (A), subtract a point.
(B) “I’m not an ATM.”
(C) “No, but you can buy me one.”
If (B), no points.
If (C), add a point.
If this isn't a level, these kids won't get laid very often with their "hypergamy". It's kind of painful. I want to help them but I don't think they'd let that happen? They already Know Best in their delusional misery.
The following ten contenders for Most Alpha Text (MAT) are the collected gems culled from the best of the Chateau archives:“gay” (credit: el chief)
Think hard about this vote, because your life depends on it.
“Bring the movies“
“I don’t want to get you pregnant“
“nah“
“Little spoons don’t ask big questions”
“lotstas ccockas 4u lzozozozoz”
“Seriously tho! ur pussy rocks!“
“Are you auditioning for a soap opera?“
“tl;dr”
“8===D“
Yeah.
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
June 1, 2013 8:01 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"And I don't care for leeches that don't contribute."
The biggest contribution people like you make is to dragging humanity into a billion year Dark Age by consuming, consuming, and consuming quite without a purpose, just so you can "contribute" "to society". What a pathetic fucker you are.
I'd say I've contributed more in terms of ideas and solutions than you would understand. Pity there's a total mind control system in place ("Yahweh" as you might call it).
Ah, no, no, it's all "culture", it's all "conditioning" you see. It magically transforms homo sapiens into mindless zombies because blah blah sciencemagistics blah blah edjumacation and what not and what have you.
If you could hear yourself from my perspective, you'd end up in a book on the paranormal by flaring up in spontaneous combustion due to cosmic embarrassment. You're that ignorant. You don't even know what you don't know, which is like knowing less than nothing at all.
Oh, and if my mind weren't "serviceable", you should be able to demonstrate that I'm less able to justify my views than are humans in general. Or at least humans with an IQ of 115 or more (mine is 115, so I'm not even supposed to be especially bright to begin with).
Or to put that in terms which you might understand better: show the world where I'm not being rational with regards to my argumentation. Surely a bright lad like you is able to pull off such a minor deed in a couple of minutes. I'm publishing all criticism of my ideas at my blog, so you're welcome to try there:
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
June 1, 2013 10:11 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
the standard changed because women got prettier and hotter on average. There was always a preference for light, slender women, only that they were rarer back then and mostly just settled. As the population of light, slender women (and their prettiness) increased, so the standard increased.
It's not like fat was the ideal of beauty back then until evil society decided slender women should be the new standard
Score: -2 (8 votes cast)
June 1, 2013 10:28 AM | Posted by : | Reply
regarding "If you are reading this, it's for you" how the hell did you all ended up on this blog?
It seems to receive many comments, and I suppose this is a reflection of a sizeable readership. But how the hell did we all end up here?
Did he publicized his website on reddit and metafilter? Twitter? how does it work?
I remember how I found this website, it was linked by ikka kokkarinen, a "racist" "sexist" professor that eventually ended up commiting virtual seppuku (because his negative blogging was affecting his mood too much). This was back in 2008 or 2009 I think
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
June 1, 2013 11:35 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I have no doubt that your empirical experience strongly affirms all the beliefs you have concerning women. I think most girls we meet are the way you describe them to be. However, your generalization is faulty because it is a generalization.
The real problem is ignorance, and the inability to grow up or view things from others' perspective. And it is definitely not just the women.
Are you seriously going to tell me you haven't met ONE person who is absolutely free?
Meet more people. Seriously, it only takes one good human to reevaluate your beliefs. And do you know what seems to me the main difference between them and others? They love everyone equally and unconditionally without ever needing them.
So maybe what you should do if you want to test my assertions is to stop gathering evidence that support your belief. Everyone knows you're right, about most women, but living in hatred and bitterness seems no way to live. Move where you can see how happy people are, and certainly children. Where people respect their children instead of trying to smother them.
They want men and children to suffer to please them. You have met "girls" before, yes? Well-intentioned? They exist to create misery; it is their sole reason for breathing. No, they're not well-intentioned; they're demonic leeches
I actually do not think women consciously want men and children to suffer to please them. Maybe some sadistic ones who get pleasure out of this, but these assertions itself shows how out-of-touch you really are with the world.
Ok, even if you're right, WHY are they "demonic leeches"? Because they are insecure. Are they really to blame for being insecure? No but their mothers are. But are they to blame them? And so on ad infinitum. From what limited knowledge I have of the world, it seems to me that the only reason they haven't "evolved" is because there never was a need or expectation from society to "woman up" and take it on.
They know exactly what they're doing
No they do not. That is the ONLY reason they keep doing whatever you say they do.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
June 1, 2013 6:12 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I tend to be more aligned with Jonny. At least he's trying to explain why we have this insatiable desire to consume. If you say the problem is "consumption" you're blaming a symptom in my view. Why do modern people have the need to buy new stuff all the time? Why is it that they feel ashamed of being unfashionable in clothing, why is last year's hot song no longer good? Why is it that older things are shunned? Why is it that people go from painting their walls to putting up wallpaper to stripping that wallpaper and repainting the walls every couple of years in order to "keep up with the fashions"? Why is last year's game worthless and today's worth $60?
That's not how human beings would have thought even a hundred years ago. My great great grandmother immigrated to this country and was "rich" because she had the grad total of FOUR dresses. Obviously she came from a society that needed to consume endlessly. Checkers and chess and card games were good enough to last hundreds of years. People didn't need to reinvent things all the time. So if it's just biology, why is it that Mrs. Neanderthal didn't need to have a closet full of beaver-skins? (PS, we do have evidence of clothing being made by early modern humans, we do find bone tools for making clothes from animal skins, so clothing is part of being human, however needing the latest in Pravda fashions is not).
This is an important question to be asking, because something happened on the way to modern society to make us need to consume endlessly. Are you not even curious about what happened to make modern Americans need to buy things while their ancestors didn't? If you want to end the cycle of endless consuption, it's not enough to say "don't consume" you need to get to the bottom of why we need to buy stuff. Asking an addict not to drink is not going to do much good if you don't get to the bottom of the addiction. If he's drinking because he's depressed or frightened once he stops, he goes right back to the thing that got him started drinking in the first place.
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
June 2, 2013 6:27 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The Last Psychiatrist quotes Wittgenstein: of that which one can't speak, one must remain silent. Funny coincidence this quotation and his pseudonym "The Last Psychiatrist." It's almost as if he knows what I'm talking about when I argue for the existence of an ancient super-technology based godlike mind control system responsible for schizophrenia, non-stress related chronic depression and so on.
You don't seem to have understood anything I've written.
I'm the real last psychiatrist, because I actually know the truth behind many mental illnesses, and at this point all we have left is the truth so I'm speaking it.
My argument is that "cultural conditioning" doesn't explain any of these phenomena. What does explain them is the ancient godlike mind control system. I argue for this point of view more fully at my blog. However, if you can't show that conditioning explains these phenomena -- and you can't because it's a childlike idea with no basis in science and human neurology -- then you have to admit that there's a godlike mind control system in place because genes don't explain *all* of this stuff either.
And you aren't trying to explain anything, you environmentalists. You are just babbling the same baseless notions over and over again as if you didn't need to understand anything about human neurology and evolution to make those claims. The system already has you. It's already turned you into mindless zombies, literally. And you've never even suspected it.
The system is what's turning humans into mindless consuming bots, presumably because it wants to trap us on this planet forever by depleting its most important resources that would be required for sustaining a high tech civ and space travel. This is my argument, although I could be wrong about the sought after goal but I don't think I could be wrong about the mechanism.
My argument would certainly *explain* why humans suddenly turned into these self-destructive morons that they now are.
I'd say the system put us through a history of insane religions, wars, and other dumb-as-shit collective behaviour as well as individual insanity of all sorts ("demonic possession" and such), because it wants modern people to think that humans have always been incredibly mad and dumb, so there's nothing new or suspicious about humans being idiotic now in the technological era. At the same time it flatters us by telling us we're the most enlightened generation since the last one. Something for everyone I guess.
I'm assuming there is a competing super advanced civ trying to conquer the universe and they don't want us to become a threat to them, so they're trapping us here by applying a longterm plan with minimum spent resource, which isn't all that little given that they've probably discovered tech for getting near infinite energy, and they can transmute matter when needed.
Another point of view is that they've been demonstrating to us throughout the millenia that we are only fit to be mindless slaves, so perhaps this is the age of revelation and they are planning to reveal themselves to us, and recruit us as mind controlled soldiers to take part in their cosmic war. If so, then they've planned to scrap capitalism pretty soon and institute global communism in its place, you know, something fit for mere slaves and something that conserves resources.
Perhaps that's why I feel compelled to write about all this stuff: as a prelude to the revelation.
(I have some other competing ideas regarding the purpose and nature of the mind control system, but I'm not going to go through all of them here.)
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
June 2, 2013 8:57 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
So humans developing cultural control makes no sense, but aliens do? I don't think your theory makes much sense as anything used to manipulate humans on the scale you seem to be talking about would be massively difficult and expensive. The ... whatever it is ... would have to be brought here, it would require a lot of energy just to bring that thing, to say nothing of the energy to use it, and keeping a crew of sorts about to use the device. And that's leaving aside manufacture.
Simpler more likely explanation could easily be had by looking at other creatures. I'm personlly of the opinion that most mental illness is caused by a sort of mismatch between our current lifestyle and the lifestyle that would have existed in the time of the early modern human. Anxiety disorder for example might be a result of living in a society of strangers who don't care about you rather than in a tribe where you are much more secure and you are kin to everybody in that tribe. Or Paranoia may be the result of having a large distant control structure that has a lot of power, but that you cannot meet or talk to. Tribal people live next door to the chief, they can walk into his hut, they know who he is and what he wants. Narcissism might very well be the result of people not being given the space to develop a "real self". Modern man is bombarded, pretty much from birth, with messages of what he's supposed to be. There's very little that you do that hasn't been programmed from somewhere. Watch a kid play, and most of the time they're playing the role of some cartoon character, not something they made up themselves. If you grow up with everything decided for you, you can't develop a real person, you develop a persona. It also explains why MORE people are mentally ill today than in the past -- we're farther away from our traditional tribal structure, we do less and less that our ancestors would have recognized, and as such we're more prone to mental problems as our brains try to adapt to situations that they aren't built to handle.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
June 2, 2013 9:40 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Your point of view may sound plausible to you, but it doesn't explain precognitive dreams, "telepathy", impossible synchronicities, "delusions of control", voices that can tell you things you wouldn't otherwise have known (I've experienced this a few times), voices that are so amusing, inventive and perfect in terms of tone and voice acting and what they say that they couldn't have been created by unconscious processes in the human brain, demonic possession (see "The Devils of Loudon" by Aldous Huxley: a whole convent of nuns "possessed" by "demons", real history), etc. etc.
So while your point of view is comforting, in order to explain anything, it has to ignore 99% of what it should be explaining.
I've also personally never followed any social expectations after I turned 23 or so. My opinions are pretty much the opposite of anyone else on every subject, so I wonder how you'd explain this. Even the kind of books I read are the kind of books other people aren't reading for the most part, and when they are they aren't reading them the way I am.
I do feel like my whole life has been planned, but that's due to the insane amount of unbelievable synchronicities involved. So while I don't feel like I'm being controlled -- except during "delusions of control" experiences -- if I take a step back and think about my life rationally in a detached manner, it's the conclusion I must draw.
In fact, it's such an obvious explanation for "delusions of control" that psychiatrists and psychotherapists would have to be zombies not to have given serious thought to that possibility, especially given that mind control in a virtual reality is obviously possible, and no one knows whether this is a virtual reality or not. Mind control is the first, most straightforward explanation for expriences of being controlled: hey, that guy says he's being controlled, so perhaps he is, you know, being controlled.
But no. Never such a thought would I have, insane would I have to be!
Seriously. You'd have to be a zombie not to think of it and take it seriously as an alternative point of view. But then again you are.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
June 2, 2013 11:47 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I could also quote The Last Psychiatrist for you philosophy challenged visitors:
I understand that there's a feeling that we're on the right track. "No matter what you say, I know a schizophrenic when I see one."I know you do, that's not my argument. My argument is that what you think you know is lessening your knowledge, not increasing it. When you say he has schizophrenia, you may know what you mean by that, but I don't know if it isn't a seizure.
You have it backwards. You think saying "schizophrenia" is some kind of detection, a whittling down of possibilities, informative. Similarly: "I've screened him for ADHD, I think he has it." But those diagnoses don't exclude any other possibilities at all. Do they mean he doesn't have a seizure, depression, pesticide poisoning? Your ghost term doesn't exclude any real things.
You think you're telling me "he has a cluster of symptoms and behaviors that generally resemble X." But every time we make a diagnosis, the world pauses: oh, so that's what's wrong with him.
...
Schizophrenia vs. bipolar isn't a distinction, it's a distraction. "I don't think he has a demon, I think he has too much black bile." Then it's settled. Send the priest home and bring out the leeches.
https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/06/a_diagnosis_of_schizophrenia.html
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
June 2, 2013 12:51 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Common, you're schizophrenic. Crazy theories and modes of thinking is a fucking symptom of the condition. Look up Occam Razor and try to apply it. It's sad, really.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
June 2, 2013 12:58 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Nothing in what I say discounts the idea of precognition, other-world phenomena, or direction from said otherworld. In fact, I believe in spirits. But what you are doing is putting the some and total of all human behavior to something in that otherworld when the more immediate and proximate causes for our preferences are other humans. Madison Ave has made brand-names a status symbol, they've promoted the idea of a professionally decorated mansion in the country. It's horses, not zebras. Occam's razor would require that we first eliminate the notion of other people causing you to want stuff you don't need. You haven't even pretended to do that. You just sit around and snipe, but you haven't presented anything solid to look at.
I'm also not going to say that just because the person has very little overt knowledge of a subject consciously does not mean that they don't have unconscious knowledge of the same subject. One of the earliest "proofs" of reincarnation was a woman who claimed to be the reincarnation of an Irish woman (bridey murphy). She could give all sorts of details about who and where -- all accurate. Then they checked where she got her information. Turns out that she'd lived across the street from a lady named Bride Murphy Cornell in Chicago and had been to Ireland as a small child. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridey_Murphy) So I won't say that simply because you don't think you know something means you don't know it. It could be anything you picked up even if you don't remember it. Or it could be real. What I'm saying is that since all we have are hoofbeats, declaring that you've discoverd a zebra in colorado may be wrong.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
June 2, 2013 2:45 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You believe in spirits, and I'm the one who isn't applying Occam's razor? Are you for real?
Doesn't matter though. What matters is that there is no logical explanation for many synchronicities other than the existence of a total system of mind control that orchestrates events by controlling humans like puppets.
Spirits aren't responsible for this control. There are no spirits, except as illusions created by the system in the first place. They aren't responsible for anything except deception.
What's responsible must be a super advanced AI, perhaps a system of machines stationed in orbit and on the moon and Mars. It would all be supervised by the AI. No need for a humanoid work crew or some silly 1960s scifi notion like that. These machines might even be all that there is left of that alien civ.
Once you've admitted the existence of unbelievable synchronicities, then you're merely applying Occam's razor when you also explain various other phenomena by using this new concept of total mind control, instead of assuming the existence of ontological entities like the spirit world or some Jungian "subconscious mind." There is nothing in the brain that would indicate we have some sort of mysterious subconscious mind instead of just automated processes we aren't conscious of.
There is also nothing in the brain that would make us susceptible to subliminal "programming" or some complete nonsense like that. If someone "programs" me through symbols and messages that I'm not conscious of, then sorry, he could just as well be talking to a wall.
Listen carefully now: if the brain created neural connections due to subliminal programming, we would all be completely psychotic.
Let me say that again. If the brain created neural connections due to "subliminal programming", we would all be psychotic.
If the brain created neural connections due to subliminal programming, we would all be completely psychotic. If the brain created neural connections due to subliminal programming, we would all be completely psychotic all the time.
If the brain created neural connections due to subliminal programming, we would all be psychotic. If the brain created neural connections due to subliminal programming, we would all be psychotic. If the brain created neural connections due to subliminal programming, we would all be completely psychotic all the time. If the brain created neural connections due to subliminal programming, we would all be completely psychotic all the time.
Is the message getting through to you? If the brain created neural connections due to subliminal programming, we would all be psychotic.
Do you understand? Am I programming you now or are you starting to understand?
If the brain created neural connections due to subliminal programming, we would all be psychotic.
Get it?
Read it again. Not because I'm programming you, but because it's the truth.
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
June 2, 2013 2:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
@VYTS
No need for pure ad hominem. You are free to attempt to demonstrate how my unpopular ideas are less rational than the nonsense people generally believe. Tell me, for example, how a stubborn belief in biological egalitarianism isn't a sign of psychosis but my ideas are?
You can't. You can't, because all delusions are equal. That's the only egalitarianism people should be concerned about. There is no "delusion due to mental illness" and "delusion due to social programming", there's just delusion. And it's all due to mind control, that same mind control responsible for various other phenomena you can't explain. Look up that Occam's razor you mentioned, why don't you.
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
June 2, 2013 3:51 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I could technically be called an ad hominem, but its not inconsequential. Seeing synchronicities are analogous to pareidolia. Look up "mars rat" or "mars sphinx". Also, synesthesia is similar. Human brain wiring is imperfect (and it only makes sense that way, being made by crude evolutionary forces). To much of something (gene expression or specific hormone or whatever) and you are synesthetic, too little and you are dyslexic. To much of something and you are schizophrenic, too little and you are autistic. That's my theory anyways, probably makes more sense than alien overlords.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
June 2, 2013 4:24 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I like that "probably". How do you calculate the probabilities of potential circumstances in a world you don't understand?
Seeing synchronicities is analogous to having a brain. Not seeing them is analogous to being a zombie.
Funny how you just assume that the synchronicities I've experienced or analysed must exist only in my mind, that a rational person would see they are meaningless random information and nothing more. Which of us has experienced these things again? You or me? Which of us has calculated the probability of the occurrence of a series of synchronicities? You or me?
To mention just one example of a synchronicity I've experienced... I was in a book-store and had been wondering whether virtual hells existed or not. I had come to see if they had Surface Detail, since that's a book that I knew dealt with the question at least a little bit. So I opened the book seemingly at random, and my eyes immediately saw a line of dialogue that went something like this: "No. These virtual hells are a myth created for the purpose of social control."
That seemed to satisfy me, and I left. (One of my "psychotic episodes.")
I later verified that there was a line of dialogue like that in the book.
So let's recap. I'm interested in a question, then I get the most relevant, meaningful response you could imagine.
Of course, sciencemagistics says what I just described was a far-fetched interpretation of meaningless stimuli caused by chemical imbalance and a psychotic way of engaging with the environment. Of course. My edjumacation says it is so, and so therefore and thereby and because of that it must be so. Nothing to see there, folks, move on.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
June 2, 2013 5:13 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"So I opened the book seemingly at random, and my eyes immediately saw a line of dialogue that went something like this: "No. These virtual hells are a myth created for the purpose of social control.""
I don't see how that causally relates to alien overlords, though. I can't think of any weird coincidences in my life, so I must be a zombie. OK. Whatever.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
June 2, 2013 5:31 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The definition of 'zombie' is someone who doesn't pay attention to his environment or isn't even interested in figuring things out.
The synchronicities don't have to private. There are historical synchronicities, such as the sinking of "the first unsinkable ship" on its virgin voyage (Titanic). There are synchronicities related to the 9/11 attacks. There have been whole books written about and listing verifiable synchronicities. I recommend The Synchronicity Code at my blog.
So somehow you manage to be interested in psychology to the extent that you know terms like pareidolia, yet you have never examined the topic of synchronicity, even though it's very relevant to psychosis and a topic that Jung himself was occupied with.
Sorry, 'zombie' is just the word that perfectly describes you whatever your beliefs regarding mind control.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
June 2, 2013 8:11 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm not taking a hugely firm position either way -- my point is that communication between realms (whether spirit realms or other dimensions or something like this) is hard to do and thus would likely be rare. It would be like trying to send a message written on a diamond tablet -- it's bulky and expensive and probably rarely worth the effort. That doesn't mean that synchonicities that you talk about are impossible, just that for the most part, they're rare.
As to collective unconscious, the way I've always understood it is that your consciousness works somewhat like an Opperating System, like Windows or whatever big cat Apple is into right now. You have the big obvious program running in the forground, and you have lots of little processes running in the background (if you want to see this in Windows, call up the Task Manager program and look at all the things running). So some of these things we think of as collective unconscious are really just processes in the background -- you have Morality.sys or AmericanCulture.lol or other things that run in the background all the time informing what the OS is trying to do. So in a sense you do have an unconscious mind, just as much as your computer does. We have protocols to ease communication (i.e associations of words with images or sounds or motions), we have linked lists of associations made between an object and any number of other objects (baseball bat associated with the game of baseball, which is associated with the fun time you had playing baseball, and possibly summer vacation). So when you walk into a store and see baseball bats, you think about things associated with baseball bats, and think your kid might want to try baseball. It's not mystical, it's simply that the brain is doing lots of things to organize itself that you are not aware of. And as such, you are unconscious of them.
By the way, did you know there was a book written just before the launch of Titanic in which "the largest cruise ship ever built, called the Titan, which was supposedly unsinkable, was sunk in the Atlantic Ocean by an iceberg"? Such things happen certainly, and where it comes from I'm not sure.
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
June 3, 2013 4:07 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Did you know the Titans were ruling over a Golden Age, and were destroyed by younger gods? I'd say the quite obviously deliberate sinking of Titanic was symbolic of the efforts of this mind control system to destroy humanity's Golden Age. So coincidentally, the first world war started two years later. Then came the second. Then came multicult madness of biblical proportions and the end times for the traditional white Western Civilisation.
I'm not sure how you think you're going to figure anything out if you're just comfortable admitting you don't know what these phenomena signify.
They aren't rare either. In just my own personal life, the amount of unlikely synchronicities has been great. Hundreds of them. That's exactly as one would expect in some cases, assuming the existence of a near total mind control system.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
June 3, 2013 7:50 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Let's assume you are right. You see a person you find attractive, and all these chemical reactions take place in your body. Now how would you know if it is culturally determined or a purely biological reaction? How would you go about it?
You don't need to assume Dovahkiin and Laura Looch are right; I'm telling you they know they are right (if for no other reason than they would have, at least at some point, consciously sought to exploit the cultural / conditioned / non-natural stimuli looking for competitive advantage). And I know this for a fact because so have I.
I'm not certain whether it is disturbing or amusing that you are oblivious to the fact that you imagine you are biologically-attracted to stimuli which is not remotely biological. I assure you that you have been conditioned to care about What Women Want and this is insane. What humans want is what they've been conditioned to desire; this has nothing to do with what they biologically need. Invariably, needs and wants are in conflict and humans are conditioned this way by intent. When not alone, humans subconsciously regress to conditioned values:
- making a good impression
- putting your best foot forward
- showing what you're capable of
- showing your best side
- behaving yourself
- seeking to impress.
"We lie to one another every day, in the sweetest way, often unconsciously. We dress ourselves and compose ourselves in order to present ourselves to one another."
- John le Carre
In my obsession with not seeking to impress, I experimented with being as recklessly honest as I could feasibly manage (I still had to dress, of course). But I ended up deceiving everyone (they indirectly deceive themselves) because humans are conditioned to associate various traits and attributes to non-corresponding, illogical and irrelevant emotive stimuli. Like honesty and danger, for example.
"Whoa dude, too much information."
"He's not lying to impress me. He's weird."
"Sleep with me? How rude! I'm not that kind of a girl!"
___________________________
Is there really a difference? Is the kind you talk about any less "authentic" than the biological one?
Yes. The difference is impossibly pertinent because humans are not evolving; they're going the other way. Humans are regressing and we're picking up a lot of pace now. A commenter on the Guardian website was explaining to me the other day how sociopaths are clearly superior and he was no fool; he wasn't in communication with advanced alien AI and was making seemingly sound arguments but every logical point he argued was corrupted by the combative values of his (whore) mother.
The truth is that our species is in emotional free fall and we've started to plummet. What is not biological is not authentic; it's conditioned. That it has been conditioned surreptitiously ("hardwired" into the psyche of toddlers who grow up imagining they naturally desire what is not in their best interests, to the point where humans believe they 'naturally' desire masochistic suffering) is the proof that our conditioning is expressly intended for the purpose of deception / manipulation / seeking 'advantage' / exploitation (all of which is sought at the expense of ourselves, by virtue of Self being eroded by mothers who want slaves to suffer to please them). They value what amounts to cannibalistic insanity. Humans killing humans for 'natural' emotive sentiments conditioned into their tortured minds by Their Own, who do this with intent; we are intended to kill and rape and enslave others for the advantage of those who conditioned us to love them (which is another way of saying we've been conditioned to hate everyone else). The result is that we impose upon each other, for love. It's not remotely sweet; mothers are merely demon whores conditioning their children to be impish demons.
"Father, forgive me for I have sinned...again. I forced myself on a child who was flirting with me, Father! I swear it! I know, I know, I am supposed to resist temptation but these human urges..."
He's just naughty. Billions of naughty little Toddlers, killing and raping everyone and being killed and raped by everyone because murder and rape is wrong(?) and being good is just no fun.
If you want to understand the trick religion has played on the species, go around and get people to define their understanding of words like Right, Wrong, Good, Bad, Naughty, Nice, etc. Then correspond their definitions with biology and you will find that being human is Unacceptable behaviour. Unforgivable. Criminal, even. Shameful.
Now put your clothes back on, you disgusting human being. You dirty beast. Why, you're no better than an animal. You should be ashamed of your Self.
____________________________
Score: 1 (9 votes cast)
June 3, 2013 8:07 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Titanic hit an iceberg because the captain was going too fast in an iceberg zone. Nothing about that is conspiratorial, it's simply that it's an accident waiting to happen. You see the same kind of accident on the highway every day in rain and snowstorms -- people drive too fast and hit something. It's a result of huberis, not mind control.
I admit to not knowing the causes of the synchonies because I don't know them, and it's far more rational to say "I don't know why it happens, but it does" than to point to something random and assume it is the cause. You have no evidence at all for your mind controlling AI placed by aliens. You've completely overrun what you actually know to be true. You know that you've seen synchonisities, but you really cannot know much else beyond that -- you have observed a phenomenon, and you need to keep looking. Outruning the data you actually have prevents you from finding the cause.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
June 3, 2013 9:34 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I've never claimed I *know* it's aliens or abandoned machines built by aliens or some early human civ gone into hiding. Those are just speculations.
What I do know is it's mind control. Events can't be orchestrated if people can't be controlled. Pure and simple. Pure logic. That's all it is. If you want to claim that we can't trust logic, then have fun trying to fiture ANYTHING out. Anything at all.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
June 3, 2013 2:46 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
To add to the above: the scientific conclusion is that that mind control is accomplished by an AI, whether a virtual reality overlord or a system of machines on this level of reality, I don't know.
Nothing else has the pure mental capacity and machine like perfection to accomplish these deeds and misdeeds.
Also, if you had had the same voice inside your head as I've had for two years now, you'd have little doubt that it's the product of an AI.
So I guess I simply know much more about this topic than you do. I have the benefit of not just personal experience, but actually thinking about this subject seriously for more than five minutes.
Absurdly, you claim to know why the captain of Titanic behaved with "hubris" and why the Titanic sank. Then in the next paragraph you claim intellectual high ground by pretending you don't jump to conclusions about these things. Hypocritical, much?
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
June 3, 2013 3:05 PM | Posted by : | Reply
where's the virtual haldol when you need it? I was on post one day at the jail when an inmate walked up to me and said, "I want you to know that I know who you are and that you have been following me for over ten years. I know who you work for and that you are expected to finish me off soon. Don't even bother to deny it." Which I didn't. I merely cuffed him up and threw him in a holding cell. Because that is the only possible response.
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
June 3, 2013 3:43 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Well, before you throw me in the virtual cell of your imagination, one question: why are there no women philosophers of note? Can you name a single woman philosopher beside Ayn Rand? Rand had so much testosterone anyway she practically qualified as Hercules, so she doesn't count.
Can't name one? Well don't worry. That means you're not necessarily being mind controlled to be an offensively Stalinistic personality. It could just mean you're merely being what you are.
Score: -1 (5 votes cast)
June 3, 2013 4:16 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Philosophical and scientific arguments detailing why this may well be a virtual reality, and indeed very much looks like one:
By the esteemed philosopher, Nick Bostrom:
http://www.simulation-argument.com/
By the science writer and lecturer Ross Rhoads:
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/argument/Argument4.html
Even now that the efficacy of antipsychotic and antidepressant medications has been shown to be minimal, over and over again in recent exposes and meta analyses, psychiatrists do nothing but ignore philosophical and scientific arguments for the potential existence of mind control, in addition to ignoring testimony based on personal experiences of possession as they've always done.
Psychiatrists. Are. Ignorant. Clowns.
Just want to put that on record, should the existence of mind control be revealed to humanity once more in the not-too-distant future.
Remember, belief in higher forces that are actively taking part in the affairs of humanity is the historical rule. What we have today is the exception. Keep that in mind when flattering yourselves. You're special. Special in being blinder, deafer, and more lost as regards to the truth than cave men.
Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
June 3, 2013 4:22 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I know what happened in the case of titanic because I've read the accounts of what happened. The captain ordered "full steam ahead" with the intent of "making the papers" by arriving in port two days ahead of schedule. They turned off their telegraphs at night, and at least one report has them shouting down another captain trying to warn them about icebergs ahead. If that's not huberis, the word has no meaning.
That's got nothing to do with paranormal stuff, that while I agree they occur, have not been studied with enough rigor to come to any real conclusions, be it aliens, AI, gods, ghosts, or collective unconscious. We don't have good data, so no real conclusions are possible.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
June 3, 2013 4:31 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yeah, those accounts sound exactly like mind control induced lunacy and hubris. How you can pretend to rule out this explanation by saying "it was hubris because it looks like hubris" is itself incredible evidence of mind-control induced irrationality.
It's circular logic. It doesn't go beyond the appearances into the causes of things.
Or perhaps you're just playing the devil's advocate. If so, well done sir. I should probably have taken that tranquilliser the lady recommended.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
June 3, 2013 9:15 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Hannah Arendt. And I really do not know if Ayn Rand was a worse writer or philosopher. I read all of her stuff in sixth grade and had outgrown it by seventh. That was about the time I picked up The Brothers Karamazov so you know...I discovered a real thinker.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
June 4, 2013 12:36 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
When I was in sixth grade, I was reading stuff like Dragonlance. Ah, the joys of childhood.
I don't like capitalists, so obviously I'm not a great admirer of Rand's thought. She was rather masculine though, as well as well known.
Once opened The Brothers Karamazov during one of my episodes. Deep stuff on that page. Pity I don't remember the page numbers or even on which page I approx. opened the book.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
June 4, 2013 9:59 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I like it. Just like other books i read. It's just kind of boring this one. Sorry :(
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
June 4, 2013 1:16 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Minor side note, the Titanic wasn't actually described as unsinkable until after it sank. It was actually a journalist misinterpreting an interview with a representative of the Titanic's holding company the day after the Titanic sank, and then mistakenly claiming the quote had been issued prior to the tragedy. The closest you could get to someone claiming it was unsinkable actually came in the form of a few statements that it was "designed to be unsinkable", so pretty much just like every boat before or since.
Oh and the book mentioned, "Futility", was actually written way before the sinking of the Titanic, and wasn't all that similar. It also wasn't a very good book. The author has since been accused of going back and re-editing the book to more closely resemble the actual disaster (this is fairly plausible, I'm not alone in thinking the book isn't great, hardly anyone actually bought or read the thing when it came out. It would have been entirely possible for the author to doctor the original book without getting called out on it.)
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
June 4, 2013 3:59 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I found a recent story on a quasi scam on the internet. There could be some beauty in it for all I know. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, after all, so one may have to have squinch hard in places for this article. Anyway the article is:
"Oxford Univeristy Press rips American Psychiatry, reveals the following examples of moral corruption and quackery" "movieballa.com" - Quote from the article: "Michael Taylor, MD of Oxford Univeristy Press has laid it on the line, when it comes to American Psychiatry. In a recent article Dr. taylor, author of the Decline of American Psychiatry, sh..."
continue reading in: Natural News
Secondly in the work Eckankar vielewelten - pages 90-110, there is some good sections on the condition of materialism and desire in the world generating more entanglements and sorrows of karma essence. Its a good antidote for the overly desiring who may want to look into nirvanna as an alternative method. If one could only write a prescription for it.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
June 4, 2013 5:47 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Do you even understand the simulation argument? It's not that some AI is directing and communicating with us, it's that the universe is for want of a better description composed of information, in other words, matter, energy, motions or what have you are instances of a data set. So when you see a dog, what you see is a manifestation of information if you drill down deep enough. It has to do with Steven Hawking's theory that information cannot be created or destroyed. So if the universe is made of data, then if explains not only some of the stranger notions of Quantum Mechanics, but the reason why both energy and matter are "eternal" -- that is the fact that you cannot create either one out of nothing. (You can't convert energy into matter which is determined by Einstein's E=mc^2 equation, but you can't get either from nothing.) I still don't see mind control. Just bazaar implications of very complex mathematical equations.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
June 4, 2013 6:12 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm more interested in Bostrom's argument anyway, but if Ross Rhoads is correct, then there is certainly room for background processes that could account for the mind control phenomena I've witnessed, experienced and analysed. That's as much as I need to understand it, and apparently you didn't understand it even that far.
That said, I'm still inclined to believe that mind control is accomplished via quantum entanglement and quantum charge phreaking, and that gravity isn't about curving of space but ultimately about something akin to charge, which would open the door for explanations of levitation and telekinesis involving quantum entanglement. For example, Tosman explains general relativity by postulating a grid of "negtrinos." If gravity were about curving of empty space, it would be illogical (except in a virtual reality).
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
June 4, 2013 6:18 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Oh wait, I guess you didn't even bother to read the articles I linked to.
Um, yeah, maybe you should ask that question from yourself, buddy.
Quite simply, if the universe is virtual ("made of data"), then there's some higher level of reality -- a machine -- responsible for the calculations, the background processes. Again, simple logic which you brilliant "sceptics" ever fail to apply.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
June 4, 2013 7:17 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Okay, so the synchronicity in your life has led you to mind control; synchronicity in my life has led me from atheism to God. The advantage of the latter is that it offers hope and an ethical construct. The lack of a metaphysics leads inexorably to nihilism, in my opinion, no matter how you try to escape that, and I choose to not live in (personal) nihilism. My theism, by the way, is informed by both personal and historical synchronicity. And I know I might be wrong, BUT the spiritual advantage of faith is one that I am not willing to abdicate. If I am wrong, I have lost nothing because we can be sure of NOTHING while we are here anyway. There is no irrefutable shining (or horrible) Truth that I am running from; when it comes to existence and meaning, we are all making end runs anyway, so if my theory leads to good results here for me and others, then even if I am wrong, I have led a good life and taught my children to live good lives. Quantum mechanics has uprooted materialism in such a way that it's all up for grabs now, and that does include your theory.
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
June 4, 2013 11:42 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I don't want to be rude, but you're misunderstanding the meaning of 'information cannot be created or destroyed'. Its essentially a rewording of the concept of the laws of thermodynamics in order to better describe the interaction of quantum mechanics and general relativity.
That is, we're really just saying energy/mass cannot be created or destroyed in a way that adequately covers the difficulties created by the creation and annihilation of matter/antimatter subatomic particle pairs. However, this interpretation of quantum physics leads to the black hole information paradox, which does not currently have a satisfying answer.
Uh, also. The second of the links you posted earlier should not be taken especially seriously. Unfortunately it seems that most of the information is out of date, and the sources are somewhat shaky.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
June 5, 2013 3:16 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'd say they coincide and are inseparable from one another.
I'd say they are opposing forces and it's why everyone is miserable. 5 million years of Biology clashing with 5000 years of Misogyny; 100 billion dead already, a deity species effectively annihilated and we've likely already destroyed the globe (we could just be treading water if we've done irreversible damage to the ecosystem). You're not perceiving our needy reality.
Where is all the need coming from? It's not biological. Self-destructive preferences are not natural. The need for deceit, malice, war, violence; the need to shoot ourselves in the foot wanting what we cannot have, until we have it. We're emotional junkies pursuing worthless, imagined feelings at the expense of our best interests. Entire lives destroyed seeking approval from those who disapprove because that's all they can do. To be perceived as "normal" we go insane, to avoid "offence" we do nothing, say nothing, be nothing; to make our mothers "proud", "pleased" or "fulfilled" we suffer to please or die in War.
If misogyny was biological, why do they need to spray acid and shame at little girls?
Self-defeating sentiments are not natural. Love blinds its victims so how did it slip through Natural Selection? Jealousy? Revenge? Blood feuds. Vendetta. Offence. Hate. Bravery. How was Self-pity naturally selected for superiority?
"I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself. A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself."
- DH Lawrence
It's religious emotional conditioning intended to erode Self. By virtue of our conditioned preferences, humans end up choosing to exploit ourselves, breed children and condition them to be like us. Slaves breeding slaves.
Exodus 1:12 (KJV)
"But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew."
When the non-renewable resources are depleted, the slaves aren't going to put aside their petty combative insanity and find Pareto optimal solutions. That's not how love works. Wait, so you think romantic love is biological? You think girls need love to have sex?
They don't. They don't need a bed. They don't need time. They don't even need a name. They're good to go. It's the biological truth.
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
June 5, 2013 4:53 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
How am I misunderstanding something I haven't even thought about?
The information on that article is out of date? How so?
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who claims mind control can't be real and I'm misunderstanding everything is a vapid troll.
If you're such a brilliant scientific thinker, you should be able to back your claims up with argumentation and sources. Otherwise, you're just a distraction, probably by design.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
June 5, 2013 5:08 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Laura Looch,
How did you transform from a boring nitwit into this intelligent and wise person in a couple of messages? It's eery.
Anyway, it's not just synchronicity that led me to mind control. It's also possession, "delusions of control", my emotions being manipulated as if they were a piano, a voice in my head that obviously orchestrates conversations between me and him so that both what he says and what I say come from him -- he can do this in a manner that is obvious, or it can feel like my own thoughts are my own, yet when I analyse the conversation it must be orchestrated because I'm not that inventive, funny, bright and fast on my own.
My belief in mind control is also because of all the mad religions that tons of people believe in mindlessly, their inexplicable success throughout history. As Nietzsche pointed out, Christianity in its historical form as well as the way Christ lived it is unnatural. It makes natural functions sinful, and this to me indicates that the "God" behind its creation is sadistic.
Anything that makes us humans struggle inhumanely -- Buddhism, for example -- seems like sadistic entertainment for the "gods" (the mind control system or the possible civ behind it).
My belief is also because there is no neurological or evolutionary theoretic explanation for dreams. I think dreams exist to hide the system, to make the human mind look complex, emergent, magical, when in reality all dreams come from the system. This explains why we rarely remember our dreams -- we only rarely "dream", i.e. the system isn't making us dream all the time. Humans sleep, but they don't naturally dream. This paragraph explains precognitive dreams: the system feeds us a dream, then controls people in order to orchestrate the "predicted" future.
My belief in mind control is also because of various inexplicable behaviours, events, perversions, visions, apparent psychic powers, mass hallucinations.
Mass hallucinations especially are a good indication of the existence of a system that can create hallucinations.
It's the only theory that neatly and scientifically explains all these strange things.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
June 5, 2013 7:58 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Oh I finally read the whole thread. Then i thought about it. Not really very eerie; the internet ensures that none of us really see the Other as she or he is. It's always been that way; it's worse now.
I would submit this: adding another LEVEL to our experience here, which is what you are doing, WITHOUT making it ethically or even ontologically meaningful (which is what religion does) is a fool's errand. Because even if it true, it cannot inform our everyday decisions unless you are using it as a reason to abdicate all ethical care for other human beings. And you really don't need to go this far to do that. You could just embrace a malevolent nihilism (because you could also do a benevolent nihilism which would just be a passive kind of lack of personal will to power, I guess). I guess what i am arguing is that you have a better chance of living a better life if you embrace free will, at the least, knowing all the while that it MIGHT not exist. embracing free will and taking responsibility for your soul (and I am not proselytizing here because you could as easily go back to Socrates and Plato and live a damn good life as you could embrace the Judeo-Christian life.) It's a modified Pascal's wager. Ask yourself what you are gaining (because I stand with Socrates that philosophy should teach you how to live) by embracing this. Does it lead anywhere heroic or ethically meaningful? I would argue that it can't.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
June 5, 2013 9:21 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I like your message, and you could be right. In the same breath, I must say that my belief in the existence of the system has made the question of how to live a good life all the more relevant in my mind, because its existence makes certain things possible in my life that would otherwise be impossible and vice versa, or so it seems.
It motivates me to attempt to figure out the truth about the purpose and/or psychology of this mind control system that I believe exists. It's a difficult and complex topic, and the system seems to want me to run in circles as far as this subject is concerned. The system sometimes chides me that the world doesn't make a man, the man makes the world; that it's not about figuring out the nature of reality, it's about figuring out what I want to be regardless of what others are or do or what lies beyond death, and then be that person regardless of how difficult it might be.
Anyway, the psychology of the system depends very much on whether there is afterlife and what kind of afterlife. Just by analysing the reality we see now, it would be relatively easy to draw the conclusion that the system is kind of like the Devil in Marlowe's Faust: it seems to test certain people, taking advantage of their weaknesses, including their desire to do good (as Gandalf warned about the ring of power), it has a somewhat sadistic sense of humour and a penchant for irony. I see a lot of irony involved in the history of the past hundred years: for example, America and Britain were the two nations most responsible for destroying the Third Reich, and now the first is turning into a third world toilet as if the devil is telling them "this is what you fought for, so enjoy it now," and Britain has lost its colonies ("you wanted to be the liberators, remember?") and is turning into the thing that it has, ever since the war, malevolently accused the Nazi Germany of having been: a totalitarian hellhole, with some multicult enrichment thrown in as a further ironic bonus. Similarly, the nation that sparked the war by refusing Hitler's reasonable demands regarding Danzig and so on -- Poland -- had to endure decades of hellish communism instead, as a consequence ("you didn't want to negotiate with a great power, now enjoy the consequences you dumb fucks").
Certainly ironic if not entirely just or at least not very "nice."
All sorts of serial killers and such also tend to get caught, even though one might reasonably assume they mostly wouldn't. Many of them have to languish in prisons for years, which could easily be seen as a sort of hell and fore-planned punishment for the crimes. To mention an example of how the system seems to protect these killers only to finally "betray" them or demand their souls as payment, exactly as the devil of legend would do, David Parker Ray let a few of his victims go after torturing them, but only got caught when one of his victims managed to escape much later. He also had a girlfriend who watched him torture and murder women, for the "adrenaline rush" she claimed it gave her. I for one wonder how some sadistic and murderous psychopath can find such a girlfriend before the internet age. It looks like the system brought them together to put the mark of the beast on the series of events. There's another mark: the events occurred in connection to the town of Truth or Consequences, which could be the God aspect's way of throwing in some benevolent advice, although reading it logically, it means: truth and consequences. Truth about you will be known, sooner or later, and one can't escape consequences of actions.
If there's afterlife, do these tortuers, these people who have chosen evil, do they go to hell in the afterlife? Or are they deleted from this virtual reality (if this is one), their brains reused to create other people? Or is the system truly sadistic and rewards them? I don't believe the last one is likely at all. The way I see it, the psychology of this system demands that people are warned, then punished for stupidity rather than any other sin. There are two ways to reach wisdom: realise that we are all one in the sense that suffering is always suffering, and therefore should be avoided etc. This is empathy through reason. Then there's analysing history and so on: stupidity causes suffering, ironic tragedy, and so on. It's not just evil. It's stupidity: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Intentions aren't enough, you also have to use your brains.
So combine these two and you've got a pretty good basis for navigating through this mess of a world, and at the gates of heaven or hell, you can at least say you tried to use your brains and treated others as you'd wanted others to treat you.
The great question is, did these evil people truly choose to be evil, or were they born evil or did the system make them evil against their wishes (or what their wishes would have been without the system's influence)? I think knowledge of this system would at least force some stubborn materialists (like me) to ponder these questions and to be careful before they hurt others for selfish reasons. For example, I've often thought that I'd be in a sexual relationship with a woman I like a lot even if she were already taken and had children with her husband. In my teens, I'd have been horrified about such behaviour, such an attitude. These days I might have to believe in cosmic or quasi-cosmic justice of some sort to restrain myself. But since I'm a materialist, I'd need a belief in a scientific system of mind control that mimics God (Satan is just an aspect of God, perhaps testing, perhaps teaching the hard way if the easy way isn't enough).
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
June 5, 2013 10:00 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Wait, you made a claim based on information you haven't even thought about?
Anyway, a couple things:
First, the article appears to be based on theory that has since been discarded or expanded on, and draws conclusions that I find somewhat questionable. Thus the out of date comment.
Second, I never made claims that mind control is or isn't real. I mean, yes, I think you're a looney, but hey. Whatever. You seem to be a happy looney, and you really aren't hurting anyone, so what do I care what you think or do? Compare and contrast jonny, who I think is a looney, an unhappy person and is actively hurting others around him. I was merely attempting to correct you on what I viewed as a misunderstanding of theory.
Third, I never claimed to be a brilliant scientific thinker. I just apparently know more about a small section of quantum physics than you, thanks to a pair of courses I took a year or two ago. As well, its not really me that has to prove citations and evidence. I'm siding with the status quo here, its up to you to convince me that mind control is a thing that is happening, not the other way around. And honestly if you aren't even going to fact check sources before you present them, what argument or source could I possibly present to convince you of the contrary?
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
June 5, 2013 10:18 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It's not my job to show that science leaves room for mind control. The existence of mind control is self-evident due to historical synchronicity and personal testimony.
I'm only tangentially interested in the *how* of it as opposed to the *why* of it.
Also, newer science isn't always more right than older science. This is particularly true with respect to theoretical physics, which is a fast changing and shifting field of study with many competing viewpoints. What's more, unless this is a virtual reality ruled by AI God, the system of mind control has a motive to deceive the world about true physics, so that cutting-edge theoretical physics could very well remain an illogical mess and a hunt after ghosts for as long as it exists as a field of study. Hopefully that isn't the case, but it does seem to be the case right now.
Score: -1 (5 votes cast)
June 5, 2013 10:30 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Compare and contrast jonny, who I think is a looney
No, you feel that way. If you thought, you'd make a logical case. You cannot make a logical case. You cannot even comprehend it because you don't value truth.
an unhappy person
I live in a world where billions are being raped by snivelling Toddlers who want slaves to please them and slaves to exploit and slaves to rape with love. I'm unhappy because my species is dying at a rate of 100,000 needless deaths a day and they're the lucky ones.
You can brag about how happy you are raping Your Own but you're happy or you wouldn't be reading this site. So you're just a liar, and this is why you cannot understand logical truth nor counter it.
and is actively hurting others around him.
I'm the only person I know who has no need to lie. So on what do you base your unsupported slander? Just your limitless capacity for indecency.
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
June 5, 2013 10:36 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I would have to agree that good intent (as far as seeking after Truth) and benevolent behavior toward others in this life would have to be considered sufficient by a just God (or system). The impossible situation that we find ourselves in as humans is that we are born into a world with limited resources (which is the root of much if not all violence), a desire to LIVE, and no Guide to Life. So we look to our forbears for guidance, but of course they too were born in the same desperate straits. Nevertheless, we have managed to cobble some wisdom and general rules together. The question is, how did that happen? Where did ethical thirst come from?
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
June 5, 2013 11:09 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Well, I would argue that if you choose to use science as a justification for your theories, then yes it is your job to demonstrate there is room for mind control. And you can't reasonably pair scientific theory with unfalsifiable claims of synchronicity and testimony.
I'll grant you that recent scientific theory can be more questionable than previous work, but if you are going to argue that mind control is deliberately misleading scientists, it calls into question all science, not just recent stuff. Although I don't understand the motive argument. What could any entity, alien mind controller or AI god, sufficiently advanced to do what you claim possibly stand to gain from this?
Actually with regards to the AI god idea, I think you're actually arguing for a deterministic universe based its boundary conditions. You should google that, there are a lot of interesting arguments there.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
June 5, 2013 11:22 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I see a lot of irony involved in the history of the past hundred years: for example, America and Britain were the two nations most responsible for destroying the Third Reich...
I've been reading your arguments and you're the first person to discuss some things I've never told anyone about in terms of statistical anomalies in my life that were so far outside the range mathematical probability...my mind just blocks them out because it's "crazy talk". What good can come from discussing it? In this world of imbeciles reduced below the level where truth is valued, there's nothing worth communicating to them because they cannot perceive truth. You can show them proof and they too reduced to understand it. I made a 2 min video of the last incident that no one can explain but I've been laughing them off my entire life.
So I was intrigued but when I tentatively peruse your arguments, I keep running into this problem with your credibility. I've seen a number of instances where you clearly cannot process the logic correctly but you go on to draw these wild conclusions from provably false premises. Take WWII and Hitler, for instance (it's the easiest example as I can just cut/paste); you just don't understand the realities of this world of power.
You will not be able to counter the logic below. It's not remotely controversial. It's just whoa.
_____________________
_____________________
inconspicuousdetective • 10 days ago
...appeasement during WWII to satiate Hitler's appetite for conquest. sometimes, war is necessary to keep the peace.
jonny • 9 days ago
You think WWII was fought because of Hitler?
Hitler was a pawn. He was head-hunted and supported as early as 1920 by the profiteers from WWI who made so much money, they set the entire game up again.
It's a damn shame no one (not even Churchill and Roosevelt and Stalin) had ever heard of the Treaty of Versailles. A damn shame. Because in 21 years, a nation obliterated by the most destructive war the world had ever seen (forced to sign an Unconditional Surrender) was rebuilt into the greatest industrial, technological and military power in the world. 21 years after total annihilation, Germany took on the world and damn near created the Third Reich.
Do you think that all happened in secret? War is never necessary. It's created by power's need to sell the illusion of Protection racketeering to vassals stupid enough to imagine the plantation on which they slave looks out for their interests.
Alpha_Centauri • 8 days ago
jonny, I've long suspected this was the case. Where do you get you info? How come nobody talks about this?
jonny • 7 days ago
Well everything I said above is just basic logic; with the exception of Hitler being head-hunted by the profiteers of WWI (primarily Fritz Thyssen, who made a killing from the psychotic killing in that Great War of attrition). Reading about the Bush family fortune being, at least in part, sourced from treason; I learned about Thyssen and the involvement of Western capitalists in the most amazing reconstructive effort imaginable - it's really just surreal how quickly they rebuilt an obliterated nation into a power capable of taking on the entire world.
Guardian: How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power
BBC: Bush's Grandfather Planned Fascist Coup In America
For as long as there is profit to be found in war, there will be wars fought for profit.
The Treaty of Versailles should have prevented WWII but it wasn't enforced; the War and the reconstruction are one and the same - all corporations involved in the reconstruction of Germany between WWI and WWII knew what the reconstruction was for.
Hitler's rhetoric was not subtle. No one was taken by surprise.
__________________________
__________________________
How can anyone (or you, even) credit your logic if the premises are all screwy (and they really are)?
Then you go and impress me with crystal clear logic:
There are two ways to reach wisdom: realise that we are all one in the sense that suffering is always suffering, and therefore should be avoided etc. This is empathy through reason. Then there's analysing history and so on: stupidity causes suffering, ironic tragedy, and so on. It's not just evil. It's stupidity: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Intentions aren't enough, you also have to use your brains.
That's literally The Truth, with one nitpick; stupidity is malicious and always Evil. There's never an excuse for imposition. There's no mitigation possible. All denial is implausible.
But I guess I'll see how receptive your mind is to learning; you've missed some real opportunities in this thread to do that.
Score: 1 (7 votes cast)
June 5, 2013 11:34 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Oh for goodness sake, I knew mentioning your name was a bad idea.
In order:
1)
Very well, logic it is. You pay such close attention to a website that even in a comment that references you in passing attracts your attention. You use that as a leaping off point to launch a speech on what you think is wrong with the world, using the words "Slave, rape and toddler" with definitions specific to you and no one else, and accuse me of failing to understand a truth that is unique to the world you inhabit. Looney.
2)
"You can brag about how happy you are raping Your Own but you're happy or you wouldn't be reading this site."
What?
3)
It's not slander, when written its libel. If you'll accept an analogy I would refer to you as a bent gear. Although you can function as part of society, your actions tend to damage all the parts you contact.
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
June 5, 2013 12:05 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
@Heytor #c031290
These are all statements true about the blog. You are Dove. We are marks.
It is an interesting idea that TLP is Dove, we are his marks, and the blog is his short con. The short con makes TLP an authority on the things that concern us, things that we think we need to change.
Remember that the long con is to use our pretended desire for change to make us do something that benefits him, but actually helps us avoid change.
So what is his long con? To get us to buy a (not yet written) book?
@Still the rube #c031322
What would change look like?
That is the most important question.
A person who has shed narcissism and self-absorption, who sees himself as others see him, who can look at others and see past their lies and defenses, and who understands his own power to control and manipulate others: what kind of person would that be?
I think it is likely that the knowledge would be too much to handle. The result would be either unbearable depression, or psychosis, or what usually happens: the person would develop psychological defenses.
These defenses would be impossible to strip away even when the person is made aware of them. Try to remove one defense, even with honesty and determination, and the effort itself creates a substitute defense.
This is why, even though I think I have learned from TLP's blog, his next post always surprises me - although its theme is exactly the same as all the previous posts. My narcissism is less than would be considered pathological, but it is an essential, innate part of me.
The long con is this. TLP is highly skilled at noticing our narcissism, and explaining his insights to us; and he has us hooked because we think he can help us become less narcissistic. But TLP does not know how to make us less narcissistic. That is the long con. If he knew, he would have told us by now.
In the long con, what is TLP's payoff? He is here. He is putting a great deal of effort into illuminating how his readers are avoiding change, and by doing so he is avoiding change himself.
Score: -1 (5 votes cast)
June 5, 2013 12:20 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The long con is this. TLP is highly skilled at noticing our narcissism, and explaining his insights to us; and he has us hooked because we think he can help us become less narcissistic. But TLP does not know how to make us less narcissistic. That is the long con. If he knew, he would have told us by now.
That's pretty much what I think. The only advice he ever really gives is "fake it till you make it", or behave the way you think a non-narcissistic person would behave, and eventually through action you will become less self-absorbed. Or something like that.
Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
June 5, 2013 1:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I never understood the "fake it till you make it". A person has a problem because they habitually present a false image to the world; and the solution is to present a different false image?
But if narcissism is inevitable and incurable, perhaps that's all we can do.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
June 5, 2013 2:19 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Or, as George Burns used to say, the important thing is sincerity - once you can fake that, you've got it made.
Having a narcissistic image of oneself as a non-narcissist. Is that really the best we can do?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 5, 2013 3:06 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Or, like nearly all self-inflicted psychological conditions, you'll stop being a narcissist when you actually want to.
Part of the whole 'faking it until you make it' is to give you an affection for being a non-narcissist. It's one reason why we want to instruct and in some cases compel our children to do the right thing (however we define 'the right thing' now, this pattern still holds) because we hope that in experiencing doing the right thing they will have a sense of its rightness, not necessarily a love in the same sense we think of it now, but a respect and understanding for these things which is more like an affection than something you can explain in words. It is only this that can win the day against the lure of momentary pleasures and the often-dullness or plain inconvenience and danger of virtue.
So its like this. If in all the time you go to church or fake being a non-narcissist you never love God or respect being non-narcissistic in a profound way, but instead are waiting for some third party to take notice of your deeds and give you that karmic promotion, you've lost the game.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
June 5, 2013 3:12 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It's hard to really want to not be a narcissist if you're only concerned about the negative image of narcissism or the positive image of non-narcissism. To want it due to the self-image thereto appertaining is narcissism. What a trap!
I guess it hurts if you believe knowledge is only in the mind, sex, race and other human properties are social constructs, etc. It's hard to respect and embrace something because of what it truly is when there is no 'there' there.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 5, 2013 3:28 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I base my ideas about the origins of WW2 on the book by A.J.P. Taylor. While other writers are either court historians or conspiracy nuts, this guy actually made some effort to be unbiased and figure out what happened.
America made its biggest contribution to defeating the Third Reich by supporting the Soviet Union with Lend Lease and earlier material support. Without this support, the Soviet Union would never have been able to mount a counter strike -- they wouldn't have had the trucks and tanks for it.
I'm sure I make some silly errors with respect to some topics I discuss on the internet, but this isn't one of them.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
June 5, 2013 3:31 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I kind of see it similar to the post on compulsive liars, a problem I have myself. When someone in the comments asked what they could do about it, Alone responded (paraphrased) "fuckin', cut it out". Which seems like 'duh' kind of advice to normals (is that an okay way to put it?), but for me it was kind of a surprising revelation.
Up to that point I did it without conscious thought. I just opened my mouth and lies fell out, some were more plausible, some were ridiculous, some white some... black? I guess? But they all just sort of happened without too much input 'me'. So when someone said "How about just trying to stop?" it caught me off guard as an option and it has been kind of working. At least I am constantly aware of it, I lie less and when I do lie I notice that I have lied as opposed to before, and I actually feel bad (or maybe just being angry with myself) about lying rather than being pleased I've impressed someone or being indifferent to the action.
So his response to someone wanting to be less of a narcissist is "Fuckin', pretend you're less of a narcissist." And I think the idea is that if you try to pretend you're not a narcissist then you'll start to become self aware with regards to what kind of narcissisty things you keep wanting to do during the act. There's also the added benefit of realizing that you can stop, rather than just continuing, something that helped me a lot.
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
June 5, 2013 3:45 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Historical observation isn't an experimental science, so it's absurd to imply that it should be falsifiable in principle. What happened, happened, and if you can be reasonably certain that the history you read is the history that happened, then you can build a worldview based on things like the occurrence of historical synchronicities.
I do think that there's lots of deception in many, many fields of study, or at least what trickles down to the public is often crap for the most part. However, what I meant when I said the entity would have a motive to deceive us about physics was that we might become a threat or more difficult to control if we advanced far enough as a technological society. So while the entity may allow us to reach a very advanced state in science and technology, it would probably start to confuse us and misguide us at some point. Of course, it may have similar or other motives that would come into play with regards to other branches of study, such as parapsychology and psychiatry, but deceiving people about, say, phonetics wouldn't be as "necessary" as the ultimate deception about physics.
A possible motive would always be: entertainment for some hidden civ or the machine itself (assuming it has conscious modules or parts).
I'm not arguing for anything that lacks a "God" that actively orchestrates events in real-time. The reality I see and experience is that of active real-time manipulation and orchestration.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
June 5, 2013 3:56 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think instinctive empathy that goes beyond the people you love is a result of group selection. Some people argue that group selection can't exist, but if it didn't exist, then I'd say that many noble human tendencies wouldn't exist either, at least in a world without the mind control system or something like it.
There are some interesting anomalies in evolution that point to evolution "guided" by this system, even involving insects. Hmm, I guess this is a topic I should study more, as I can't seem to write detailed paragraphs about it.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
June 5, 2013 4:31 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The problem I was having with the historical synchronicities is that while one person claims a pair of events are a synchronicity, how can another argue that point? How close do the two events need to be to count? And indeed, can one be certain that the events noted have been recorded with enough accuracy as to be candidates for meaningful comparison? Keeping in mind that much of the information from less than a decade or two ago could have simply been lost due to poor filing habits, or that documents might have simply been poorly recorded.
I can accept entertainment as a viable motive, and us being part of the machine has been explored as an idea in the past (sort of a combination of the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy and the deterministic universe theory). I was thinking more in terms of material/informational resource production, neither of which make sense, when posing the question.
Although I would still have to question any need or reason to limit our scientific progress, as any entity that has reached what I imagine would need to be a type 2 or higher society, to do what you say on the scale you state, would be so far advanced beyond us as to be wholly un-threatened by any progress we make (we're a type 0). [I know the kardashev scale is more of a thought experiment than anything, but its a convenient metric for comparison.]
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
June 5, 2013 5:17 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Let's take an example of a historical synchronicity. The birth years of Buddha, Christ, and Muhammed:
570 BC .... 0 .... 571 AD.
Quite striking. The three greatest religious figures in history. Christ at the middle, and Buddha and Muhammed at a damn near equidistant in the past and the future.
(Some sources may claim different birth years, but I believe those are the traditionally accepted years of birth. There are old and new sources that place Buddha's birth in the year 570 BC, although Wikipedia claims Buddha was born in 563 BC. Still counts as a synchronicity to my mind, but not nearly as stunning.)
The mind control system may not be as advanced as you think it would have to be. It could just use quantum entanglement and some sort of entangling quasi laser, plus a method for un-entangling particles or structures one at a time. If we figure out how to un-entangle structures and shield ourselves against the entangling "light", then we'll be free to resist, assuming these sorts of technologies are what the system uses.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
June 5, 2013 7:11 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I've long since figured out that one, and really the only thing I can figure out about that is that it's not only not an answer, but it's a non-answer that doesn't work. If you ask someone how to start thinking like a non-narcissist, the first question to ask is what that even looks like. Now, you can kind of come at that by taking the definition and running with it.
The narcissist thinks, at least unconsciously, that other people aren't real. For this narcissist, the important part is appearance, not reality. It's not necessarily that you think you're better, but that you think that you are the only one that matters. So when you think about say your wife not liking something you do, if you're narcissist, you think about how doing such a thing reflects on you "I don't want to be the kind of person who goes to play golf all day on my day off rather than help my wife around the house" -- something like that. But the thing is that SHE isn't even there, except as a sort of foil to your wants. You aren't thinking about HER, you're thinking about you. So why would acting like you're thinking about her make you think about her. You are doing that now -- you don't go play golf because you're playing the role of "Good Husband". In other words, you aren't changing. it's backwards.
If anything, I would personally suggest the opposite -- go play golf. You want to anyway, or you wouldn't be seeing yourself as a noble self-sacrificing hero by not playing golf. What that means is that unless the pain you cause her means something to you because she's real, you aren't heading there. She's not going to be real until you get back to being real yourself. I've mentioned the TAO thing before, but I think that's the ultimate answer. You're real when you're JUST DOING. When you aren't thinking about how it looks or how it makes you a BETTER PERSON or how it's something Nice People do, that's you. If you're impressed with yourself for doing something, guess what, that's narcissism talking. The real you doesn't care about being impressive. No creature on the Earth has ever been impressed at least not naturally. And things are impressive because you don't like them. I'm impressed that people read Shakespeare because Shakespeare is hard and boring (worthwhile perhaps, but if I naturally liked Shakespeare, it would be no more Impressive to read Shakespeare than it would be to read Fifty Shades of Grey). On the other hand, I'm not impressed when people tell me they read the #1 on the NYT Bestseller list. So what -- it's not impressive because you actually enjoyed the book.
The real you is the one doing what it wants, and would suffer embarassment at enjoying things that they are not supposed to like. Your guilty pleasures come from you, hence the feeling of shame you get when you do that. You actually think the cookie tastes good, you aren't supposed to like it, but you do. The real me enjoys a good XBOX game. I know because I feel shame at times for doing that when I should be doing other more impressive things. the real me likes pizza, i know because I choose pizza over salad when I'm eating by myself.
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
June 5, 2013 7:36 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I think the narcissist is merely a yawning maw. Never enough adulation, never enough respect, never enough money, never enough. Other people are merely obstacles or helps to filling that black hole. Actually, thinking of them as a black hole helps to understand how they function in society and how other bodies are drawn to them. Levinas would say, I think, that the narcissist never sees the face of the Other. He is conscious of nothing but his hunger.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
June 5, 2013 8:25 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Probably, no. 'Authenticity' is simply the answer we are pre-programmed to accept by the past 30 or more years for 'what is the ultimate solution to intractable problems?' 'just be yourself'. It's a platitude, and if 'yourself' is defined primarily by 'guilty pleasures', there's no yourself there, there's just a mass of desires.
The point of acting selflessly is to hopefully stir deeper parts of you than merely the need to soothe your own anxieties. If that never happens, it's not the fault of the method.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
June 6, 2013 1:07 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
May I use this quote from you? It would be a shame if someone else didn't get to read it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 6, 2013 6:36 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You're real when you're JUST DOING. When you aren't thinking about how it looks or how it makes you a BETTER PERSON or how it's something Nice People do, that's you. If you're impressed with yourself for doing something, guess what, that's narcissism talking. The real you doesn't care about being impressive. No creature on the Earth has ever been impressed at least not naturally.
Your posts are brilliant Dovahkiin but until you address the reason why humans become obsessed with valuing [appearances / deceit / illusions] over what is [real / honest / tangible], you'll be limited to treatment or healing of disease (like the sociopathic protagonist Jesus) rather than curing illness or eradicating contagious disease altogether with inoculation / prevention (like Buddha's anti-misogynist / anti-dependency Truth about Self).
Because Jesus was the Messiah who wanted everyone to be sick so that they would need him. He wanted dependency so he gave food away rather than teach the miserable vermin to fish and bake and rely upon themselves. Charity is a Crime Against Humanity; it breeds child exploitation. Jesus was a Misogynist Whore Messiah, which is why he forgave non-existent sins like extra-marital sex. Power needs the broken slave children of misogyny.
"Go, and [have Self] no more."
A distinction needs to be made between women who want to rely upon themselves and women who want to be leeches because the latter are obsessively conflating themselves with the former. I'm not anti-women. I'm anti-leaching. But the leeches say I'm anti-women after they've done their best to kill all the women when they were girls (with acid / shame / lies). You can't keep ignoring this issue.
So when you think about say your wife not liking something you do, if you're narcissist, you think about how doing such a thing reflects on you "I don't want to be the kind of person who goes to play golf all day on my day off rather than help my wife around the house" -- something like that. But the thing is that SHE isn't even there, except as a sort of foil to your wants. You aren't thinking about HER, you're thinking about you.
You've missed the point here.
"your wife not liking something you do"
Leeches without value are going to disapprove of those with value up to the extent that it is tolerated but what everyone needs (wives and mothers, especially) is Self. They need to be made to lean on themselves and stop worrying about what others are or aren't doing to please them; they need to be forced to please themselves. If they cannot take care of themselves, they must not be permitted to impose their miserable needy on others. They need to be Self-reliant, Self-sufficient, an island unto themselves.
Or they must never be allowed near the continent. They'll just erode the little clods of life away with their diabolical need to impose their miserable needy on men and children. This is an emotional topic for me because I watched a whore leech kill the only people I've ever loved this way, with her need for love (I refused to play degrading games of attraction with my siblings; I empowered them with Self-confidence to act in their own best interests and not care about what others say to manipulate them but it was to no avail because the leech had the power the evil Confidence trick). Like most (nearly all) mothers, my biological mother bred slaves (12, in her case) and leeches use lies to shame humans into being their slaves. To appeal to "normality" should be grounds for termination of existence. It's not logical. It's evil manipulation intended to make those who don't know any better feel (abnormal / weird / shitty) about not being your slave.
Mothers care for the best interests of their children only when it suits them. Mothers want slaves and they can't pull this demented Confidence trick on orphans: "Children should love their mother. Mothers give children life. How could my children not love me? Oh." Cue feigned horror / tears / emotional bumhurt / manipulation.
Leeches are obsessed with forcing others to do things they don't want to do; things they cannot make a logical case for doing. It's power. This world's obsession with power is sourced from mothers who are obsessed with imposing their will on others. To force someone to do something they don't want to do (whether you believe it's in their interests or not) is the purest evil. It's all the evil. Is there another kind of evil?
The reason the husband wants to...
"play golf all day on my day off rather than help my wife around the house"
...is because it's his day off. He's been slaving all freaking week and his wife lacks the capacity to make a logical case to convince him that he should slave on his day off.
He is conflicted because he is decent and she is evil. Rather than make a convincing case for why he should want to help, she hijacks his decency with her malicious sleaze, guilt-tripping him in an attempt to make him feel obligated. She's emasculating him, reducing him, making him feel like shit for playing golf on his day off.
You're wrong to tell him to tolerate needy tyranny like a good slave; if you wanted to help them you'd tell him to tell her to convince him to want to do it (without resorting to terrorism). If she can't make the logical case for him to want to help her without threatening him or attacking him, he shouldn't do anything she wants.
But leeches have a lot of powerful emotional tricks to bind humans to their side (whore values like Loyalty, Duty, Responsibility, Obligation, Promises [induced via malicious deceit], Contracts [deceived by false pretence], etc) but it's all brazen Extortion. It's slavery. Leeches do not contribute value. They reduce the value of those they're reliant upon for value. That's why they're insane (by Chomsky's definition of insanity). They have no Self so they lean on everyone else.
Buddha knew their caper. You can't keep ignoring this issue. It's a tragic waste of your mind (and writing ability).
"Never fear what will become of you, depend on no one. Only the moment you reject all help are you freed."
- the Buddha
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
June 6, 2013 6:58 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The impossible situation that we find ourselves in as humans is that we are born into a world with limited resources (which is the root of much if not all violence), a desire to LIVE, and no Guide to Life.
Laura, that is not true. We have a Guide to Life encoded into our DNA. Humans instinctively know wrong from right. They lose this instinct when leeches who need love snap their free will and turn them into slaves that suffer to please. Slaves are insufferable because all they do is create suffering.
Where did ethical thirst come from?
The same instinct that knows Wrong from Right, the Self struggling for freedom from tyranny and lies. A thirst for ethics comes from humans who want to live, sustainably and equitably and freely.
Ethics are Selfish. Life cannot be sustained in a world where ethics are sold by horrifically insane leeches as Ideal behaviour. Good to do, if you can afford to. Good, like Selfless sacrifice on a battlefield. Good like sex is Bad. Extramarital sex, that non-existent sin sold by leeches who need marriage because they need contracts to force humans to be their slaves.
They rationalise it in the way all sociopaths rationalise their malice. It's needed but they are filthy liars. 29,000 toddlers dying every single day and whores have the nerve to rationalise their miserable leaching as necessary, required to enable them to bring needy slaves into a world that doesn't value the life it has.
Force and imposition is only ever needed to free humans from those who impose upon decency with their malice and deceit. Humans must be free from those who pursue an obsession with sex and deceit before throwing up their hands and saying "Men are supposed to take care of us."
Men are supposed to take care of everyone, along with women, along with everyone. Humans are supposed to be Self-reliant and to want to exist for no reason but to impose on others with your needy is a Crime Against Humanity.
"Do not look for a sanctuary in anyone except your self."
- the Buddha
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
June 6, 2013 7:52 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I knew mentioning your name was a bad idea.
You didn't mention my name. You slandered my name with your lying and your insanity.
Lies: 1
You pay such close attention to a website that even in a comment that references you in passing attracts your attention.
I'm reading two discussion threads on this website. There are entire threads where I'm aware my name has been used by leeches to smear their filthy toxic compassion, unsolicited putrid whore sleaze. They derailed the discourse in the way you are attempting to do now. I ignored them as I will ignore you after responding to your slander twice.
Lies: 2
You use that as a leaping off point to launch a speech on what you think is wrong with the world, using the words "Slave, rape and toddler" with definitions specific to you and no one else, and accuse me of failing to understand a truth that is unique to the world you inhabit.
I have the right to respond to unprovoked lies and slander. I have the right to speak truth. Your illiteracy is a product of your stupidity. You don't want to learn the correct definitions of words; your problem, not mine. I pulled these definitions straight from the front page of Google search.
slave
1. a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.
2.a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person: a slave to a drug.
I use the second definition. Love blinds. A person would be entirely under the domination of whomever made them love them. Like a mother that uses lies, fear, shame, force, violence or coercion to force her children or husband to suffer to please her. Or a girl who uses lies and emotional degradation to reduce a guy into being her loving slave, forced to suffer to please her, to fight for her, to die for lies.
Lies: 3
rape
1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.
2. The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction.
3. Abusive or improper treatment; violation: a rape of justice.
When I use that word, it's invariably going to be (2) or (3).
Lies: 4
toddler
A young child, usually one between the ages of one and three.
I capitalise the first letter and write Toddler, expressly to denote the fact that age in years has no correlation to emotional development and we live in a world of Toddlers who lie through their teeth, like you.
Lies: 5
Ignorance is not an excuse for malice, as I'm proving right now; you don't want to learn because you don't value truth. You value lies. Your ignorance is pure malice.
"You can brag about how happy you are raping Your Own but you're not happy or you wouldn't be reading this site."
I missed a word. There's no edit function. You cannot pretend you're so stupid that you couldn't understand what I was saying; unless you're not pretending, in which case you need to hush.
It's not slander, when written its libel. If you'll accept
I will accept nothing but truth. Your lying is an insult to decency and you must hush.
slander - Verb
Make false and damaging statements about (someone).
Lies: 6
Your lying must be eradicated from the face of this planet or this world will continue crashing into misery and insanity and depravity.
I have the right to respond to lies. You are the first offender. You wish to drag my truth into the gutter with your filthy insanity. You smear your unprovoked malice on others and then throw your hands up as if those defending themselves are to blame.
That's the Christian trick used for genocide of peaceful 'savages'. Orthodox Jews use this psychotic trick all the time. Muslims riot whenever their malice invokes a response. Stop being a snivelling evil Toddler leech.
What you're doing is M.A.D.
Score: 0 (6 votes cast)
June 6, 2013 8:17 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
But TLP does not know how to make us less narcissistic. That is the long con. If he knew, he would have told us by now.
He cannot help you if you refuse to see the truth. He has told you. It's in the story about Narcissus. All the truth is there if you are able to see it.
He has told you over and over and he has shown you what to do. You need to be alone like Narcissus (and Alone) or you will be imposed upon by those who imagine they have an entitlement to enslave with their need for love. Until the need to impose one's needy on others has been eradicated; until girls can stand on their own two feet with Self without needing to have children, men must stop enabling their misogyny.
The Matrix is nothing but the Need to Force Humans To Do Things They Do Not Want To Do. Power is nothing but a need to impose one's will upon another.
In the long con, what is TLP's payoff? He is here. He is putting a great deal of effort into illuminating how his readers are avoiding change, and by doing so he is avoiding change himself.
This is incorrect. Alone is the only person that I am aware of who is effecting genuine change. He is the only person who understands what is needed to return this miserable world of dependency (slavery) back to Neutral.
His agenda is pure Selfishness. He's just brighter than billions of Self-less, broken, malicious, deceit-obsessed slaves. He has no need to impose nor need to enable imposition. He has no need, period.
That is why he is Alone.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
June 6, 2013 8:59 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Thank you for the replies - they are useful. I suppose I was thinking it was like training a psychopath to fake empathy, but that's a bad analogy - nearly all people can feel empathy, and likewise, nearly all people have the capacity to be less narcissistic.
Perhaps it is also important how much we feel the need to defend the false image. Once we learn that we are trapped in narcissism, then humility is in order. We should also learn humility when the false self-image is affronted by other people. A particularly hurtful insult might indicate a narcissistic problem in oneself, rather than the spite of the other person.
Learning how others can press our narcissist buttons - that is altogether more difficult. It is no accident that TLP looks at advertising and mass media, because they have a financial incentive to learn how to do this.
Have you ever looked at a magazine from 50 or 100 years ago, and noticed how quaint the adverts are? Ads for patent medicines played on fears that we no longer have - such as the need to regulate the production and flow of bile.
It is easy to think how much more sophisticated we are today; but in 100 years' time, people will look back at our media and think how primitive and foolish we must have been. They will laugh out loud at the Dove video, the "Don't Hate Her Because She's Successful" TIME cover, and the sheer lunacy of our DSM. But their own media and advertisements will pander to the fears and fashions of the 22nd Century. It's an arms race: as consumers figure out one set of tricks, advertisers dig deeper and work out another.
TLP is pulling back the curtain here and there, and giving us a few glimpses of how our media will appear to readers in the 22nd century.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
June 6, 2013 9:14 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I said:
Force and imposition is only ever needed to free humans from those who impose upon decency with their malice and deceit.
I've changed my mind.
Force and imposition is never needed. It mustn't exist. But you cannot force force not to exist. Humans are not born evil. The idea that they must be forced to behave with rules, laws, punishment, sanctions, penalties, morals and shame is the needy lie that makes humans confused about their own best interests (which are not served via Self-less imposition on other humans > on Humanity > on oneself).
I don't care for the word because it triggers negative emotive associations, but Utopia is nothing but pure Selfishness. The idea that someone should do something for you is a Self-less corruption. Though it is horrifying that mothers snap the free will of children to make them slaves who suffer to please, women will never be taught by force nor learn to lean on themselves by having their malice restricted. Power will always be on the side of imposition, because power needs to 'persuade' (might is Right, or else). To want power is to be needy; you cannot need and simultaneously Know Best.
Humans must learn how to be Selfish, to lean on themselves, to shun dependency. Women aren't happy or they wouldn't be haters. Work and school are only ever a drag when you're being compelled to do it to please someone else. Everyone must stop compelling others. Everyone must live free from need. If you are in need, you must make the case for why your existence should want to be sustained (investment, or whatever). To impose your Self-less existence on others is evil.
There is never a need for force. It sends the wrong message to humans. Punishment tells those who have acted in a Self-less manner that their actions were in their best interests; but killing, raping, violently assaulting, deceitful dealing, etc - this is whore logic. They are malicious because they're needy. The crimes of passion inflicted by their children are the product of their need to be loved.
Children cannot be taught how to life a Good life by those who need them. They don't have a clue; how could they? They're blinded by need. Children must be persuaded with logic to live Selfishly and then they will have no need (nor desire) to lean on others, to restrict them, to rely on them, to need them. If children were not needed by those who bred them, there would only be a desire for Happiness. You cannot care for others unless you have no need for them. To imagine otherwise is to lie / be in denial / evil.
"No one saves us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path."_________________
- the Buddha
nb. I wonder if empathy is a corrupted emotion...it's debilitating and suspiciously exploitable. It's needy and a source of suffering. Empathy = emotional degradation?
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
June 6, 2013 9:16 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Groups are pretty much always more powerful than individuals. This is why your philosophy is irrelevant in a world where power matters. And group competition produces group selection; and group selection creates (through evolution) loyalty, altruism, self-sacrifice and such tendencies in humans.
You're mistaking symbiosis for paratism. If someone wants to be with a woman rather than alone, then that's symbiosis regardless of how that desire was produced. But it was produced naturally, and it's a natural instinct for straight men.
You're blaming women, but you should be "blaming" a bigger woman than that: Mother Nature.
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
June 6, 2013 12:36 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
America made its biggest contribution to defeating the Third Reich by supporting the Soviet Union with Lend Lease and earlier material support. Without this support, the Soviet Union would never have been able to mount a counter strike -- they wouldn't have had the trucks and tanks for it.
What are you babbling about? Either you're illiterate or you didn't read what I wrote. The Third Reich didn't build itself. Once you understand that, you won't care about how it was defeated. I'm telling you the evidence exists in the public domain but it isn't even needed because my logic is pure enough for even a child to understand.
They didn't enforce the Treaty of Versailles.
With that single piece of information, a logical mind that valued truth would be able to intelligently map out the reality of what occurred; a reality I'm telling you there is evidence for which isn't controversial or disputed.
Western capitalists in partnership with German industrialists (who should have had their profits from WWI appropriated in the way Renault's was after WWII but were allowed to keep their wealth and what remained from their industrial empires) together rebuilt a broken, destroyed nation that signed an unconditional surrender in 1918 into an economic, military and industrial power that took on the entire world in 1939. The greatest military force the world had ever seen.
And not one mention of the Treaty of Versailles.
It's not going to be published but I swear, this vassal world's obsession with Power's publishing houses...did your Mommy tell you that they could be relied upon for the truth?
And that you didn't have to use your mind ANY more!
How can you learn anything if truth and evidence cannot shift your perception? I want to talk with you about synchronicity but how I can take you seriously when you're entrenched in lies and truth cannot dig you out?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 6, 2013 1:28 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Dude, I've changed my mind about every imaginable topic under the sun at least a couple of times during my short life, due to being exposed to new information or experiencing something new and being forced to reconsider my earlier ideas.
As for you, you sound like you bought the first popular conspiracy theory about the Nazi Germany and the origins of the war, were then satisfied with yourself for being some sort of contrarian in your own mind and never bothered to read real history.
I've heard your point of view expressed many times before, and it's one that doesn't interest me because it's based on a vast ignorance about basically everything that has happened in the past thousand years.
READ AJP TAYLOR IF YOU WANT TO LEARN SOMETHING. PERIOD.
No, seriously. Are you expecting me to paraphrase the whole book to you? Or that I should be more impressed by your superficial rhetoric than the deep investigations of a serious historian? What is wrong with you?
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
June 6, 2013 1:40 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Last night after I finished my shift at the factory, I selected a $5 scratch off card from the lotto box at a convenience store with a poorly designed parking lot and won $20. So I went back this morning and selected four more of the same $5 card. You can win $15k on this card.
I then won $60. I went back into the store and selected the next 12 cards of this game. I won $15. I then went back and selected the next 3 cards of this game. I won zero. I then went home.
Altogether this morning, I had selected 19 of the same $5 card in a row and didn't win the big prize or a lesser, yet still worthy, sum.
However, I will keep trying to win. I will never give up. I was not selected to be a loser, the card was selected...by an anonymous algorithm created most likely six to sixteen months before I was born and first produced on paper by an autistic individual during the Iran-Contra years (pre-scandal hearings) who probably was not paid very much for his or her contribution, comparitively. And wasn't it John Portman who said 'it is through accomplishment that man makes his contribution and contribution is life's greatest reward'?
Anyway, the point is, the card is the rube and if we're talking architects, wasn't it Max Bill who said 'I made the first Moebius strip without knowing what it was'?
All that matters right now is that soon I will select a scratch off card that will reveal a large sum of money that will belong to me. Most of that money will then, most likely, very soon after be transferred to governments and corporations that hold debt bearing a social security number attached to my birth name. The rest will go to an auto repair shop of my choosing, family members in need or want of my choosing, ex and current lovers in need or want of my choosing, and a few consumer goods corporations of my choosing. Do you want to know why I will do all this? Because I am a hero. I was a hero the day I was born.
Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
June 6, 2013 2:31 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Groups are pretty much always more powerful than individuals. This is why your philosophy is irrelevant in a world where power matters.
In a world where might is right, there will no world before long. It's cannibalistic psychotic insanity. From the moment power saw opportunity where there wasn't any to prepare for war (leaching) rather than peace (utopia), the die was cast. It's M.A.D.
Why produce anything of value or use; why contribute at all if power can just come along and take it? Everyone will be leeching. Only the deceived keep on plugging along.
I was a commissioned military officer for chrissake, a star graduate of ADFA (military academy); I don't need you to explain to me why armies of Self-less Christian slaves desperate to impress will defeat individuals happily living with Self, preparing for peace, trading with other humans in Selfish mutual advantage. I know what the leeches have done and are doing. I know why the US spends $700 billion / annum (not including war expenditure, $60 trillion for Afghanistan and Iraq) on weapons of destructive leaching but balks at paying the teachers of the children they're exploiting. I'm telling you this is the problem.
Jesus beats Buddha but only Buddha can win. Why the hell are humans fighting humans in the first place? For the same reason we've been fighting since; misogyny. All the need comes from somewhere; here is where it is coming from. Women who embrace misogyny want to be carried. If they were neutral deadweight, it'd be fine. But they're not. They reduce.
If someone wants to be with a woman rather than alone, then that's symbiosis regardless of how that desire was produced. But it was produced naturally, and it's a natural instinct for straight men.
The need to not be alone, the gaping black hole; the need to impress the worthless chattel? This is not biological need; this is the product of mothers taking aim at children's Self, to erode it and make them suffer to please and die to impress.
The need for marriage is a lie of misogyny. If it was biologically true, there would be no need to bind slaves to their leeches. The need felt by men that want to marry is conditioning and it's identical to the need felt by kamikaze pilots to kill themselves.
They're dying to impress. This is not biological, you nitwit.
As far as attraction goes, I can't say it better than it's been said but you refuse to accept the (painted) truth. Laura said it perfectly earlier.<
Comments