The hate and hypocrcisy of Jess Zimmerman

The Twitter account of Jess Zimmerman with the handle of @j_zimms who is so oppressed and so voiceless that she can have articles published by Time Magazine. Faux Pas victimhood indeed. This is her banner for her Twitter Account.

So for balance I created this image below. Please feel free to steal it and use it as you see fit.

Her Time Magazine article is at Not All Men: A Brief History of Every Dude's Favorite Argument

Notice the sneer of "dude". Sure glad there is no such thing as "reverse sexism".

On the Amazing Atheist Youtube channel TJ discusses Jess and her piece.

Girl Does Rant

Girl Does Rant

I have recently discovered the Youtuber called Girl Does Rant. She is an atheist and is anti Tumblr feminists. Check out her Youtube channel.

She introduces herself as "I'm the girlie" in her characteristic high pitched voice. I stumbled on to her from an episode of the Drunken Peasants podcast. She is usually showing ample cleavage (of which she is unashamedly proud) but she never shows her face, preferring instead the poker face afforded by her mask. Each episode ends with an animation of GDR dancing, a dance highlighting her ample chest to advantage.

I am now a fan and subscriber.

Dissappointed with Jaclyn Glenn

A screen dump from AgentOfDoubt

One of my favourite Youtubers has been Jaclyn Glenn, atheist and leftest commentator. It's now all over the internet that Jaclyn has been plagiarising other people's work. There are numerous videos comparing different people's work to Jaclyn.

I first learned of the scandal on the Drunken Peasants podcast. TJ expressed his disappointment with Jaclyn, a friend of his. Jaclyn took that on the chin and said this was just the one occurrence. Since that podcast other instances of plagiarism have come to light.

What can I say? Two observations.

1. On the internet brilliance quickly fades but stupidity is preserved forever.
2. All heroes have feet of clay.

This may be something Jaclyn will not recover from. Already her Patreon earnings are on the decline.

The Science Class

The science class has an assortment different characters, each interested in different scientific disciplines.

The star performer of the class is Physics whose science has the most profound implications for the deepest questions of life, the universe and everything. From laws of motion to the workings of thermodynamics to quantum mechanics Physics is concerned with the basic laws of everything. He is clearly the acme of the sciences. Much of his work is barely comprehensible to most others without years of training. Another difficulty for Physics is that most of the other students find the 2nd law of thermodynamics troubling and thus pretend that it doesn't mean anything. 

Sitting next to Physics is Chemistry whose achievements in his area are quite phenomenal. Nearly everyone is affected in some way by the products of Chemistry and many of the other students are always making use of his knowledge for their own work. As a young child Chemistry was trying to turn lead in gold. That was back in the day when he was called Alchemy. Today however he has matured into one of the prime sciences.

Also a star performer sitting in the front row of the class is Biology. His work compliments much of Chemistry. In fact Chemistry can only work just so far in examining the questions of life. "I know how I came to this point but I can not see my way further into life". Biology says to Chemistry "That's OK I don't know how you got to here but I know how to take your work further". Biology and Chemistry are often working together in areas like medicine. Chemistry has sometimes been in trouble experimenting with drugs and toxic substances. The school's administrators sometimes express displeasure.

In the next row is Geology. Geology is always collaborating with other sciences because his work seems to overlap so much. It may be Chemistry for analysing the content of rocks or Physics from explaining the behaviour of sedimentary deposition to radioactive dating. He has frequently collaborated with Biology and Palaeontology among others. His gaze is downcast towards the ground and his focus is clearly on the past.

Also in the second row is Pharmacology and he often works very closely with Chemistry and Biology. He has been sighted sometimes experimenting with drugs in the company of Chemistry.

Also in the second row but not in attendance is Astronomy. He is the hikikomori boy of the class. Never venturing out in the day and only venturing out at night when the rest of the world is asleep. He is never seen in class and his seat is always empty. It is rumoured that his gaze is fixed on the heavens but so few people have seen him that few even know what he looks like that they can not be sure. He no longer associates with Astrology with whom he was once close and grew up with. He was often mistaken for him. Astrology has been precluded from the science because of the poor ability of his theories to make predictions. Astronomy  did once make trouble for the church but those days are now in the past.

Sitting in the third row we have first Astrophysics. A close friend of Physics who is attracted to Astronomy but he wants to be more sociable. Like Physics he is interested in the big questions of life like "how did the universe start" and "how will it end".

Mathematics also sits in the third row and he gets along with all the other students. Everyone has a need for his work. There doesn't seem to be anything for which his input is not only useful but essential. He is definitely the most popular boy in the class.

The last student in the third row is Climatology. His conclusions are the most controversial. Not with the other students in the class who all respect his scientific technique but with others outside class. That said Economics will sometimes tell them that climate is not as important as his work. He is frequently being called a liar, a hoax, a disinformation conspirator and worse. He has become the most political of all the science students although not by his choice. Only Biology receives as much flack or his work on evolution although Geology is sometimes attacked for his work when it touches on evolution. The school administration has received some external pressure for Climatology to tone down his work or at least change his conclusion but which thus far these pressures have been resisted.

The first student in the fourth row is Palaeontology. He is often seen collaborating with Geology and Biology. He is preoccupied with fossils and has a vast hoard and passes his time endlessly categorising them.

Sitting next to him is Zoology. He is an animal lover and is often working with Biology and Evolutionary Psychology. The Ethics Committee limits by the types of experiments he is allowed to do but this is OK by them as he basically likes his experimental subjects. His emotional attachment meets objectivity which can sometimes puts him in a bit of a quandary. 

The last student in the fourth row is Toxicology. A very dark character who is a little scary to most of the other students. He is preoccupied with poisons and toxins. Everything he touches turns to poison. Where Chemistry lacked the Midas touch for making gold in his Alchemy days Toxicology can do in spades for tuning anything into poison. He prefers to wear black. He is definitely the goth of the class. Where Pharmacology fears to tread Toxicology rushes in with all enthusiasm. He sometimes takes an interest in Zoology when he is working with verminous animals.

In the back row are some characters whose very attendance is resented by some of the other students who are sure they shouldn't even call themselves scientists. They are considered to be the dunces of the class. First is Economics. He is not respected as a hard science but he has temerity to assume for himself that he is the superior science of all others and round him the whole universe revolves. Most of the other students see him as pretentious and full of himself. He even sometimes steps up the the front of the class and starts acting like a teacher. He has even presumed to get advice to the school's administrators.

Sitting next to him is Psychology who is simply beset with problems. Unlike Economics he does at least have insight into his own problems. After years of trying to get into the science class he was finally begrudgingly granted a seat at the back on condition he didn't say too much. He asks interesting questions but never poses any testable hypotheses which can be falsified. He has many personality problems from behavioural problems, Oedipus complex, hysterias and delusions. In so far as his work is scientific it loses relevance to understanding the psyche and in so far as his woks is relevant to understanding the psyche it is unscientific. Sometimes he is disassociated and in 2 minds. Sometimes he has no mind at all. He doesn't seem to be able to help the other students except when they are depressed. Often when he disagrees with another student's work he is prone to question their psychological motives instead of their theories.

Sitting next to him is a close friend Evolutionary Psychology. He suffers from most of the problems of Psychology but he does collaborate a lot with Biology but sometimes Biology loses patience with him. Some of the other students think he is being pretentious, even Psychology. Most seem to take umbrage at the implication that they personally are acting like animals, having somewhat higher opinions of themselves. But if he is not respected in the science class his problems increase outside of it. It is said that members of the Gender Studies class regularly bully, harass and thoroughly humiliate him. He has been accused of being a menace just for existing. Even the school administrators would be happy if he would just disappear.

You may have noticed that there seem to be no girls in the science class. This has been an issue for those in the gender studies class. The paucity of boys in the gender class however does not seem to concern the same students. In fact there once was a girl in the science class and a feminist at that. Her work was poorly referenced, based on false statistics and her theories were unfalsifiable and sounded more like a rumbling essay than a well framed work of science. She did take a shine to Psychology and he took a shine to her. His objectivity and scientific technique deteriorated as a result. She even suggested he would be welcomed in the gender studies class. After receiving a cool reaction to her work she returned to gender studies stealing some of Psychology's work and distorting it for her own ends. This was a relief as she was picking fights with Evolutionary Psychology at ever opportunity. Toxicology once made a suggestion to her which is best not repeated here.

One day a group of gender studies students invaded the science class but when asked why they didn't simply enrol in the science class they said it was more important to raise awareness of the problem than to actually do anything about it themselves. "It is important for OTHER girls to enrol in the science class but not ourselves".

So that is the make up of the science class. Let me know if you have any suggestions for any more science students and I will see if I can fit them into the class.

My Favourite Cat - AKA Creationist Cat

Creationist Cat in triplicate

Check out the Creationist Cat YouTube channel. The Lord's chosen Cat zapped into existence through the internet. All that knowledge and all that power. 

Later sodomites

 

 

Iranian police, male officer and a female officer

Is Libertarianism just another "ISM"?

The MRA and MGTOW movements are politically across the board although there does seem to be a centre of gravity a bit to the right. From Wikipedia comes this:

Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgment.

There are various forms of libertarianism including left-Libertarianism but my interest is on right-libertarianism  Like anarchism of the left it eschews government interference in people's lives but unlike anarchism it only sees power as expressed through the instruments of the state and formally its government as being the threat to liberty. Libertarianism says nothing about other structures of power, both formal and informal. For libertarians power is strictly a legal instrument of state. Libertarians prize the individual and his choices above all else. They believe all individuals should be free to act in their own interests. Further they believe individuals ONLY act rationally. They value the free market and property rights.

Although libertarianism is a right wing movement it differs from other right wing movements in several aspects. Libertarians believe in religious liberty and in a strong wall between church and state. They support many progressive causes like gay marriage and decriminalising prostitution and drug use. They differ from the religious right who see the problems of the world through a lens of scriptural morality. The religious right are also against homosexuality in principle and are in favour of the "war on drugs" and favour punitive "crime and punishment" policies. Libertarians are also strong in their support of free speech. In these differences libertarians share much with some left wing movements. On the other hand many other left wing movements share much with the religious right but that is a whole other blog post.

 If communism has a founding father in Karl Marx then libertarianism has a founding father in the form of Ayn Rand. The emphasis on free enterprise and property rights is strong. Her particular form was known as objectivism.

It is the pro business pro property rights anti government type of libertarianism I will talk about. Is it possible to get an optimum society by down sizing government or getting rid of government altogether? Are there similarities between libertarianism and other "ISMs"? Does it suffer from the same shortcomings?

Like all political theories libertarianism suffers from a poor understanding of human behaviour to the extent that it is biologically driven. That necessarily follows for ideologies as they understate or deny any role for evolutionary psychology in explaining human behaviour. Anarchism is a philosophy which appeals to me. I resonate with the thoughts of Lao Tsu. At the same time I can not see how it can really work in practice from a perspective of evolutionary psychology. Human beings are animals and this fact informs our behaviour. In no primate society do we see an absence of hierarchy. I believe the reason we have government is not because some people got together and decided to lord it over everyone else although that may have happened but because governance is biologically emergent in homo sapiens.

Right wing libertarians are interesting in that they are blind to private forms of tyranny. They are fixated only on formal state power to coerce and miss more subtle forms. Most of all they are blind to machinations of non coerced behaviour which work automatically towards hierarchy and governance including the coercion of others. A paradox of libertarianism is that one is free to pursue one's advantage in furthering one's interests but that this is at the expense of someone else's agency. Libertarianism only works in complete equality but to keep it equal requires coercion and therefore that is the end of said liberty. If no such coercion occurs then the libertarian utopia soon dissipates into thin air. Governance fills a vacuum just like air.

Let's have a look at a real country without a recognisable government. That country is Somalia. A country which more resembles anarchy in the negative sense of the word than in the ideal sense. But I said recognisable. There is not anything we would call a government in the formal but there is governance. That is the war lords. They are effectively running the country. They need to be war lords to protect their interests and those of their allies and the people under their charge. Why would anyone want to be under the charge of a war lord? Would you like to sail solo in Somalia with all those dangerous war lords all over the place? Probably not. So what to do? Live under the protection of one such war lord or consolidate your power and become a war lord yourself. You can see the makings of a feudal system. In fact Europe in the dark ages was exactly like this. The lords, earls, dukes, kings and emperors were all just war lords. The titles they gave themselves latter. The lords arranged themselves into a hierarchy depending on what was expedient for each and what was his relative strength. Out of chaos comes order driven by human biology which is inherited from primate ancestors.

We can predict what would happen in Somalia if left to its own. However the likelihood is that the rest of the world will not leave Somalia alone. So in a thought experiment in which Somalia remains isolated war lords would continue to wage war. Some will defeat others. Armies of the "protected" will wage war on armies of other "protected" men. Other war lords may form alliances to gain advantage and to protect common interests from common enemies. Some war lords may offer their loyalty to stronger war lords rather then face annihilation at the hands of superior forces and elect to become a "sub lords". Eventually one or more kings or emperors would emerge to rule Somalia in one or more states.

All of this looks like naked animal behaviour, the outcome of a brutal, bloody power struggle of dominance and submission. It doesn't look very noble. It is not how we like to view ourselves, as being "above the animals". Enter the need for ennoblement. Why would serfs want to put their necks on the line for someone else's egotistical glory? Serfs drafted into battle need to feel the cause is their cause about values they care about. It just all looks too ghastly otherwise. A war lord recently titled a new king or emperor needs to buy himself a priest, monk, pope, church, temple, holy book. They need to be made legitimate and holy, that they are ordained to rule by heaven and have a divine right to rule. This is added to by ceremony, symbols, founding myths and impressive structures to meld group identity and loyalty. The need to cohere to others like ourselves and to differentiate form others not like ourselves is biological. In the modern world that manifests in good and ugly ways. With what and with whom we identify with is culturally moulded but biologically energised. On the African savannah this on average served to favour like genes. In the modern world the same instinct can work in ways not related to our genes or only loosely related but it is energised from the same place. Thus the new state emerges with its new rulers mandated by heaven and both are valued as worth fighting for. The pirates of Somalia become revenue raisers with a holy purpose and maybe even a magnificent uniform.

Modern forms of ennoblement take a secular form rather then a religious form but they arise for the same reason and are reified in the same way. Energised biology.

If we take modern libertarians of the right and grant their society as a given what happens? I will imagine this is the United States. There is no government. that means no regulations, no bureaucracies, no taxes and no jurisprudence. No crimes and nothing no one is not allowed to do. To protect one's interest one uses his gun. In the lead up to this magnificent utopia all government services were privatised. Roads, bridges, schools, hospitals and policing is all maintained for profit. Use the street and you pay. At least one doesn't have to pay tax to maintain the roads and it's your choice if you want to use what is now private space to do all the things you need to do to stay alive but at least you're free from tyranny. No one is forcing you to pay the street owner/protector/troll. There is no public health system. No more taxes for that. It's your choice if you want to stay well and pay a substantial part of your salary to a health insurance company. If you can't pay that poverty is also your choice and if you don't like it start your own health system and undercut the opposition. Otherwise pay up or die. At least you are free from the tyranny of an oppressive government. You can imagine that law and order would be a big problem. You are probably going to need the protection of a unit bigger than yourself. It could be a collective to which you pay a fee but you don't have to. You can be a victim of crime instead. You are free to choose. If you can't afford the fee for "protection" then start your own protective service. Apart from a collective you could instead engage a corporate security firm and pay them protection money. If the security firm is big and powerful enough they could do things to "persuade" you to buy their protection. Such a proactive approach will be good for the bottom line. All these security firms may need even bigger security outfits resembling the military to keep them in line. More fees of course. At least you are free and you are not subject to any tyranny from government.

With the government out of eduction everyone can have equal opportunity for education. All you need is money. There may be unequal outcomes but all you need to equal access initially and we will all have lots of opportunities. Maybe for the first generation but the second generation will have unequal opportunity in school because money buys better education. At least you will not have to pay taxes for education and if you can't afford education then that's your choice. Each subsequent generation will have increasing inequality of opportunity further enlarging inequality of outcomes. This will increase the need for policing. Your safety is your choice. Pay up. At least no one is forcing you.

The above looks a like the Somalian anarchic utopia. From the chaos described above a new form of governance would start to emerge.The USA differs from Somalia in being a far richer country. Overwhelmingly the resources or wealth are in the hands of corporation and a tiny elite of their owners. This will shape the form of government that emerges. There is another country which represents the ultimate in privatisation. That country is Saudi Arabia. An entire privately owned country. A country owned by one family. What democracy? Since when do you have a democracy of what is private property. 

So Saudi Arabia is the model of what a totally privatised United States would look like. This is the end point of the libertarian paradise. So why does it fail?  As stated above as with any ideologies it fails to understand human behaviour at the basic biological level. Further right wing libertarianism resembles other ideologies in ascribing everything negative as being the result of one enemy. 

• For Christians the enemy is Satan or any of his minions on earth. If we just get rid of Satan then everything will be perfect.
• For Marxists the enemy is the bourgeoisie. If we just get rid of the bourgeoisie then everything will be perfect.
• For Nazis the enemy is the Jew. If we just get rid of the Jews then everything will be perfect.
• For feminists the enemy is the patriarchy. If we just get rid of the patriarchy then everything will be perfect.
• Finally for libertarians the enemy is government. If we just get rid of the government then everything will be perfect.

There is a religious impulse running through all the above. Everything they don't like is projected on to the one scapegoat. In point of fact there is no utopia that is possible. There is only a plain dwelling bipedal primate with a multilayered brain who is not altogether rational and who has a conflict between his genetic interests and his happiness. His rational self is often at odds with his genetic self and the result is the mess known as society. There is no one size fits all solution for the way society can be organised. Greater or lessor authoritarian forms of government will work in different circumstances. Whatever form will be unsatisfactory in some way. We need to understand what man is and allow that to inform our politics rather then become fixated on what we want man to be.

Check out Dianne Davidson (AKA Feminism LOL) as a PUA Creep.

This had me LMAO.

You can see Dianne Davidson at her creepiest in her Youtube video

Roosh V: The Pussy Whipped “Terrorist”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlAjjS43eTE  

Scary ah? Dianne should NEVER transition. She would never have any success as a male, PUA or otherwise.I just had to take a screen dump. Her creepiness is preserved.

Youtube screen dumps WTF?

The first screen dump is of the Youtube video on a Chrome browser at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epNdGxvVFzw

The second is the same video on a Firefox browser. What gives?

Men to blame (for domestic violence against them

This is a comment to me from a therapist acquaintance. I was floored. No doubt a slave's complete acquiescence precedes a change in the slave owner's attitude towards him.

Take care when seeking out a therapist. Here are a few suggestions.
An ear for men
Men are good
Shrink 4 men

Stay safe.