I can't imagine Jeb being President. He wants to flood the country with Third Worlders.
I despise the whole stupid, inbred, traitorous family and have for many years.
I can't imagine Jeb being President. He wants to flood the country with Third Worlders.
I despise the whole stupid, inbred, traitorous family and have for many years.
Isn't two generations of imbeciles enough? As Presidents, both Bushes were smartasses and incompetent. Jeb doesn't appear to be a smartass, but he has Punchable Wimp Face. Mangina Face. I don't even want to look at him. And he's a traitor, saying that flooding the country with Third World anti-Americans was "love." No, it's hate - Jeb's hate for Americans and America.
When the Bushes got in, it made me pine for Clinton - and I couldn't stand him, either. He's a white trash serial rapist who should be in prison.
Hillary is a old, carpet-munching dyke (could she run Bill as Vice-President?). But she appears to be more competent than Jeb, in whom I see no competence at all.
And why is it Trump is attacking Jeb far more than Hillary? There must be a good reason for that.
I'd rather have a dyke in office rather than a wimp.
I said years ago the greasy, unattractive "Roosh" was a fraud and liar. Ditto "Roissy" (both he and "Roosh are second-rate grifters). As for "Vox Day," he's just naive.
Funny, isn't it, that "Roosh" is obsessed with beautiful European women, to the point he lies about them? What's wrong with his own ethnic group - the one with bags over their heads? (I had a friend of mine raised in Saudi Arabia and he said the women reach their peak at 14.) I used to live around some and the women were hideous - they looked more like ugly men that women.
This article is from The Black Pill and I suggest you click on it to see pictures of women "Roosh" said he did but they said he didn't.
Roosh Never Got Laid In Ukraine
Roosh went to the Ukraine where he supposedly got laid using game and wrote a book about it. Roosh was interviewed on a Ukrainian TV show, and they exposed Roosh as a fraud. In some ways it was as bad as Roosh’s appearance on the Dr. Oz show. (Roosh clearly needs to stop appearing on TV for his own good.) While watching this video, make sure closed captioning in on to see subtitles in English.
Starting at 5:00, the host of the TV show brings in two women that Roosh allegedly met and banged while in the Ukraine. Roosh had pictures of them on his website. Neither woman knew who Roosh was. One of the women said that she was going to sue Roosh for using pictures of her without her permission. The TV show actually did find a woman who had met Roosh. This woman was not interested in him, but Roosh spent a whole lot of time chasing her. Roosh denied knowing her.
The TV show also brought out the man that Roosh stayed with while he was in the Ukraine. Roosh lied to this man by telling him that he was doing research on nightclubs for his employer. This man also confirmed that Roosh always struck out with women while he was in the Ukraine.
If you have been wondering why it costs Roosh $6500 each time he gets laid, Roosh’s appearance on this TV show proves why. Roosh is rarely getting laid, and the stories of him getting laid in his books are all or nearly all fiction.
Foreword: This piece is directly related to the previous two articles titled "You're Such a Tool!" and "Rites of Passage - Making Boys into Men". To fully understand the significance of the following concepts, those articles must be taken into account. (While this article can stand alone, it is also the "climax" of a three part series - which is part of a chapter of a book. There's much more context to this article than what appears here by itself).
At first it may seem like an assault against your good senses to think of adult women as mere children or teenagers. How could they be? They go through life and mature just like men do, don’t they? Once they are thirty or forty, don’t they behave as adults just as thirty or forty year old men do? Actually, there is much evidence to the contrary. Perhaps men are so keen to believe that women mature the same as them (throughout their entire lives) because in the early stages of our lives, females do actually mature faster than males.
”The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and slower is it in reaching maturity. Man reaches the maturity of his reasoning and mental faculties scarcely before he is eight and twenty; woman when she is eighteen; but hers is a reason of very narrow limitations. This is why women remain children all their lives, for they always see only what is near at hand, cling to the present, take the appearance of a thing for reality, and prefer trifling things to the most important.” -- Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women (1851)
The reason why females mature faster than men is not some particular triumph for them, despite how women seem to enjoy throwing this little tidbit of information around. As I described in my piece "You're Such a Tool", what it really has to do with is women being the biological bearers and caretakers of children. They mature faster than males because once they become fertile after puberty, they must also have the mental capacity to care for the children they might bear. Nowhere in nature is there a female organism that is capable of giving birth to offspring which is not also developed enough yet to care for the offspring. This not only manifests itself in hips capable of giving birth and breasts able to produce milk, but also in a mental maturation that enables them to provide basic childcare. You will notice as well, even in our present society, it is when girls reach around the age of twelve that they begin taking up babysitting and it is around puberty when adults begin entrusting young girls to care for infants alone. This merely coincides with female biology, as it is also at that age when girls become physically capable of bearing children, and their mental maturity matches their biological maturity.
The difference between men and women in maturity, however, is that while females mature earlier in life, they also stop maturing at around the age of eighteen, as Schopenhauer aptly observes. And while men don’t catch up to women’s maturity until they reach around age twenty-eight, after that the men keep maturing - often throughout their entire lives. William James describes the same process of maturation in Principles of Psychology, where he states:
"We observe an identical difference between men as a whole and women as a whole. A young woman of twenty reacts with intuitive promptitude and security in all the usual circumstances in which she may be placed. Her likes and dislikes are formed; her opinions, to a great extent, the same that they will be through life. Her character is, in fact, finished in its essentials. How inferior to her is a boy of twenty in all these respects! His character is still gelatinous, uncertain what shape to assume, "trying it on" in every direction. Feeling his power, yet ignorant of the manner in which he shall express it, he is, when compared with his sister, a being of no definite contour. But this absence of prompt tendency in his brain to set into particular modes is the very condition which insures that it shall ultimately become so much more efficient than the woman's. The very lack of preappointed trains of thought is the ground on which general principles and heads of classification grow up; and the masculine brain deals with new and complex matter indirectly by means of these, in a manner which the feminine method of direct intuition, admirably and rapidly as it performs within its limits, can vainly hope to cope with." -- William James, Principles of Psychology
It becomes like comparing three-month fermented wine served in a box of Chateau Cardboard to single malt scotch aged for decades in an oak cask. As such, women do mature faster than males but stop maturing at around the mentality of an eighteen year old (or also, I suppose, to the maturity of a 28 year old man), leaving the woman as literally, the most responsible teenager in the house.
It is interesting to note as well how many men claim that it is at around age 27 or 28 that they begin to “figure things out” in regard to women, or at least much more so than they did earlier in life.
”Women are directly adapted to act as the nurses and educators of our early childhood, for the simple reason that they themselves are childish, and foolish, and shortsighted – in a word, are big children all their lives, something intermediate between the child and the man, who is a man in the strictest sense of the word. Consider how a young girl will toy day after day with a child, dance with it and sing to it; and then consider what a man, with the very best of intentions, could do in her place.” -- Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women (1851)
The reason why women stop maturing at around the age of eighteen also has to do with their biological destiny as child-bearers and caretakers of children. As Schopenhauer notes, women can toy and coo with a child all day long and seemingly enjoy themselves, while what could a man do in their place? Women, as they are wont to brag to us, are also more “emotionally tuned-in” than men are. Women’s emotional proclivities are directly related to her child-rearing duties which biology has assigned to her. Babies, for example, communicate solely through emotion and even as children grow into toddlers and then children that communicate with words and language, a lot of their communication is still through emotion, and so women are at an intermediate stage of development between that of a child and an adult man, or in other words, they are teenagers.
Furthermore, in regard to women’s emotional state, it ought to be noted that one cannot be emotional and rational at the same time, so it is not that females are both more emotionally in-tune while remaining rationally above it all. Just the opposite is true. The more you “emote,” the less you “think.” Take someone suffering from road-rage, for example. The emotions of anger so cloud the driver’s brain that he can even unthinkingly commit acts of violence, only to deeply regret it later when his emotions have subsided. As women are generally in a much more emotional state of mind than men, so do they not use reason and rationality to guide themselves as much as men do.
What’s Mine is Mine and What’s Yours is Ours
What husband doesn’t come to understand this is the true nature of marriage after a time? But ultimately, is this not merely the same attitude that teenagers take within the family?
Think about how a teenager refers to the family sedan, which the parents paid for, as our car. But the i-pod which he purchased with money he earned part-time at McDonald's is his i-pod. Is not the teenager’s/child’s default that his parent’s possessions are “ours” while those possessions he purchased with money he earned himself are “his,” and his alone? This directly mimics even my own parent’s marriage, where my father worked his entire lifetime to pay the bills for the family and put a roof over our heads, but when the kids were off to school and my mom took up working, the money she earned doing so was “her money.” It did not go into the family pot as my father’s income did, but became her own “special money” in almost the same way that a child’s allowance or earnings are “his money.”
(Right Now I Feel Like)...
Perhaps you have heard the old saying, “It’s a woman’s prerogative to change her mind…” This is something we usually write off as a cute quirk of female behaviour (even though it often causes untold damage to others), but think for a moment how this resembles the behaviour of children & teenagers. Ask a child what they want to be when they grow up and they will tell you “a fireman,” then ask them a week later and they will say “an astronaut.” Young people will do this right through high-school and on into university where they almost assuredly will change their major at least once, not to mention that after getting their degree, the odds are there will be more changes in their plans once again.
If I were a parent who had a teenager that told me they wanted to be a doctor in the future, I would do well to insert the phrase “Right now I feel like (I want to be a doctor),” in front of every choice the teenager has claimed they made. Certainly, I wouldn’t 100% take them at their word and start depleting my resources in an attempt to help them become a doctor, because in a month or two, the teen will tell me they no longer want to be a doctor but have decided on the career path of Famous Rock Star instead.
One of the sad facts of entering adulthood is that you are forced to make choices which you must stick to in order to be successful in your ventures. The person who decides early to stick to a career as an auto-mechanic will likely be much more successful in life than his peer who spends age 18 to 24 pursuing a career as psychologist, then quits and spends another 6 years attempting a career as an electrician, only to quit again to gain qualification as an accountant. Part of “adulthood” is about making choices that you stick to for the long term, so that those ventures have enough time to bear fruit. Those who change their minds too often rarely harvest the fruits of their labour. In other words, making a choice to go in one direction often closes the door to other choices. We allow children the latitude to change their minds as they grow-up, but after a time we start to insist they make a choice and stick to it.
Women as well change their minds like teenagers do. Sure, she might decide that (right now she feels like) she wants to be a doctor, but as evidence has shown in the medical profession, most women who train to be doctors spend less than a decade working full-time in said profession before quitting and deciding that (right now she feels like) she wants to be a mother. Afterwards, most of these women decide that (right now she feels like) she only wants to work as a part-time doctor. Of course, as time goes on, she has less and less experience than the male doctor who never “took a break” to explore other choices life had to offer and he quickly outpaces her in that field, even without the Patriarchy conspiring behind the scenes to hold her back.
When a woman tells you she will love you forever, insert the phrase (Right now I feel like) before it, so you get the proper translation into Womanese: “(Right now I feel like) I will love you forever. All evidence shows that this should include vows made at the altar as well, since the vast majority of divorces are initiated by women rather than men.
Q: “Do you take this man as your lawful wedded husband, to have and to hold until death do you part?” A: “(Right now I feel like) I do!”
Sure women stick to their choices better than children do, but they don’t do it as well as men do either. In other words, women’s behaviour exists somewhere in between the child and the man… kinda like a teenager.
Women’s Fitness-Tests are Similar to the Boundaries Which Children Seek
Anyone who has raised children knows that children seek boundaries and are happiest when they find such boundaries exist and understand there are consequences when they cross them. A child who does not have boundaries set by his parents will in the short term get his way, but will ultimately come to resent everything around him and become miserable.
Women are not much different. They will instinctively fitness-test a man with all kinds of irrational and basically abusive behaviour, to test the steel content of his balls by his ability to pass such tests and not put up with her crap. If the man passes her tests, she calms down and is content to live within the boundaries of behaviour which he sets for her. Once she knows there are boundaries and her man is willing to enforce them, she knows that her man is a capable provider and protector and she can relax and feel confident following his lead.
The behaviour of children seeking boundaries set for them by their parents and the fitness-testing behaviour of women with their lovers is remarkably similar.
Men Love Women, Women Love Children, and Children Love Puppies
There is an “order” to how love works and the order works only in one direction. You can see hints to this in the Bible, where husbands are commanded to love their wives while wives are commanded to “honour” their husbands in return. Children as well are commanded to honour their parents. Love is a hierarchal beast that descends downward. The only way it works in reverse is via honour and respect, because the reciprocal “love” is never equal.
A child will never love its parents in the same fashion that parents will love their child. You will readily see parents willing to sacrifice for their children – sometimes with their very lives – but rarely will you see the same in reverse. In fact, even in society as a whole, we consider it to be “the right thing” when a father or a mother sacrifices their life in order to save the life of their child. The whole of raising children to adulthood involves enormous sacrifice on the part of the parents in the form of time, frustration, freely giving resources, the denial of the parent’s dreams, and so forth. It is never returned to the parents on an equal basis, not even when the child reaches adulthood, for by that time the child will likely have children of his own to whom he bestows most of his love upon. Although having children is a one-way-street of parents sacrificing for the betterment of their child, they are still instinctively compelled to do so even though, rationally speaking, it is not in the best interests of the parents. What parents can expect in return is that their children honour them and respect them for their sacrifices – but their love will never equal that which their parents have for them. It is just not part of the natural order of life.
In the same way, a woman’s love for a man will never be equal to a man’s love for a woman. The natural order and a woman’s hypergamous nature dictate that the man must be on a “higher level” than the woman. A man can love a woman just as a woman can love a child, but the reciprocal love is returned only in the form of honour and respect. Just as a child instinctively expects its parents to take care of them, so does a woman instinctively expect her man to take care of her. It is a one-way street. A woman will never be able to equally return a man’s love for her. At best, she can honour and respect him for what he does for her.
In fact, in the form of romantic love, you will find that women are not so much in love with the man as an individual person, but rather they are in love with the relationship. The man is merely a role-player and is easily replaced by another taking on the role. If any man expects to be an “equal partner” with his wife, he will soon find his woman disrespecting him and seeking out a man who is decidedly not her equal to lead her.
"They are the sexus sequior, the second sex in every respect, therefore their weaknesses should be spared, but to treat women with extreme reverence is ridiculous, and lowers us in their own eyes. When nature divided the human race into two parts, she did not cut it exactly through the middle! The difference between the positive and negative poles, according to polarity, is not merely qualitative but also quantitative. And it was in this light that the ancients and people of the East regarded woman; they recognised her true position better than we, with our old French ideas of gallantry and absurd veneration, that highest product of Christian-Teutonic stupidity. These ideas have only served to make them arrogant and imperious, to such an extent as to remind one at times of the holy apes in Benares, who, in the consciousness of their holiness and inviolability, think they can do anything and everything they please." -- Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women (1851)
You cannot expect a woman to be your true confidant, your soul-mate, and your respite to lean upon during the stormy times in life. That is your role for her benefit. It does not work in reverse, for as soon as you believe it can work that way, she will lose confidence in your ability to lead her and begin to resent you. She will go about illustrating her resentment by making your life as miserable as she possibly can. This may be one of the hardest lessons for a man to learn in life because it turns the whole notion of modern love as an equal give-and-take relationship upon its ear. The implications can be rather depressing, as it means that on a certain level a man will always be alone. A parent who expects their child to also be their equal friend to lean upon for support, will also find himself sorely disappointed with the results. The child instinctively expects the parents to be superior and to cater to his needs. Expecting the reverse will only result in a resentful child and a heartbroken parent. The same order must be maintained between a man and a woman, lest she become resentful and seek out a man who actually will lead her.
The Terrible Twos
”If one looks around at today's culture and takes note of all the destructive effects of the female attitude of entitlement, then went on to devise social controls which would prevent such destructive effects in the future, I think you would end up with social values very much like the ones currently labeled "patriarchal."
Rather than viewing feminism as "conditioning" women to behave in completely self-centered ways, I see it more as a case of feminism regarding the socialization process which countered the natural tendency of all organisms toward selfishness - as "oppression."
Every parent who has had daily involvement in raising a child is familiar with the stage called "the terrible twos." This is the stage during which the naturally selfish infant is forced to come to terms with the fact that their desires will not always be met and their will won't always prevail. I have no doubt that if the child were able to express what it knows in its "special infantile way of knowing", that it would consider the imposition of external values on it to be "oppression."
The vast majority of women I have met have seemed to be stuck emotionally at about age two. Any frustration of their desires would result in a tantrum. In many cases these were more subtle than throwing herself on the floor and thrashing around, but it was a tantrum nonetheless. So, rather than saying that feminism "conditioned" women to behave in an immature, selfish, and totally self-centered fashion, I would describe it as feminism destroying the social value system and the process of conditioning women out of their infantile and narcissistic world view.” -- The Wisdom of Zenpriest
Your Bratty Little Sister
"... Women, then, are only children of a larger growth; … A man of sense only trifles with them, plays with them, humors and flatters them, as he does with a sprightly forward child; but he neither consults them about, nor trusts them with serious matters; though he often makes them believe that he does both; which is the thing in the world they are most proud of; for they love mightily to be dabbling in business (which by the way they always spoil); and being justly distrustful that men in general look upon them in a trifling light, they almost adore that man who talks more seriously to them, and who seems to consult and trust them; I say, who seems; for weak men really do, but wise ones only seem to do it. ..." -- Lord Chesterfield, Letter to His Son (1748)
In the sense of seduction, a man is well advised to treat a woman as if she were his bratty little sister:
"…The more you patronizingly treat women like bratty kid sisters, the more their vaj takes over their critical thinking skills. It all harkens back to the one fundamental principle guiding male-female relations: Chicks love submitting to powerful men. And what is a bigger demonstration of male sexual power than believing that a woman is so far beneath you that she is the equivalent of a child, hardly deserving of a serious answer or an emotional investment?
So what does “everything she does is cute” mean in practice? It means not getting riled up when she tests you. It means not explaining yourself when she stamps her wee feet and wags a finger at you. It means never acting apologetic when she’s upset with some mysterious infraction you’ve committed. Keep in mind that when a woman gets upset, at least half the time she’s not really upset with whatever misdemeanor she’s accusing you of; she’s just upset that your behavior caused a temporary reversal of gina tingle induction.
The “everything she does is cute” game tactic is defined more precisely as an inner game refinement. When you start thinking of women as adorable brats who know not what they do, you start treating them in ways consistent with your beliefs. With enough reprogramming in the right direction (i.e. kicking the supports out from under her pedestal), soon the words coming out of your mouth will be effortless verbal expressions of what you actually feel. And therein lies the secret to being a natural — naturals truly believe the charmingly jerkoff things they say to women.” -- Chateau Heartiste
(Also see "Lesson Thirteen: Charm is Treating Women Like Little Girls" -- The Book of Pook)
Despite what most relationship “experts” try to tell you, the key to a successful relationship is not about open, honest communication.
It is true, there must be a form of “mutual respect,” but the respect cannot be equal in all ways. A parent can respect a child and respect the child’s needs, but for a parent to treat the child as an equal would be a grave mistake. In a similar way, a man can respect a woman, but if he deems to treat her as his equal, she will soon come to resent him and leave to seek a man who actually portrays himself as superior – as a leader – to her. She seeks this instinctively. She is like water seeking a strong man to act as the container which will shape her "truths." In the realm of seduction, a woman also seeks out a man who is able to behave in a superior fashion to her, so even if you are not yet convinced that women are as mere children but only of a larger growth, you would be well advised to treat her as one if only from the standpoint of keeping her romantically interested in you.
When a man marries a woman, he doubles his duties while halving his rights. This was true even in the days of Marriage 1.0. It is a large responsibility involving much effort to take on a wife, just as it is for one to take on raising children. You cannot expect children, or women, to fulfill your needs for emotional intimacy nor to be “someone to lean on” during times of strife. Just the opposite, for that is your duty as a parent and also as a husband.
Most of our modern laws, and nearly all of the “experts” in the social sciences, have done everything they possibly can to undermine a man’s ability to properly “husband” his wife. The current state of affairs completely upsets the natural hierarchy between man and woman. In the same way that it would be nearly impossible for parents to properly raise children if the government passed a plethora of laws deconstructing parent’s natural roles and restricting them from setting boundaries for children, so it is increasingly difficult for a man to properly fulfill his leadership role that women instinctively seek and need. When children have legal authority over their parents, chaos will ensue, just as in Marriage 2.0 where women hold supremacy over the husbands, the practice of matrimony will only harm and bring resentment to all parties involved, making one ill-advised to seek such an arrangement in life.
“Feminism starts out being very simple. It starts out being the instinct of a little child who says ‘it’s not fair’ and ‘you are not the boss of me,’ and it ends up being a worldview that questions hierarchy altogether.” -- Gloria Steinem, in the two hour HBO special on the life of Gloria Steinem entitled, "Gloria: In Her Own Words."
An addition to this article': I kind of get a kick watching this article get linked to on Reddit. It causes quite a bit of controversy and has a lot of people pretty angry, especially women. Some of their arguments are pretty silly though. The most glaring one is people calling what Schopenhauer says as "science from the 1850's." Umm, Schopenhauer is a philosopher, not a scientist. Learn the difference.
Your Friendly, Neighbourhood Social Justice Warrior!
Also, there is one ridiculous person in there (who goes to every reddit around to repeatedly complain about this article - for over a year now!) who continually points out that I linked to Angry Harry, "who is just another blogger like me," and points out that AH's "source" for "the more you emote, the less you think" is the Daily Mail. She does not point out, however, that the Daily Mail's article she is referring to is cited by "peer reviewed research," done by a feminist, no less, and Angry Harry merely read the research and translated what she said. Furthermore, Angry Harry has multiple degrees, a Ph D. in Psychology and the others I believe are related to childhood education - making him extremely qualified to critique the research and comment on what it means. Angry Harry often has written about how the school system has been rejigged to favour girls over boys, and it is his area of expertise to note the different brain functions of the sexes.
Further, you will quickly see how angry women get about this discussion, but not men - except for the manginas and white knights trying curry favour and approval from anonymous females on the internet with whom they have absolutely no chance of getting sex from - yet they still feel compelled to grovel like servile worms in front of them. My goodness, I half expect that if women gave those men a dull, rusty pocketknife, they would castrate themselves to gain the ladies' approval. But, to note, I have not yet seen one single man get angry that this article blatantly suggests men are more immature than women from pretty much the age of 12 to 28. (It also says males are valued less than females in society). I mean, no teenage boy nor man in his twenties takes any offense whatsoever to the suggestion that they are not as mature as their female peers, yet women and their enablers are having virtual heart-attacks over the suggestion that men may have some kind of advantage over females - somewhere.
“Men are not troubled to hear a man dispraised, because they know, though he be naught, there's worth in others; but women are mightily troubled to hear any of them spoken against, as if the sex itself were guilty of some unworthiness.” – John Seldon (1584-1654)
And, to note, it is virtually accepted scientifically that girls do, indeed, mature faster than boys, both physically and mentally. (Which already proves the male and female brain are not the same). Physically, for example, in puberty girls mature faster than boys in such things as height. But as we all know, while boys start their growth spurt later than girls, boys grow to be significantly taller than girls. Furthermore, males also do not fully fill-out muscularly until they reach their late twenties. However, an 18 year old female is pretty much at her peak of physical development at that age, and by her late twenties is beginning to decline.
As such, those who are angry at this article are, on the one hand, acknowledging the superiority of women (they mature faster than boys) but then complaining - screeching like children actually - that there is some advantage which males will gain later in life. In other words, they are trying to show the superiority of the female brain, not its equality. If a female brain matures faster than a male's, and also, ends up having no disadvantages but only (at the minimum) equality with the male brain thereafter, then it is quite obvious that they are claiming the female brain is superior to the male brain, because if it matures faster, and is also in every way just as capable, then it is superior because it only has advantages, but not corresponding disadvantages. This reminds me of a verse from Angry Harry's marvelous poem, If I Only Had a V:
If I only had a V
I would use it expertly
To generate equality
That somehow always favours me
Boy, I wonder how loud the childish squealing would get if I pointed out other philosophers and writers from the past who argued things such as women's height being between that of a child and a man, or that their facial features and skin are intermediate between a child's and a man's...
As someone who grew up through the brunt of feminism's sickness in the 1970's, 80's and 90's, I cannot begin to tell you how many times I have heard of the superiority of the female brain's multi-tasking abilities. "Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah," the females taunted, from teenagers to old women to fat orca's with TV talk shows. (They are still doing it today in their "A Woman's Nation" and "End of Men" articles). Never once has it been acceptable to point out that men's linear thinking brain is the one that is capable of intense and deep concentration, precisely because it does not multi-task, and thus why virtually all of the world's inventions with more than two moving parts have come from the hands of men, plus the majority of great musicians, artists, philosophers and so on. Women's multi-tasking brains are like the phrase "a jack of all trades, but master of none." It helps them do other tasks while also tending to children. (Most women spent the majority of their entire adult lives either pregnant or caring for their children until very recently in human history). For every advantage there is a disadvantage. For every cloud, there is a silver lining. A Ferrari would be a scream for Sunday afternoon drives, but when Monday morning comes around and you need to Shut Up and Shovel the Fuckin' Gravel, you'd probably rather have an old pick-up truck.
The Hard-Wired Difference Between Male and Female Brains Could Explain Why Men Are Better At Map Reading - Researchers found that many of the connections in a typical male brain run between the front and the back of the same side of the brain, whereas in women the connections are more likely to run from side to side between the left and right hemispheres of the brain. This difference in the way the nerve connections in the brain are “hardwired” occurs during adolescence when many of the secondary sexual characteristics such as facial hair in men and breasts in women develop under the influence of sex hormones, the study found. The researchers believe the physical differences between the two sexes in the way the brain is hardwired could play an important role in understanding why men are in general better at spatial tasks involving muscle control while women are better at verbal tasks involving memory and intuition.
...Because the female connections link the left hemisphere, which is associated with logical thinking, with the right, which is linked with intuition, this could help to explain why women tend to do better than men at intuitive tasks, she added. “Intuition is thinking without thinking. It's what people call gut feelings. Women tend to be better than men at these kinds of skill which are linked with being good mothers,” Professor Verma said.
(Note that male brains run front to back, thus not crossing logic with emotion as with women).
"The never-ending task of finishing himself, of transcending the limits of his physical being, is the powerhouse of man's creativeness..." - Eric Hoffer
All religions agree that humans are imperfect (at least the ones I am familiar with). You might even say that people are unfinished. I find the whole thing very odd indeed.
If one believes in evolution, why did it suddenly stop and leave people unfinished? (Those who claim people are "still evolving" don't know the difference between macro and micro "evolution.") If you believe in God, same thing. Hence, for Christians, "orginal sin" explains the fact we are imperfect.
There are various "cures" for being unfinished. For fundamentalists, "getting saved." For Eastern religions, becoming "enlightened." Yet, still, for all that, people remain unfinished.
Leftism, one of the sickest (if not the sickest) belief-systems ever created, believed that with education and the proper upbringing people would become god-like. That didn't work at all and led to the deaths of hundreds of millions (this is what happens when you give unlimited political power to the most imperfect people of all - those who lust after political power).
Even science believes people are unfinished, with the cure being genetic engineering (which, along with nanotechnology and designer drugs, might turn us into the Borg).
Our unfinished state is what drives us to try and better ourselves. It's the purpose of drug use, of political science, of economics, of psychology, of science and technology, of religion.
When I was a little kid I saw an episode of the original "Outer Limits," in which David McCallum was a Welsh miner who decided to undergo "evolution," courtesy of a machine with lots of knobs and dials. He came out the other end with a huge bald brainiac head with pointy ears and six fingers on each hand. That didn't work out as expected and he decided to go back to his original state. The episode's name? "The Sixth Finger."
Rose Wilder Lane, author of The Discovery of Freedom (and the daughter of Laura Ingalls Wilder, she of the Little House on the Prairie books, once said she wanted to be immortal so she could observe what people turned into. I'd probably prefer Brigadoon, which appeared to the outside world once every hundred years (only one night passed in Brigadoon), so if I didn't like what I saw, I'd just go back to the Garden - I mean Brigadoon.
These days, science and technology are supposed to save us. Considering what it's given us, I understand the belief.
I used to read a lot of science fiction in-between 11 and 14, and all of it was dystopian. There was never a Utopia. The most famous novels - 1984, Brave New World - are dystopian. But all of them had to do with not only the conquest of nature, but more than anything else, of human nature.
Some have tried to perfect human nature through politics, that is, through force. The whole of the 20th century was pretty much about that, by the Stalins and Pol Pots and Hitlers.
Generally, the political solution to finishing people was to try to turn them into machines (the Borg Queen: "Why do you resist us? We only wish to improve the quality of your lives."), or back into unconscious animals (Stalin charged his scientists with trying to breed humans with chimpanzees, to create the greatest warriors ever).
The history of humans has been trying to overcome both nature and human nature. We're doing pretty good with overcoming nature but a terrible job with overcoming the imperfections in people.
There is a writer named Richard K. Morgan who has written novels in which people's consciousness is transferred into machines and artificial bodies (Scott Adams, he of Dilbert fame, believes this is going to happen in the coming decades). I understand the desire, to give up our imperfect bodies subject to pain and disease. I just don't think it's going to happen.
One of Arthur C. Clarke's most famous comments is that any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic. He has a point.
Again, in every religion and mythology with which I am familiar, there was originally a state of Paradise from which we fell. We're always trying to get back to it, for thousands of years through religion, recently through science and technology. We're always trying to return to Eden (Mark Vonnegut, Kurt's son, wrote one book about his schizophrenic break-down, the aptly-named - The Eden Express).
These original Paradise myths start with creation, Paradise, the fall from grace (often involving a flood and usually other catastrophes), then people trying to regain Paradise. Then, in the end, after horrendous catastrophes, they get there (think of the belief in "the Rapture").
The next few decades, when it comes to science and technology, are going to be interesting indeed.
Singularity, here we come! (Which, by the way, was predicted in Clarke's Childhood's End and 2001: a Space Odyssey.)
The story made its way into a movie a few years ago, called Idiocracy which never had much exposure but since has become something of a cult classic. These days everyone know of it.
Both the story and movie were cautionary tales, and I have no idea to what extent they might come true. But I’ll say this: there sure does seem to be an awful lot of fat ugly stupid people in this country (of every race), and the problem appears to be getting worse.
Smart educated people aren’t having that many children anymore, and we’re subsidizing the stupid with welfare. I’m lost count of the number of obese women I’ve seen at the grocery store, two ugly fat brats in her cart (loaded with Sugar Bombs candy/cereal) and at the checkout she swipes a food card.
And I’ll guarantee you she doesn’t have a job, but lives on welfare, in subsidized housing, with a medical card. Her husband might have some sort of seasonal job, like cutting grass, where he’s paid cash, under the table.
A lot of time that husband (usually skinny and ugly with an unkempt beard) has to ride a bicycle, since he’s so skinny because he’s a methhead and rides the bike because he lost his driver’s license.
The problem is made worse by the influx of Third Worlders into this country. The average IQ of anyone south of the border is 89, and the average African IQ is 70. The average IQ of the Third World is estimated to be 90. We’re letting these people into the United States? My God! This country is committing suicide!
Plus, the country is destroying its own people by putting little boys on Ritalin (the poster child for Ritalin was Kurt Cobain, who offed himself with a shotgun), and is now suffering from an explosion of fat kids with diabetes due to putting high fructose corn syrup and sugar in the food supply. Profits above all, I guess.
Then, of course, that combination of State/Big Corporations has exported all our high-paying jobs to foreign countries to lower wages and make more profit. At least for a while. Talk about short-sighted.
Someday all of this will come to a head, explode and then collapse. I just wonder when. I also wonder how the problem is going to be fixed
The anger in the United States is why Donald Trump is doing so well. No one other candidate is even talking about the problems. A crazy murderous old dyke like Hillary? A Punchable Wimp Face traitor like Jeb Bush? Hah!
Sooner or later both the Democratic and Republican parties will disappear. And this will be a good thing, because they don't represent the people anymore, just the people who pay and therefore own these whores.
You see that goofy movie poster over there on your left side? It's from the movie, The Colossus of New York, an obscure but not-that-bad black-and-white SF/horror film from the late ‘50’s (why it was playing at the movies six years after it came out I do not know). I keep that poster not only stored on my computer, but printed out and framed on my wall.
I’d better explain.
When I was barely five years old, my parents took my sister and me to the movies. Colossus was playing, although it took me a few decades and some people at the Internet Movie Database to identify the film.
I remember absolutely nothing about the movie except one thing. As I sat in the darkness of the movie theater, my feet dangling Robert-Reich-like above the floor, the Colossus appeared on a balcony on the right side of the screen.
Being five years old, I was probably less than three-feet-tall. Adults six-feet-tall appeared to me to be 12-feet-tall. The Colossus would have been, in real life, about seven-feet-tall, so, to me, he probably would have appeared to be about 14-feet-tall. On screen, he was roughly eight-feet-tall, making him, to me, about 16-feet-tall. As you can see, he was big, and added to that, a monster! A rather interesting and cool-looking monster, but still a monster.
After the camera showed the Colossus on the balcony on the right side of the screen, it panned to the screen's center. There was a cop standing there, pointing a revolver at the Colossus.
To this day, I remember everything just as vividly as is possible. The cop was wearing a double-breasted uniform, with a garrison cap. The revolver was one of the older .38s with a tapered barrel. His badge was on the left side of his chest. I even remember that.
The officer made a mistake pointing his revolver at the Colossus. As I watched, what I can only describe as Intergalactic Death Rays leaped from the Colossus' eyes, reached out to the cop, touched him. There was the electric sound of a very large June bug hitting the bug zapper. BZZZZT.
The cop glowed white and disappeared. Gone. Not pulverized, not vaporized, but atomized! Disintegrated into his component atoms, to waft away silently on the celluloid breeze. There was nothing left of the cop, not his cap lying pathetically on the floor, not his brave revolver waiting for another hero to grab it, not a pair of shoes with smoke coming out of them. Nothing.
My mouth dropped open. If I had had a box of Milk Duds and a Coke in my mitts, I would have dropped them. My eyebrows shot up. My eyes widened. I was speechless. I was fixated in brainlock, much like a paralyzed rabbit seeing a VW Bug coming at him and knowing he is going to put a dent in the hood and then sail in front of the windshield and disappear over the top of the car (that did happen to me and my Bug when I was 19).
I was awe-struck, the kind of awe you supposed to feel standing in front of God. At five years old, I had seen a man disintegrated by a 16-foot-tall monster who shot rays out of his eyes! What I saw was not within the experience of a five-year-old – it orbited somewhere out near Pluto! If you think such a scene won't permanently stamp your brain, imagine what it would do to you if you saw it in real life. And when you're five years old, it is difficult if not impossible to tell the difference between fantasy and reality.
A five-year-old will believe anything. Tell him he'll break his mother's back if he steps on a crack, or that the inside of golfballs are poison, or a tooth or a nail will dissolve in Coke, and he will believe it. I once told my four-and-five-year-old nephews the reason a guy I worked with didn't have a leg is because he was hunting bears, until all the bears got together and sent out the meanest one to fix the problem. Next thing I know, my nephews are telling all their friends bears can talk.
The next thing I remember about seeing the movie is the drive home. My parents were teasing my sister and me about the film, claiming the monster was from the moon and made of cheese. That is why, to this day, my sister and I refer to him as the Cheesemonster. All I have to do is say, "Cheesemonster" and she smiles.
That night, lying in bed, I happened to look in my doorway – and guess who was standing there? The Cheesemonster. He stood there, just as clear as he was on the screen (although a lot smaller), staring silently at me.
I wasn't particularly scared, although I certainly wanted him to stay in the doorway and not come any closer. Actually, I wanted him to go away. It wasn't as if I was going to leap out of bed, grab my hollow plastic sword and smack him upside the head. Not with those Death Rays of his. My parents would wonder why nothing was left of me, not even my Tony the Tiger pajamas.
As I lay there in bed, staring silently at this apparition staring silently at me, my four-year-old sister, in bed in her room, started screaming. She was shrieking, "CHEESEMONSTER! CHEESEMONSTER! CHEESEMONSTER!"
Hey, now wait just a minute here! Was my sister seeing him, too? This caused a perturbation in my five-year-old brain, much worse than merely seeing the Colossus in my doorway. This was one helluva glitch in the Matrix! I remember saying, "Dawn, do you see him too?" and getting the shrill answer, "My room! My room!"
At this time my father appeared in my doorway, wanting to know what the heck was going on!? (Unfortunately he wasn’t wearing anything, so he had one of his hands cupped over the frank and beans. Later, I always wanted to go into his room, pull the covers off of him, and say, "Wakey, wakey, hands off snakey!")
I found out something that mildly surprised me – the Cheesemonster was transparent, like one of those Honey Bear squirters without any honey in it. My dad was standing right where the Cheesemonster was, and I could see my dad through him. Just as surprising, the Cheesemonster took no notice of my dad. Or my dad of the Cheesemonster.
Finally, I suppose, my father got my sister calmed down, the Cheesemonster disappeared back to the moon or the reel of film he came from, and everyone went to sleep.
Years later, when my sister and I talked about that night, she swore she saw the Cheesemonster standing at the foot of her bed, whereas I saw him in my doorway. Oh boy. There were two of him? At least neither brought their Intergalactic Death Rays.
When I was about 19 I found out what my sister and I had that night were called "hypnagogic hallucinations." They tend to happen as people fall asleep. As to why my sister and I were sharing almost the exact same hallucination, I have no explanation. She swears she had them all the time when little, especially one about a man with a handlebar mustache walking down the hall toward her room. I tell her that if there had been three more, they could have sung her Barbershop Quartet songs.
The most famous hypnogogic hallucination is that of the German chemist Friedrich Kekule, who in 1890, saw, while falling asleep, a snake-like chain of atoms spinning in front of him. What he saw gave him the clue to the molecular structure of benzene, a problem which had stumped him.
Lesser known is the poet/artist William Blake seeing angels outside his window when he was five-years-old. He got paddled when he told his parents. Now either Blake was really seeing angels, or else was doing was I had been doing when I was five.
Mostly, when people imagine things, they see them inside their heads. Less often, they see them outside. Why do people sometimes see them outside? I don't know for sure, but I suspect when you cease to think, and outside sensory input is reduced, brainwaves change and some sort natural creativity pops up. Because of this, I do know that imagination, whether inside or outside your head, is so associated with creativity that the two cannot be disassociated. I guarantee you that 100 percent. And imagination, as Albert Einstein noted, is more important than knowledge.
Notice that Einstein didn't say that knowledge wasn't important, just that imagination comes first. Without imagination one does not know what to do with the knowledge. And Einstein certainly knew about the importance of imagination: he created the Theory of Relativity by imagining what it would be like to ride a beam of light.
Starting kindergarten pretty much put an end to imagination in any of us kids. It's one of the reasons I don't like public schools. Having an imagination, and using it correctly, is an indispensable part of an education. It's an indispensable part of the health of any society, because all societies are advanced by those who have both imagination and knowledge. However unwittingly they do it, I believe the sit/march/sit/march structure of the schools is not the proper way to deal with imaginative kids. If it was the right way, there would not be so many daydreaming kids in schools. Or drug use.
I occasionally run across people who have hypnagogic hallucinations. They always happen right as they fall asleep. I know of one man who uses them to write music. He said he could "hear voices saying things...could see images." I understand this, since even today, when falling asleep, I sometimes hear music. And they're not songs I've heard before; they are new ones, bubbling up out of my subconscious. They’re not very good, though – more like a drumming. There goes my career.)
I've decided the whole thing is a natural hallucinatory state, related to creativity. And I'll say this: who needs drugs when you've got something like this? Unfortunately, one of the main reasons people use drugs is to artificially create experiences which are already naturally within us.
The last time I had a hypnagogic hallucination was when I was 21. For about a year I had had sleep paralysis, which also happens when falling asleep. You're awake but can't move. The theory behind it is that when asleep people become paralyzed, otherwise they will sleepwalk.
Having had a girlfriend who once went into the kitchen and made six peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches, put them into Baggies, then stored them in the refrigerator, while talking the whole time, I understand why people shouldn't sleepwalk. I also knew a guy from high school who crawled out of his window and walked around on the roof.
One night, as I was about to fall asleep, I found myself paralyzed. I was so used to it I didn't even pay any attention. This time, though, I began to hallucinate. First, I heard a woman's highheels clicking on the sidewalk outside my window. Then, she began to speak in English, only I couldn't understand her. That's when I realized I was hallucinating.
You might think that under such circumstances, your mind might not be clear. On the contrary – I was as awake and lucid as I could be. Things felt as real as could be, even though I was fully aware that what was happening wasn't real.
Then things got even more interesting. I was lying on my stomach, with no shirt on. I suddenly heard a buzzing sound above me. It sounded like a football-sized bee. I even felt the wind from its wings blowing across my back. Not only an auditory, but a tactile hallucination.
Even though I knew the whole thing was imaginary, and that I was imagining it outside my head instead of inside, I decided I had had enough. Before, I had always been able to overcome this paralysis by trying to rock back and forth. It worked this time, too, and the bee and the wind faded away.
I sat up in bed, and I felt as awake and clear and alive as I had ever felt in my life. As I said, who needs drugs when you've got this?
You may find these experiences strange. Having had them, I know they're not. I also know that when an imaginative person has knowledge and control, that's when true creativity takes place. That's what advances societies.
Stephen King, who was said he lives mostly within his imagination, wrote in the introduction to Nightmares and Dreamscapes, that his imagination "made for more than a few sleepless nights, but it also filled the world I lived in with colors and textures I would not have traded for a lifetime of restful nights...there are people in the world – too many of them, actually – whose imaginative senses were either numb or completely deadened, and who lived in a mental state akin to colorblindness. I always felt sorry for them..."
I know what he means.