YouTube -- Emmy van Deurzen: Art of dying
'Emmy van Deurzen talks about the art of dying, as she ponders on the importance of living life in such a way that we ready ourselves and steady ourselves for our final moments.' -- It comes so soon, the moment when there is nothing left to wait for. ~ Marcel Proust
existentialism  death  EmmyvanDeurzen  * 
2 days ago
[Alison Armstrong] -- Understanding Women: Unlock the Mystery
"...what's happened in our culture is what I call the masculinization of women. That because the workplace is a masculine paradigm – which it is: it's all about producing results and goals and producing – women, who are highly adaptable, that's one of our biggest strengths is our adaptability; we are just naturally pulled into being masculine...and we get really good at it. Unfortunately, women's masculinity is not tempered by the distinctly male qualities – they're not masculine qualities - the distinctly male qualities of team and honour and loyalty and strong self of self. So a masculine woman will be way more ruthless than a man. Because she has no honour. It's all about the result no matter what and there's no honour or team or loyalty to temper what she's willing to do to produce that result. The masculinization of women has also caused a lot of difficulties in our romantic relationships. Because we're so highly adaptable, and we want to please, and we can sense what is of the most value, so we can become whatever is of the most value – and masculinity is highly valued, so we become these incredible producers...we sense that self-sufficiency and independence and capability and competence – that these are all valued so we want to be them. And then we wonder why a man doesn't want us as a mate. 'Look how self-sufficient I am; look at all the resources I bring; look how little I need you. Marry me.' *Laughter* And it's very confusing for women because we thought those were the values, we thought we'd become what's really important so why don't you want me? Because we don't know that what men crave is femininity. That's what completes you, that's what feeds you, that's what nurtures you, that's what gives you life, is a woman's femininity. But we don't know that. So our femininity has gone underdeveloped, unexpressed, unnurtured...In our culture, femininity has become devalued. And what's interesting is, it hasn't become devalued by men; it's become devalued by women."
men  women  feminism 
12 days ago
[Alison Armstrong] -- Understanding Women: Unlock the Mystery
"Women have no honour. We have no honour...That's not insulting to a woman. See, by definition, honour is doing the right thing no matter how you feel about it. It's doing the right thing no matter how you feel about it. And as a man, protecting your loved ones is the right thing no matter how upset you are with them at the moment – it doesn't matter. You could be completely ticked off, you would still risk your life. Honour has you do that. So, honour is doing the right thing no matter how you feel about it. Women, because of our relationship to our feelings, we can't act counter to our feelings. That's why we have no honour. Because honour is doing the right thing no matter how you feel; how we feel determines the right thing. This is why we have no honour. Now, that doesn't mean we have no integrity...It doesn't mean we don't have courage...We just don't have honour. We're not built with honour...Because I have no honour, I don't know I can trust yours...I don't know that it doesn't matter if you're pleased with me right now, you'll still save me – not because of something I do but because of who you are – who you are will have you save me – not whether or not I'm being pleasing at this moment. But because women don't know that, this constant monitoring of our safety, this constant concern for will you provide for and protect us has us always paying attention to: 'Am I pleasing you? Am I pleasing you? Am I pleasing you? Am I pleasing you?'"
men  women  honour 
12 days ago
[Alison Armstrong] -- Understanding Women: Unlock the Mystery
"Instinct has [women] look for a provider and protector...When you, as a man, are perceived as a threat: that you perceived as either unwilling to provide for me or protect me, or, God forbid, you're not doing it 'right'...the reaction that women have is that your power needs to be reduced. You need to have less power. And, so, what a woman will do is emasculate you. So, you seem threatening when you don't do something 'right' - when you don't do something that way a woman would do it...you seem threatening when you raise your voice. When you raise your voice, to us, that is a precursor for force. And since you're bigger and stronger, you can force. And when you raise your voice, you're reminding us that you can force, and that's very threatening to us. And we will emasculate you....Women have something we call a testosterometer, and part of [a woman's] multitasking diffused awareness is monitoring the environment, and when a man gets all pumped up and has a testosterone spike, the testosterometer goes 'DANGER! DANGER! DANGER!' And that's when she'll come out with the snide remarks and the criticisms and the sneers and the rolled eyes, and all the things that steal power. A woman will perceive a threat by a man; her reaction will be to emasculate him, and then the moment after she emasculates him, she's like, 'Oh, no! I just alienated my protector.'"
men  women  testosterone 
12 days ago
[Alison Armstrong] -- The #1 Myth Intimidating Women Believe and an Illusion-Busting Insight ~ Led By Shadee Ardalan, featuring Ken Bechtel
"Man-Mode" vs Feminine Receptivity -- Shadee: "Intimidation is inherently adversarial: someone is weaker and the other person is stronger. And that is the illusion that women are going under. That it is their strength that makes them intimidating to men. It's their successes, it's their intelligence, their competencies that makes them intimidating to men. And that because they're so intimidating, they are attracting men who are weaker. And what women will say is: 'I need a man who is man enough for me.' 'I need him to Man Up!' That's what you'll hear a woman say. So, the number one myth is that women actually believe they are intimating and that's what's keeping men away. And that's not the case...Men are not made timid or fearful by your successes, by your strength, by your capabilities and capacities. No. They're not avoiding that woman because she is all that. They are avoiding her because she's not what he needs to be attracted to her. Men are repelled because of the *attitude* not the accomplishments of these women. They avoid these women, not out of fear of her, but out of a fear of wasting resources on her. She doesn't actually threaten him; men have a much stronger sense of self than they are given credit for. They also have a much stronger relationship to their limited amount of time, energy and resources than a woman does. They are the calorie-conservers of the universe, and they're always assessing whether or not whatever they are going to take on – whether it's making dinner or installing the DVR or pursuing a relationship with someone – is worth it. Is it worth it? Is it worth his considerable amount of time, energy and resources?" -- Ken: "From a masculine viewpoint: if it's already being done, we're not going to fight you for it; it's not a good use of our energy. So if you're already making all the plans and taking the lead on everything, well, okay, if it's getting done, it's getting done. It doesn't make sense to us, as men, to spend extra energy either trying to do it twice or fight you for it...There's no reason to be there if [she] is taking all the roles and there's no place for me...When there's a space for receptivity and we can step forward and provide the things that we're compelled to do, then we're being received...And that makes a huge difference, because as men, that's what we're about, we're providers." -- Shadee: "So, whether it's opening the door, or carrying the box up the flight of stairs or driving you around, when a woman is like, 'No, I've got this; I don't need you; no thank you very much; I am strong and I am capable' what's happening is, you're not giving him the opportunity to provide...The attitude is one of 'I don't need you; I'm going to prove that I don't need you; I'm going to prove that I'm better than you!' None of those attitudes are going to work to create partnership with men. Because what's still going on is leaving the [man] feeling in some way inadequate: they're inadequate to provide for you; they're inadequate to be of service you to; they are inadequate to be of service in your life. And the problem with a woman who believes she is intimidating is she thinks that he needs to prove that he is good enough for her, and that he will work harder based on failure and criticism. Again, this is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how men are designed and how they work. So, being capable, confident, being independent and self-sufficient – these are all good qualities. Yet, in order to be able to partner with a man, especially if you want him to be a masculine man – a man who is committed to providing and protecting, who is looking for opportunities to be your hero – what you need to do is give up the attitude, the attitude of: 'What do I need you for? I've got this. You're going to have to be more than me in order to be worthy of me." -- If you don't *need* me, I can't *want* you (and so I'll spend my resources on a woman that does).
men  women  relationships  sacrifice 
18 days ago
Freedomain Radio -- Emotional Dumping: Dangers of Taking Empathy Hostages (MP3)
"Is there empathy for the listener to the childhood horrors?" "Are you allowed or encouraged to bring your direct emotional experience to the interaction?" "Can you challenge the victim narrative?" "Are you allowed to suggest therapy?" -- My mother? Let me tell you about my mother.
psychology  trauma  empathy  RTR  emotionalintelligence  StefanMolyneux 
18 days ago
Dr. Robert Glover -- Is Living a Great Life Demeaning to a Woman?
'What healthy woman would be attracted to a guy whose greatest passion is her?'
men  women  relationships 
18 days ago
Alison Armstrong -- How Men and Women Relate to Money - May 21 2014 (MP3)
Alison Armstrong: "Women emasculate men to reduce their power. They do that out of fear. And then, that triggers another primal reaction of fear because, yes, we want a man who is going to protect us and provide for us, and women have...there's this terrible thing that happens to a woman, and it's the most profound cavewoman response in her relationship, and it's the thought: 'I'm better off without him.' That's when it's all coming apart. When she thinks: 'I'm better off without him.' And so this is why every women is instinctively looking for a man that's bigger than her, stronger than her, and has more resources than she does. So that she will be better off with him than without him. And when women start to make more money, it can contribute to: 'I'm better off without him.' And this is why she starts pulling for he's got to do more housework. -- Dennis Prager: "...Because on the one hand, women fear – and this is all primal – fear male power, because he can hurt me. On the other hand, they fear him not being powerful because then he can't protect me...Men are confused by women: 'I want you to be more powerful but if you are I'll be frightened by you, so I'll try to make you less powerful, and if you are less powerful then I'll be frightened by the fact that I'm more powerful than you." -- Alison Armstrong: "What women are most afraid of is their own nonsense. So, we mostly don't want you to be more powerful than me except for when I know...I'm full of [BS]. I need you to stand up to me; I need you to tell me 'That's nonsense; cut it out' because that's what truly makes me safe. Women, we're afraid we're crazy. We're really afraid we're crazy, and that's something we never talk about. So, when we're feeling crazy and you guys stand up to us...*swoons*"
men  women  emotionalintelligence  relationships  psychology 
22 days ago
Alison Armstrong -- Men, Women, and Happiness - July 18 2014 (MP3)
Dennis Prager: "...An unhealthy woman will attack a happy man." -- Alison Armstrong: "It's worse than that, unfortunately. And it's because of the power part. Because happiness and power go together in men. And most women are terrified of men having power. When a man is happy, a woman will emasculate him. It's predictable that women will attack a happy man. I wish it were the exception, but it's actually predictable. We're afraid of that surge of power, and what you're going to do with it. Because we don't understand that you fundamentally want to protect us and provide for us, and that you'll use that power for good, most women attack men when they're happy. It's awful." -- "The good news is that it's curable. The impulse to emasculate men is triggered, unfortunately, very often in women. So whenever a man doesn't do what a woman would have done, her reaction will be to take that personally: it means he doesn't love me or respect me – and she'll have a reaction that might include that she wants to punish him or that she wants to weaken him. And this is really normal in our culture, that women are afraid of men being in power so they have a systematic way of just going around and disempowering men, all the time. It's like they're slashing tires...And it has to do with that way our brain works in terms of something that can be called trauma memory. And for survival purposes, whenever we hear about something terrible happening to another person, our brain records that as if it happened to us. And the more detail given in that story of that terrible thing that happened, the clearer and more vivid and long-lasting the memory is. So, women, for example, the percentage of the first world population of women that has been raped is very low. But almost all women approach all men as potential rapists, as if they had a personal experience of that...There's a shift that needs to happen for women that in order to appreciate the value of men being happy where they need to shift from: men are dangerous; to: there are some dangerous men...Since I gave up emasculating men in 1991, I have an experience of being safe in the world because I know it doesn't matter if I know a man; it doesn't matter if I know him, it doesn't matter if he likes me, it doesn't matter if he thinks I'm pretty, it doesn't matter even if he's mad at me; he will protect me because that's who he is. That's who men are. We can count on men to be that...That surge of men have when they're happy, we need you to have that. Because it's actually...when a man has that surge of power, he has a surge of testosterone. And women are always knocking testosterone and thinking it's a bad thing – but actually, men do bad things when they have low levels of testosterone. Men are depressed and mean when they have low levels of testosterone, not when that have high levels of testosterone. It's the opposite of what women are afraid of. So, we want you – we need you to have that surge of power, that's when you feel capable and able and your reaction is: 'What else can I do for you?' So, men are already organized around making woman happy...men feel defeated when they're not able to make women happy..."
men  women  emotionalintelligence  hysteria  testosterone  sacrifice 
22 days ago
Freedomain Radio -- #2830: Fifty Shades of EGGS (MP3)
"For women to remember that eggs don't make them special, is really tough. Because it's a huge amount of power for women who used to be trained how to use that power, and now that power is just mutant and rampant... Women used to be taught you basically have a whole bunch of bombs, and the bombs can go off in a controlled manner, or they can go off and take out half the village. But they're going to go off either way. Now, the controlled manner is, you get a man to commit. You get the eggs, you get the babies. There's your controlled egg explosion. The uncontrolled manner is, you fuck a lot, bad shit happens, you run out of time, your eggs die...and there's nothing but a smoking crater of regret for the second half of your life...And so women in their late twenties begin to figure this stuff out. And they say, 'Shit. I was supposed to use my prettiness and my hotness and my attractiveness to get commitment from a man. But instead I used it for recreational vanity, sex fests that have left me heart-broken and full of antibiotics'...And there's this looming sense of disaster, and it happens to men in their twenties, too. The way if happens for men is, men say, 'Well, I sure self-indulged a lot, I've got really good at Call of Duty III, and I now how to make a latte. But I don't really have any money with which to build a family. Oh, shit!'... So, women are like, 'Oh, I fucked up! When I should have been building a relationship to have kids...and now I'm really screwed because I've got to scramble to find some guy to commit to me when I'm running low on looks and when I have this agenda.' And the guy knows it's too obviously about the eggs. See, in your early twenties, you can make it subtly about the eggs. But in your late twenties, it's like, 'Hey! We gonna get married? How much money do you make? How long have you had your current position? What's your education like?' It's just like, 'Egg, egg, egg, egg, egg!' and no-one can pretend there's anything to do with romance and love in it. And that's not good. You need the illusion of romance to generate the fantasy of love to generate the prison of commitment... There's this slow unease that creeps up on you, and like all these slow unease things, you can put it off for a long time, but the longer you put it off, the worse it gets, and at some point, you're really just kinda screwed."
men  women  hypergamy  dating  relationships 
24 days ago
Freedomain Radio -- #2826: [Continuation of the “Vulnerability is Strength” Convo] (MP3)
"This is the fundamental MGTOW issue for me...find a woman who is an anarchist. How likely is a committed anarchist to invoke the power of the State in a marriage?"
men  women  relationships  marriage  anarchism  voluntaryism  honour  integrity  philosophy  StefanMolyneux 
24 days ago
Freedomain Radio -- #2819: The Legend of the NAWALT* (MP3)
'*Not All Women Are Like That.' -- '...being scared to be honest with women and efficiency in finding a quality relationship partner.' -- "...relentless honesty is what happens...you're hiding who you are from women and then saying 'Well, I'm having trouble finding a woman to really connect with'...you are white-knighting women – which is odd for a MGTOW guy to be doing...because you're treating women as fragile and treating men as robust...you're changing your behaviour out of deference for women's 'weakness'...you are adjusting your behaviour to protect women from your honesty. Or. more accurately, from their reaction to your honesty...There's nothing more efficient than honesty. And there's nothing more powerful than vulnerability. There is nothing more powerful than vulnerability. Because vulnerability reveals everyone in your life who will abuse power. Immediately. And almost irrevocably. There's nothing weaker than hiding your vulnerability. Because it's a refusal to stare at those who will abuse power and see them for who they are, which means they still have power over you, and still have control over you. Nothing is stronger than vulnerability. Nothing is more clarifying than vulnerability. Nothing is clearer than vulnerability. And if you hide who you are, you are just making a tombstone for your every day actions. Because you don't exist in hiding, and you're letting the past rob you of marriage and children. 'I had to lie to my mom; I couldn't be who I was with my mom, so that's all I'm ever going to do.' Well, that's letting the bitch win. No, no, no. She had her life, she had her kids; you have your life, you have your kids. Exercise the power of vulnerability. Vulnerability breaks the past for we victims because we couldn't be vulnerable when we were children, because we had no choice, we had no voluntaryism, we had no freedom. But we can be vulnerable as adults – that is a fundamental recognition that the world has changed, that we no longer life in the past. The world has changed. When you are vulnerable you are signalling to your system that the past is over and done. That you're no longer a victim, that you're no longer trapped in a destructive and abusive environment. Vulnerability means it's over, it's done – war is over, we're home...But if you continue to use the same defences that you had in the past, all you're telling your whole body is that the past is not over. Be vulnerable. Be honest. Be open. Show your heart...Vulnerability and openness will get you exactly what you want in your life. And hiding will only get you the feeling of being prey, from here to the end of your life."
men  women  relationships  RTR  honesty  vulnerability  agencyvspatiency  victimhood  defencemechanisms  StefanMolyneux  * 
24 days ago
The Rational Male -- The Burden of Performance
'...even with a ‘fuck it, I’ll just be me’ mindset you’re still being evaluated on how well ‘you are just you’. -- The simple fact is that you must actually be your performance – it must be internalized. In truth, you already are that performance whether you dictate and direct that, or you think you can forget it and hope your natural, undirected performance will be appreciated by women (and others), but regardless, women will filter for hypergamous optimization based on how well you align with what they believe they are entitled to in a man in the context of their own perception of their SMV. -- For Men, there is no true rest from performance. To believe so is to believe in women’s mythical capacity for a higher form of empathy which would perdispose them to overriding their innate hypergamous filtering based on performance. -- Women will never have the same requisites of performance for themselves for which they expect men to maintain of themselves. Hypergamy demands a constant, subliminal reconfirmation of a man’s worthiness of her commitment to him, so there is never a parallel of experience. -- Women will claim men “require” they meet some physical standard (i.e. performance) and while generally true, this is still a performance standard men have of women, not one they hold for themselves. There simply is no reciprocal dynamic or prequalification of performance for women, and in fact for a man to even voice the idea that he might qualify a woman for his intimacy he’s characterized as judgmental and misogynistic. -- Social conventions like this are established to ensure women’s hypergamous sexual strategy is the socially dominant one. Expecting a woman to perform for a man is an insult to her ‘prize status’ as an individual. -- From a humanistic perspective there’s a want for a rational solution to this performance requirement, but as I’ve outlined in prior posts, appeals to women’s reason are no insulation against the subliminal influences of hypergamy. -- I read many a ‘dating coach’ who’s approach is complete honesty and full disclosure in the hopes that a like-minded, rational woman will naturally appreciate a man’s forthrightness, but this presupposes a preexisting equal playing field where subliminal influences are overridden by mutual rationalism. -- The real hope is that women will drop their innate hypergamous performance requisites in appreciation of this vulnerable, inadequate honesty. -- What they sweep under the rug is that you cannot appeal to a woman’s reason or sentiment to genuinely forgive a deficit in a man’s performance. Love, reason, both demand a preexisting mutual appreciation in a common context, but neither love nor reason alleviate the necessity of performance for a man. -- Women simply are not motivated to compromise hypergamy on their own accord. They will not be reasoned into accommodating a situation of mutual needs by overt means. -- It is a Man’s capacity to perform and demonstrate (never explicate) higher value that motivates women to accommodate mutual needs in a relationship – whether that’s a same night lay or a 50 year marriage.'
men  women  hypergamy  sacrifice 
24 days ago
The Rational Male -- [Interview with Christian McQueen and Dagonet]
"Men love idealistically. Women love opportunistically. Hypergamy makes women opportunistic. Women love men for what they are, and then – maybe – for who they are. A women is not going to love you unless you have something to offer her, or are performing in some way. And women know that men have to perform – and keep performing. Men love idealistically to escape the pressure of having perform: 'She's going to love me whether I win or lose'. That's the equalist mindset that incorrectly assumes men and women love in the same way." ~ Rollo Tamasi, The Rational Male (Paraphrased)
men  women  hypergamy  sacrifice  romance 
24 days ago
YouTube -- Freedomain Radio: Feminism: Unequal Opportunity Nagging
"...women don't want equality of opportunity – in the feminist paradigm – women don't want equality of opportunity, they want equality of [outcome]." -- "What, fundamentally, is feminism other than women whining and complaining to men and manipulating men into giving them resources? It's such a throwback to all of the cliches of femininity...Women whine and complain and nag, and men give them resources. Women play the victim, and men throw resources at them. Women want freedom, but the moment freedom becomes alarming or challenging, they run to men for protection – because the reality is that feminism is female and the State is male. So, if you want to understand feminism, the more modern Marxist feminism, feminism is the wife and the State is the husband... Feminism is the nagging wife, and the State is beleaguered husband...'I want this, I want that. Things aren't equal; I need pay equity; I need preferential treatment; I want abortions; I want this...' And, of course, because it's appeasement, women are never satisfied and never happy: 'I need more; I need this; I need that; I want never to be fired; I want more welfare...'" -- "A woman who complains about being victimized – against all evidence – a woman who complains about being victimized, – and runs to men to protect her from the consequences of her own behaviour – is like a caricature of a woman. This like woman as retarded child." -- "For a women to use her femininity as a tool to manipulate resources out of exhausted and beleaguered men, is the ultimate retrograde caricature of bad femininity." -- "Women who run to men to protect them from the consequences of the freedom they demanded in the first place are ridiculous human beings...Philosophically they're ridiculous, morally they're ridiculous...'I demand freedom.' (With freedom comes responsibility.) 'I don't want that!'" -- "'I want to be free when it suits me. When things go badly, I want to run to the government – run to the men – run to the patriarchy – so that men can be forced to pay for the consequences of my mistakes, of my bad decisions.'"
men  women  feminism  statism  socialism  victimhood  agencyvspatiency  sacrifice  StefanMolyneux 
4 weeks ago
YouTube -- Freedomain Radio: The Irrational Boner: Estrogen Based Parasite Avoidance
00:29:20: "...there's this myth that women are the romantic ones; I find that to be complete and total bullshit. Like all exquisite bullshit, it's the exact opposite of the truth. In my experience and in the experience of every single man I know, it is men who are the hopeless romantics, and women who are the like the Machiavellian calculating robots of resource allocation ... Do you know why women like romance? Because it means men have no judgement ... When men say that men are idiots, that's kinda true because when men are attracted to women, they turn into idiots."
men  women  hypergamy  sacrifice  romance  StefanMolyneux 
4 weeks ago
girlwriteswhat comments
'...the false face of feminism as a movement for justice is more insidious by far than even communism, since gendered perceptions operate through different psychological schemas than classism or tribalism. It is very difficult for people to view women (or those claiming to represent women) as perpetrators or liars or malicious or malfeasant. The burden of proof required to convince someone that "feminism" has bad intentions or is essentially full of shit is much more difficult to meet than the burden of proof necessary to convince someone that "communism" or "nazism" or some other movement or ideology has malicious intentions or is full of shit. We just don't see women in that way. We like women and are not only programmed to take their concerns seriously and at face value, but we are programmed to expect men to address those concerns to women's satisfaction. And given the greater psychological individuation of men than women, men are much less likely to see feminism's anti-male rhetoric as an attack on them personally - feminists might be saying "men are bad", but that doesn't mean they're saying "you, specifically, are bad". The man in power who submits to feminism is able to claim status as the one good man, while only all the other men are bad. -- It amazes me how feminists have managed to convince men that "traditional masculinity" is harmful and oppressive to women, when the entire body of male-penned classical literature defines the ideal man as one who serves and protects women, even at the cost of his own life. It is that very chivalry that seems innate to men that has allowed individual men to be hoodwinked into thinking that all other men, not them, mind you, just all the others, are oppressive, rapey bastards who glory in the oppression of women. -- Given the psychological schemas involved, I would have to say that NO society predicated on the oppression and exploitation of (that society's) women for men's benefit has ever existed, because the psychological mechanisms involved would preclude such a possibility. Yet it is these very schemas that allow men to be convinced that such societies not only have existed, and not only still exist, but that they have been the norm throughout history. -- ...As for feminism exacerbating AND erasing the underlying reality of society's impulse to protect women, it has gone even farther than that. It has exploited and manipulated that very impulse on the part of society to convince that society that it actually hates women. It quite literally has manipulated the impulse on the part of men to sacrifice for women in order to convince men that they are all actually misogynists. -- It uses the underlying reality to convince everyone that not only does the underlying reality not exist, but that the underlying reality is the opposite of reality. And because they have so effectively convinced society that society is misogynistic, the original underlying reality of society (that it prioritizes the safety and wellbeing of women) makes society even more prone to prioritize the safety and wellbeing of women. -- Feminism says, "society hates women!" and it is the depth of society's love for women that makes society want to prove them wrong by capitulating to their every demand.'
men  women  feminism  victimhood  agencyvspatiency  apexuality  predation  sacrifice  * 
4 weeks ago
girlwriteswhat comments
'...Recent research has found that female sexual arousal is at least partly dependent on feeling desired. It is reactive. -- While the most common rape fantasy among women ("I'm being forced and I love it") has been posited as based on a rejection of responsibility and a means to remain a "good girl" even when having sex with a stranger, I think its just as likely to be a narcissistic need to feel desired. Imagine, this man desires me so much that he will set aside all the rules of a civilized society and risk being put in prison just to have me. He will even cast his own human decency aside and become a rapist, because he wants me that much. That's an extremely powerful thing, I think.'
men  women  sexuality 
4 weeks ago
Honey Badger Brigade -- How many falls does it take to level up from biased media to journalist? by Hannah Wallen
'...various articles have attempted to shift the discussion from criticism of the bias, the conflict of interest, and the manipulation back onto gamers by labeling rejection of their push to infuse their ideology into an apolitical, recreational activity “misogyny.” The stated reasoning, as it is recently described in this Mirror article, is that because the particular ideological push being rejected is feminism, gamers must hate women. -- This tactic is also known as a DARVO attack: Deny, Accuse, Reverse Victim and Offender. You can read more about that specific behavior here. In this case, we have obstinately biased media screaming from the pulpit of their outlets, long-winded versions of, “We didn’t lie to you! You’re just hateful, inferior people!” -- This particular attack is rooted in layers of presumed entitlement. -- The base is the belief that women are exempt from criticism, and therefore any claim made on behalf of women is also exempt. This is a flawed approach to women’s issues, based on the false assumption that women are all in agreement, and always right. It’s an attitude that is inherently sexist, because it depends on an inequality; the assignment of so much greater relevance and legitimacy to women’s interests that women are entitled to acquiescence of other interests when there is a conflict. -- The second layer is the treatment of “feminism” and “women” as interchangeable terms, making women the territory of feminism and inferring upon feminism that same presumed exemption from criticism. There has been plenty of evidence to the contrary, including #womenagainstfeminism on twitter, on tumblr, and on facebook, and as part of the #gamergate protest there’s #notyourshield, the response of female and minority gamers to being told that social justice whining represents their interests. It seems that many, many women are averse to feminism’s territorial claims. Apparently we’re not all so much in agreement as is believed. -- Feminists don’t get it, however, and treat women’s refusal to bow to their presumed authority over all things female as a form of apostasy, which leads to the third and fourth layers, too intertwined to separate. -- These are self-assigned moral superiority, and the belief that said superiority infers a right to impose one’s ideology on others. Essentially this is the attitude of aggressive evangelism; the belief that one need not recognize other people’s independence because one believes that one is right. Not simply content with the ability to exchange ideas with others in an intellectual setting, the individual feels entitled to impose his or her ideological standards on the greater community “for their own good.” To the individual presuming this entitlement, opposition to his or her attempt at influencing your beliefs is not merely criticism or disagreement, but blasphemy, justifying behavior he or she would otherwise recognize as abusive, such as misleading or bullying others.'
feminism  totalitarianism  marxism  ideology  goodthink 
4 weeks ago
Honey Badger Brigade -- The origin of feminism and the importance of female MRAs
'...feminism feeds off hatred and feeds into hatred. -- In “The Science of Hatred” by Jen Robinson, she notes: Professor of Psychology Ervin Staub has been studying hatred and violence for almost 30 years. In a recent article entitled The Origins and Evolution of Hate, he extends Penguin’s definition, pointing out that hate is more likely to occur when we view another person as having either equal or greater social or economic value rather than less. Humans may feel things like pity or disdain for people they view as inferior to them, but true hatred typically comes about when the other is seen as equal or superior. Often, the hated person or group is seen as having more than they deserve, and that these fortunes have been acquired at the expense of the hater. -- This is why feminists make up so many fake studies, they ignore data, they alter the meaning of terms and definitions, they ignore what women say about having been raped, they alter legal code to exclude male victims, they alter legal code to extend the definitions of terms: it’s all to create propaganda and rhetoric. To constantly drum the idea of the patriarchy because it no longer actually exists. As you Honey Badgers have so often said, men are not privileged, men do not have power over women and haven’t for some time. However, if feminists can’t constantly play the powerless victim and portray men as the dark overlords of evil, they become irrelevant because the non-feminist women would lose the primary mechanism of their hate.'
feminism  marxism  dehumanization  victimhood  agencyvspatiency 
4 weeks ago
The Rational Male -- Yes Means Fear
'...And thus we understand the latent purpose of this law – instilling fear in men. Nominally the law is about making men so fearful that they concede all aspects of any intersexual discourse to a feminine imperative. This is Sadie Hawkins’ world. One in which only women are allowed to make any intersexual approach to a man for fear that his doing so will be construed as rape, or an intent to rape, even before he initiates anything. -- "The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality." ~ Heartiste -- The more a feminine-primary social order embraces, endorses and openly promotes feminine hypergamy as the normative, correct, social paradigm, the more it will be necessary to legally force men to comply with it. -- The Feminine Imperative is so fixated upon the insecurities inherent to women’s individual capacity to optimize their hypergamy, so entitled are women to an Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks sexual strategy, it will enact legal mandates to ensure that optimization.' -- He/She who controls the price controls the victory.
men  women  feminism  power  hypergamy  sexcrime 
4 weeks ago
YouTube -- ShieldWife: Fuck Fagin Feminists!
'Feminists exploit children for their own ends.' [Potty-Mouthed Princesses Drop F-Bombs for Feminism: http://youtu.be/XqHYzYn3WZw] -- Threat Narrative
feminism  victimhood  predation 
4 weeks ago
Freedomain Radio -- #2814 [Sugar and Spice...] (MP3)
01:48:50: "...Hey women, just go talk to other women about being peaceful parents. They won't listen to men because we're just annoying puppies. But – women, go talk to each other. And you know what, the fact that women get really angry at me when I say go talk to other women about peaceful parenting is much more of an indictment of women than even the most fervent, imaginary female hatred coming out of me – could possibly be. People think I hate women. No, no, no! Think I hate women? Women know women and they don't even want to talk to them about any kind of virtue. Go talk to other women about not hitting their kids. 'Oh, no. No, no, no. You see, I'm a woman; I know what other women are like. I don't want anything to do with that, thank you very much.' Well, that's pretty damning about women! Even I don't go that far! ..."
men  women  hypocrisy 
5 weeks ago
Freedomain Radio -- #2811 [Socialized Vaginas] (MP3)
00:49:00: "You know, men don't like the welfare state as a whole, because it emasculates men. Because it means women aren't dependent on men for helping raise children. And it's not because we love women to be dependent on us, it's just that's a biological reality. Now, if women don't have to be dependent on men, it means they don't have to choose reliable men to have children with. Which means assholes win, pretty-boys win, jocks win, and good, decent stable providers who would otherwise win...the stable, steady men lose...What women don't understand about the welfare state is that men bring resources and that's our value. And that's biological; that's just the way it is. And women bring fertility, and excellent childcare and breast-feeding, and that's their value from a biological standpoint. What women don't understand about men's hostility to the welfare state is that taking resources from a man is like taking vaginas from a woman. It robs us of our sexual value. The redistribution of male dollars is exactly that same as the redistribution of female blowjobs – and fertility and eggs and breast-feeding. So if we said to women, 'Well, I'm sorry but we've got to socialize your vaginas; you've got to go have sex with all these gross men,' they'd be appalled! It's a violation! Well, when the government takes money from men who are working and gives it to women who are having sex with men who aren't working, it's exactly the same thing, biologically. It's like, how would women feel if lazy, overweight women could have the fat sucked out of their asses and injected into women who did aerobics? ... Or whatever, whatever, transfered sexual appeal from more attractive women to less attractive women would be appalling for women! That's exactly the same as the redistribution of income from men to women, or from hard-working men to lazy men. Because when our money is taken away, the foundational value of our sexual appeal is taken away. Socializing men's money is exactly the same as socializing women's sexual appeal."
men  women  feminism  socialism  welfare  statism  sexuality  StefanMolyneux 
5 weeks ago
YouTube -- ShieldWife: I don't need a man, but...
'Why is it that feminists say they need so little and yet demand so much?'
feminism  predation  entitlement  statism  slavery 
5 weeks ago
YouTube -- Freedomain Radio: Emma Watson’s UN Speech: What She Didn’t Say #HeForShe
"...she's basically saying that women cannot free themselves; they've nothing whatsoever to do with the cycle of oppression and require men to release them from bondage...Men must get involved because only men are bad. Women cannot free themselves without men saving them because women are only victims never perpetrators. Man, bad; woman, good...Demanding or requiring or inviting men to save women strips them of any moral responsibility or moral agency in the cycle of violence that so consumes the world...Welcome to the underground world of female violence. The great unspoken horror that drives so many of the world's evils. Women are responsible for half of all domestic violence incidents in Western countries. 80% of British mothers hit their babies before their babies are even one-years-old...The idea that endlessly bashing toddlers has nothing whatsoever to do with the perpetuation of the cycle of violence is absolutely jaw-dropping. I, for one would be thrilled to hear a feminist say something like the following: 'Certainly there is anti-female prejudice in the world and we have been speaking about it for decades, if not centuries – but ladies, my sisters, I invite you to turn away from men and look inwards towards yourselves and see what we can do independent of men to bring about a better world. Most mothers hit their children. This cannot be blamed on children; it is a moral failing of women. No man stands behind us and commands us to hit our children. Men have their issues and faults and evils, to be sure, but in this instance, in this circumstance, we need to look directly in the mirror to find the source of so many of the world's aliments, evils and catastrophes. It is time for us to stop only blaming men which merely disempowers us and insults men, and accept the responsibility of becoming peaceful parents...' -- Ladies, my sisters, let me lay it out for you as plainly as I can: Before we are men, we are boys. When we are boys we are under the command and control of women almost exclusively. We are parented by women, disciplined by women, educated by women – we are raised by women. And those women scream at us and hit us. A lot. -- Mothers. Stop hitting your children. -- The hidden violence of the world is the violence of women – and the men they choose – against children. Stop hitting children and save the world."
men  women  feminism  victimhood  agencyvepatiency  violence  psychohistory  childhood  abuse  manifesto  StefanMolyneux 
5 weeks ago
YouTube -- Emmy van Deurzen: Authenticity
'One of the only coherent philosophical position is thus revolt. It is a constant confrontation between man and his own obscurity. It is an insistence upon an impossible transparency. It challenges the world anew every second. Just as danger provided man with the unique opportunity of seizing awareness, so metaphysical revolt extends awareness to the whole of experience. It is that constant presence of man in his own eyes. It is not aspiration, for it is devoid of hope. That revolt is the certainty of a crushing fate, without the resignation that ought to accompany it. But again it is the absurd and its contradictory life that teaches us… Being aware of one’s life, one’s revolt, one’s freedom, and to the maximum, is living, and to the maximum… The present and the succession of presents before a constantly conscious soul is the ideal of the absurd man… Having started from an anguished awareness of the inhuman, the meditation on the absurd returns at the end of its itinerary to the very heart of the passionate flames of human revolt… The preceding merely defines a way of thinking. But the point is to live.' ~ Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus
philosophy  psychology  existentialism  ownlife  individuation  authenticity  EmmyvanDeurzen 
5 weeks ago
YouTube -- Emmy van Deurzen: Kindness
'Relationship always involves something creative. In using the word "creative" I mean the following: the human psyche is always full of new possibilities. It is constantly recreating itself, so to speak, and is perpetually being recreated. An individual's psychic potential is limited, of course, but it is highly varied and many faceted. When we meet someone, it is unrelated and uncreative to see him as a fixed image. To encounter a person creatively means to weave fantasies around him, to circle around his potential. These creative fantasies, this imaginative circumambulating of one's partner, are of the greatest importance in every human relationship. Even when they are strongly mixed with ego-oriented components, they at least serve to stimulate the other person's imagination. Everyone needs to fantasize about himself, to circle about and awaken his own potential in mythological or fairy tale form. One of the tragedies in the lives of orphanage children is that no one weaves such fantasies around them, so that frequently none are awakened in then about their own life potentials; such children may grow up to be well-behaved adults, but they are only half alive psychically... -- As soon as he enters a relationship with a patient, the analyst must somehow fantasize about his future possibilities. It is almost impossible for him to just be there with the patient, see him as he is at the moment, perhaps grasp the psychodynamics of his life story, without also somehow extending his view into the future as "cured" or at least changed.' ~ Adolf Guggenbuhl-Craig, Power in the Helping Professions
psychology  psychotherapy  existentialism  relationships  possibilityspace  neglect  EmmyvanDeurzen 
5 weeks ago
Freedomain Radio -- #2805 [Excess Empathy as an Impediment to Moral Progress] (MP3)
01:28:00: "The willingness to provoke discomfort in entrenched interests is the very definition of [moral] success...[Morality] is really tough because you have a lot of empathy...you can't have practical ethics without empathy, but empathy makes it hard to make other people uncomfortable. And so this is one of the reasons why ethics is so bloody slow to move forward. An excess of morality is the paralysis of moral progress. If you don't have empathy, you can't really contribute anything to the moral equation other than manipulative destruction...but if you have empathy, then you can contribute to ethics – but, if you have empathy, the more consistently you contribute to ethics the more uncomfortable you make other people which is difficult for your empathy. So knowing how to be empathetic in the right way, to the right people, for the right cause – and knowing when to be harsh and to welcome anger and hatred – is a great challenge." -- "Inconsistent people spout off their inconsistencies just to erode away at you...It's the erosion of your courage that is so desperately bad – and what it's designed at...they don't want to say 'You're bad and you're wrong because you're upsetting people; you're upsetting people's illusions and that's mean!' But that's a fight; that's an honest fight. But what people want to do all the time is just erode you. Water wears away stone, water wears away stone... [Job 14:19] They don't want to give you a clean fight. A clean fight is: 'You are wrong, and here's why...' All anybody who is rational wants is a clean fight. But people don't want to give you a clean fight. They don't want to oppose you like a swordsman or swordswoman, they want to oppose you like a tiny bacteria of chronic fatigue syndrome; they just want to wear you down with inconsequentialities and insults and manipulations... They're inconsistent, they pretend not to notice it, and when you point it out, they deny, they say it's irrelevant, and they claim that you're insane for wanting them to be consistent. And they'll finally, if cornered, give you something grudgingly like: 'Fine! I guess what I said was somewhat inconsistent! Can we drop it now?" like you've got some kind of mania, like you've got some kind of OCD thing like you've got to wash your hands five hundred times and be right in every conversation. And those people won't give you a clean fight. They don't even care enough about the truth, or themselves, to defend what is wrong."
philosophy  morality  empathy  nausea  contempt  discourse  StefanMolyneux  * 
5 weeks ago
Aeon -- Sorry But Not Sorry: Why the Public Apology is a Tool of the Powerful
'A victim suffers harm. She wants something like an apology: she wants to know what happened, she wants someone to admit wrongdoing, she doesn’t want to stand by while someone ‘gets away with’ violating a moral principle that she cares about, she wants to be respected and recognised as wronged, she wants the wrongdoer to feel badly, she wants to know this isn’t going to happen again to her or to anyone else, and she wants the wrongdoer to take practical responsibility for redressing her injury. What she gets instead is a confidential settlement, a rather ambiguous expression of sympathy, and a sum of money minus legal fees. This happens again and again. And it saves companies an astounding amount of money. -- ...attorneys and legal scholars now commonly insist that an apology is specifically not synonymous with an admission of guilt. -- This has some disconcerting effects. Once divorced from blame, apologies emerge as a tactical defence. Attorneys can deploy them as what they describes as an ‘attitudinal structuring tactic’ in order to ‘lubricate settlement discussions’. Southwest Airlines in the US employs a full-time ‘apology officer’ who sends out roughly 20,000 letters – which all include his direct phone number – to dissatisfied customers per year. At best, apologies are now a standard customer satisfaction tool: ‘We’re sorry for the inconvenience,’ but frankly we’re not admitting blame nor will we change. At worst, they become wolves in sheep’s clothing, preying on a deep-rooted spiritual desire to reconcile.'
morality  rhetoric  pr 
5 weeks ago
The Rational Male -- Double Standards
'Women own the term Double Standard by default; any mention of a Double Standard and women will gleefully presume the term refers to them. Women’s feminine indignation need requires little prompting to satisfy. -- With this in mind, it may come as a shock to most that there are far more applicable Double Standards for men than for women. You see, for any illegitimate cause to progress it must always accuse its rivals of the sins it commits itself. Double Standard? Women own it. Unfair judgement based on physical standards? Women own it. This is called ‘sowing disbelief’ – if your premise is weak, assume victimhood. Female default victimhood is nothing novel, however, feminine primary social engineering goes this one better by presupposing any male even hinting about claims to victim status is automatically disqualified from being a man.'
men  women  agencyvspatiency 
5 weeks ago
judgybitch -- Is women’s sexuality profoundly narcissistic? That would explain a lot.
'...Stranger rape is central to lust for many, many women. Why? It’s all about the fantasy of being irresistible. Of controlling men so thoroughly. It’s about being the object of unendurable desire. This was the exact point of my rape culture video. Rape culture is rape fantasy culture: it’s women imagining themselves to be objects of desire – to all men, all the time, everywhere. -- It’s classic narcissism. Women’s lust proceeds from their own internal need to feel special, beautiful, wanted, high status – and not out of a desire to select the best genetic material for offspring. Promiscuity is a way to maximize that need to feel sexually wanted. Bergner recounts, over and over again, the waning lust of women who find themselves with nice, accommodating, intelligent, accomplished men – perfect genetic specimens for offspring – but they don’t want to fuck these men. -- There is no lust. No desire. If desire was about capturing good genes, these men would be at the top of their To Do list, but they’re not. They’re at the bottom. Why? Because nice, accommodating, accomplished men tend not to trigger the rape fantasy. Being reasonable, rational, thoughtful and kind is likely to get you nowhere. Triggering desire in women is a matter of pandering to her need to feel irresistible. Keeping desire alive in a long term relationship requires constant attention to women’s inexhaustible narcissism. That sounds like an gruelling chore, but it doesn’t need to be. There is a very simple way to make it both easy and enjoyable. -- To me, the solution seems obvious: women break up long-term relationships with men because they just aren’t fulfilled any more, which we can realistically take to include being sexually fulfilled. Women’s sexual fulfilment is narcissistic: her fulfillment depends on feeling utterly desired. Men choose women based on fitness (the .7 waist to hip ratio, intelligence, clear skin and other health indicators, etc. etc). -- But in order to be desired, physically desired – in order to spark the longing and craving that drives women’s libidos, women have to actually meet some of those fitness indicators! -- Doesn’t this seem obvious? -- Women howl that they want to be valued for more than just their looks – that their looks should not matter – but the standard of beauty in any given society at any given time consists of those indicators that suggest reproductive fitness, which is what triggers male desire, which is required for women’s sexual fulfilment. And not just a little desire. A lot. -- Rape me in an alley levels of desire. -- This doesn’t mean we all have to be 6 foot tall blondes with 25 inch waists. Nonsense. Beauty standards change and beauty is relative to your peer group. But there are standards, and if women can’t hit even close to the mark, there will be no desire from men – nothing to trigger women’s lust other than rape fantasies (also known as romance novels).'
men  women  sexuality 
5 weeks ago
judgybitch -- Dating single mothers? Just say NO! A note for all the single dudes.
'First, this is a woman who clearly doesn’t give a shit about her child’s well-being and future prospects. Children of single mothers do poorly on every imaginable scale: they have more emotional problems, experience more stress, are more likely to grow up poor, they have lower educational achievements and experience way more behavioral problems than children who grow up with married parents. Depression, suicide, drug abuse, jail and psychiatric medications are all more common in populations of children raised by single mothers. -- ... Second, single mothers are clearly really, really shitty at making life decisions. Having a child out of wedlock is pretty much the number one thing you can do to fuck up your life. You can pick up a heroin addiction, drop out of high school, rob a bank or decide to write the great American novel financing yourself on your credit cards. All of those things can be fixed. You can go to rehab, get your GED, get parole, and pay off those cards. But once you have a child, you cannot take it back. It’s done.'
men  women  relationships  parenting  childhood 
5 weeks ago
YouTube -- Freedomain Radio: The Philosophy of Downton Abbey
'A philosophical examination of the series Downton Abbey. What is the value of social ostracism? How did society deal with “fallen” women? How do you deal with charity? What about the balance of sex and marriage in society?'
philosophy  morality  reputation  ostracism  marriage  civility  StefanMolyneux  men  women 
5 weeks ago
YouTube -- RussiaToday: Listening to ‘Whisper’: Social media app found to tracks users
'The anonymous app Whisper claims to be the safest place on the Internet, where users can share intimate details about their private and professional lives. But an investigation by Britain's Guardian newspaper has revealed the social media app actually tracks its users, stores their information and shares it with the US Department of Defense.'
internet  leaky  honeypot  surveillance  minipax 
5 weeks ago
YouTube -- Alison Tieman/TyphonBlue: Defeating the Feminist Frame: Patriarchy oppresses men
'Men are expected to assume positions of authority. If they don’t compete successfully for positions of authority, they are socially ostracized or even killed. And when you set a group of people to compete with each other, by definition they lose sympathy for each other. Each man gains power and prestige at the expense of other men and also at the expense of a shared identity that would form the basis of caring about and benefiting other men. -- Therefore saying men as a whole benefit from a tiny minority of men being in charge is an ugly lie. Those men have earned their authority at the expense of other men and to the detriment of all men as recipients of compassion when they are in need. -- In simple terms we prefer people with perceived agency to suffer over people without perceived agency. -- Thus the expectation that men compete to assume positions of authority—upon pain of death or banishment—is actually disenfranchisement of men as a group, relative to women as a group who are empowered to retain their social dominance as the expected recipients of provision and protection.'
men  women  apexuality  agencyvspatiency 
5 weeks ago
Global Guerrillas -- ISIS is the leading supplier of the most potent drug in the world
'To young Saudi men, it's an unstoppable and epic event. -- A movement that can give a young man's life meaning. Meaning that can't be found in the hollow, timid commercial existence the west is forcing on us all. -- For these young men, ISIS is a return to a virile Islam of the past. -- An Islam uncorrupted by the grey, weak, and cowardly old men currently in charge. Men that deserve to die for their actions. -- For them, ISIS is a chance to rewrite the rules of the world in a way they should be written. To be part of God's plan and to be part of destiny and not on the sidelines watching it happen. -- Zealotry like this is intoxicating in ways that people living in our modern, connected world can't even imagine. -- We're too jaded, medicated, and appologetic (of any strongly held beliefs) to understand real zealotry (particularly on a mass scale).' -- Fundamentalism eats itself.
religion  illiberalism  metastasis 
5 weeks ago
The Society of Actuaries -- What is Bitcoin? by Rui Dong
'What about decentralized insurance? This might still be far down the road, but one thing is for sure, technology is breaking up the traditional value chain. With technological advancements, we will see more policies being sold online which are managed by independent brokers, claim adjusters, underwriters and actuaries. With the help of decentralised applications, anyone would be able to write a smart insurance policy, find a third party that is willing to hold the risk, and automatically treat for premiums, payouts, lapses and expiries. -- Imagine a decentralised and secure database that every insurer and reinsurer has access to instead of segregated database costing millions to reconcile and audit. Data and events are updated on the go with calculations of reserves and premiums done in real-time. There is a reason why so many bright minds are attracted to Bitcoin and its underlying technology. What we have here is a quantum leap towards what money and digital assets can be in the 21st century.'
bitcoin  insurance  markets 
5 weeks ago
The Progress Report -- Brits Now Can't Live Long Enough to Pay off a Mortgage
'One in five of British 65 to 69-year-olds is still working, a far higher proportion than in Germany, France, Ireland, Italy, or Spain. Why? To pay off their mortgage or scrape a bit more towards a pension, or both. -- The price of a first-time home is £209,000 for July 2014, which is 13.5pc higher than July 2013. That rate of increase – the highest recorded since 2005 – is roughly 10 times the rate of wage growth. -- Ed. Notes: Get used to either spending your entire adult life leasing your home or paying a mortgage. Either one is like old-fashioned feudalism. Or, get your sense of righteousness up and demand that the value of land — the part in the cost of housing that goes up — be shared. Land is something nobody made and everybody needs. Land’s value is something the members of society in general generate and deserve a share of. One’s wages and savings are not society’s common wealth — de-tax them — but the worth of Earth is. Once we share it, we’ll no longer see rising location values as a curse but as a blessing.' -- House Price Casino Gulag
geoism  economics  land  rent  rentseeking  casinogulag  uk 
6 weeks ago
The Progress Report -- Cato on the Financial Crisis by Fred Foldvary
'...None of the financial regulations, going back to the Great Depression, confront the causes of the boom and bust. The fundamental cause is massive subsidies to land values. The Cato article focused on the financial industry, but the more fundamental issue is government policy regarding real estate. -- The history of the Americas has been that of grabbing land and enslaving labor. In the American colonies, the British government promoted European settlement to control land and to profit from trade. After the defeat of the French in 1763, the United Kingdom changed policy to avoid conflict with the people of Quebec and with the Indians, by restricting western speculation and migration. That annoyed the landed interests enough to declare independence, and to establish a constitution that would better extend and protect land speculation. Huge grants of land were given to railroads, veterans, colleges, and speculators. -- After the public domain was disposed of, the government continued the subsidy of the large landed interests with implicit policies that are invisible to the public and to most economists. The provision of public works, welfare to the poor and elderly, and artificially cheap credit, all generate greater land rent and land value. This amounts to a vast redistribution of wealth from workers, tenants, and enterprise owners, to the concentrated owners of commercial and farm land. -- With a fixed supply of land, much of the gains from an economic expansion is captured by higher land rent and land value, which then attracts speculation that carries real estate prices to unsustainable heights. When land values crash, they bring down with them the financial system that provided the loans. None of the financial regulations touch this basic cause, and land-value seeking is so deeply ingrained in American culture that people favor it even at the price of high taxes, high unemployment, and other economic deprivation. -- Ask a typical American, “Would you favor a tax reform that eliminated the taxes on your wages, on interest from your financial assets, and on buildings, replaced by a tax only on land values, assuming government would have about the same revenue?” The answer is, “No! I would rather suffer unemployment, insecurity, crime, and poverty than have land values reduced from such a tax. Give me poverty and death, not liberty!” Then you ask, “So why do you want the word ‘liberty’ put on our coins?” The answer is, “I want liberty so long as it is not put into practice!” -- And that is why government deals with the superficial financial appearances, and not the implicit reality that causes the booms and busts.'
history  geoism  economics  land  landcycle  businesscycle  landlordism  "capitalism"  FredFoldvary 
6 weeks ago
Share The Rents -- What's it all about, Alfie?
'...Economists don’t have a clue. More of them are admitting it, in the financial press. -- In particular, they cannot figure out how to kick-start consumption. Unless people spend more in the shops, cash-rich corporations won’t invest in capital formation. That means jobs won’t be created and productivity will continue to decrease, rendering the trans-Atlantic economy even less competitive in global markets. -- Governments, for their part, are hostage to the shibboleths of a discredited profession. They know they need to invest in infrastructure, but they don’t know where the funding would come from. They cannot unpack the reality: infrastructure is self-financing. The net income produced by highways and bridges is called economic rent. But that concept was long ago dropped into one of the universe’s black holes. Outcome: impoverished metrics that are calculated to guide the engine of growth into concrete walls. -- The mediocrity that Ms Lagarde talks about is not a fair characterisation of the economy. It does correctly label the minds of economists. That’s why we continue to be locked into a depression, which is not going to go away for years to come.'
geoism  economics  land  landcycle  greatestdepression  FredHarrison 
6 weeks ago
YouTube -- Fred Harrison: Gravy Trains
'The phantom tram in Washington DC exposes the economics of infrastructure. Railways ought to have combined profits for investors with cutting costs to serve the interests of passengers. Instead, the net gains – the value that is crystallised in the land market as rents – were captured by robber barons. Professor Mason Gaffney argues that railways continue to be gravy trains for some, while burdening taxpayers who are forced to subsidise this mode of transportation. A new metro in Copenhagen reveals that trains can be funded to serve the common good.' -- "Sand was turned into gold dust."
geoism  economics  land  rent  FredHarrison 
6 weeks ago
Global Guerrillas -- The Internet of Chains
'The future of the Internet is a confederation of chains. Chains that'll do almost everything. Chains that act like companies (without any of that "organic and financial overhead" that costs us so much). Chains that cut across borders. Chains for closed social networks. Chains for virtual legal systems. Chains for industries... Even chains for global insurgencies and alternative economies (the topic of my new book). Lots of chains. It's inevitable at this point. Bitcoin was simply the plausible promise of what was possible with this tech. -- The rollout of these blockchains is going to be full on creative destruction. -- Chains will generate or control more wealth in the next two decades than the world has produced since inception. They also enable us to destroy wealth with equal alacrity by allowing us to shift our thinking on what we consider valuable (to the old and currently wealthy --> you are toast).'
internet  bitcoin  agorism  phyles  apocalypse 
6 weeks ago
YouTube -- Freedomain Radio: Gone Girl - Battle of the Sexes!
'Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio unravels the complex gender roles and conflicts behind the smash movie 'Gone Girl.'
men  women 
6 weeks ago
YouTube -- Freedomain Radio: Withholding Sex as Infidelity
01:08:50: Postpartum Depression Theory: "...when babies do not receive the love and affection and mirroring that they need when they're babies – if there's a huge amount of dysfunction in the baby's environment – fighting parents, financial instability, drug addiction, criminality, depression, anxiety, alienation, sociopathy, psychopathy, you name it – if there's a lot of dysfunction in the baby's environment, that stuff can lie buried down for a long time, and women in particular can try to cover over that underlying dysfunction and need by being sexually appealing, and their youth, and the flush of their sexual power and so on. And then what happens is, they can keep all of that pushed down, but when they have a baby and they haven't done the self work, and they haven't overcome the agony they experienced as baby due to the lack of bonding – they don't have the emotional mechanisms to bond with the child. And then if you can't bond with your child, if you can't bond with your baby, it's just like having a tiny asshole in your house who relentlessly needs, who never gives up, who doesn't give a shit about your feelings, who wants, who wants, who wants, and you don't have any resources to give because you haven't done the necessary work to get the mechanisms of empathy and connection with your baby. And so when the baby comes, it's a little you who you have rejected for 25 years, who was rejected as a baby, who you can't connect with. You can't connect with your inner baby, your mother never connected with your inner baby; you have a baby, you can't connect with your baby, so your baby becomes your demanding selfish mother. And you withdraw, you feel hostile, and you get depressed... If you have and know of significant dysfunctions when you were a baby, which you can probably get by talking about these things with your family, then you know in advance that you're going to have problems bonding with babies... This is so important for men...you need to know who you're going to be having a baby with; you need to know and you need to understand that the baby will not fix them – the baby will *demand* from them, the baby will pull resources out of them...and if you have massive and unresolved childhood issues, particularly infancy issues, that baby is going to pull at your heart and is going to fall forever because there's going to be nothing there for them to hang onto...It's the mother who going to be breastfeeding, it's the mother who is going to be doing more of the cuddling, it's the mother who needs to give the eye contact. But if you're staring into your own shattered and cratered babyhood history, you can't look at that child's heart; it's like staring at the sun without blinking, you can't look at it...The baby needs relaxed eye contact and mirroring; you need to be relaxed and present and comfortable and welcoming in the presence of the baby in your arms. And trauma makes the baby like an open wound that you can't touch. Unresolved trauma. And this is equally true for men and for women..." -- Wounded people wound little people.
psychology  depression  trauma  childhood  attachment  affectregulation  parenting  men  women  StefanMolyneux 
7 weeks ago
Divorce Corp. Documentary -- A shocking exposé of the family law industry
'More money flows through the family courts, and into the hands of courthouse insiders, than in all other court systems in America combined – over $50 billion a year and growing. Through extensive research and interviews with the nation’s top divorce lawyers, mediators, judges, politicians, litigants and journalists, DIVORCE CORP. uncovers how children are torn from their homes, unlicensed custody evaluators extort money, and abusive judges play god with people’s lives while enriching their friends. This explosive documentary reveals the family courts as unregulated, extra-constitutional fiefdoms. Rather than assist victims of domestic crimes, these courts often precipitate them. And rather than help parents and children move on, as they are mandated to do, these courts - and their associates - drag out cases for years, sometimes decades, ultimately resulting in a rash of social ills, including home foreclosure, bankruptcy, suicide and violence. Solutions to the crisis are sought out in countries where divorce is handled in a more holistic manner.'
predation  divorce  marriage  documentaries 
7 weeks ago
YouTube -- Alison Tieman [TyphonBlue]: Women's suffrage, Feminism's first act of female supremacy
'...granting female suffrage created female supremacy by any reasonable measure and...feminists continue to frame that as "equality."' -- Using the power of the State corrupts; corruption immiserates.
feminism  statism  "egalitarianism" 
7 weeks ago
YouTube -- ShieldWife: Women Are Spoiled Brats
'Women get everything they want, so why are they so unhappy?' -- Power corrupts; corruption immiserates.
men  women  power 
7 weeks ago
Type In Depth -- Type and Archetype in Dreams
'Beebe’s Archetypes in Dream Imagery: ... #6 Witch/Senex (Beebe, 2004, pp. 103, 109–111; Beebe, 2005, p. 37): This sarcastic, biting, attacking inner critic in our dreams usually appears as one of our own gender and is connected to our sixth function. It can appear as a positive fairy-godmother/godfather-like figure who offers us just what we need, but it is the negative form that we need to prepare ourselves for. Such a figure puts us in a freezing or frozen, imprisoning or imprisoned, paralyzing or paralyzed place, and it turns out that we often have such an experience when we exercise the 6th function of our personality type, or when someone else exercises that function around us. -- The Senex is cutting, critical, withering, and tends to stop cold whoever is on the receiving end; the Trickster tends to confuse and leave one ambivalent, caught between two not very good options.'
psychology  personality  dreams  shadow  parts 
7 weeks ago
Type In Depth -- Active Imagination: Ne? Ni? Both?
'...I assumed that all students with a preference for intuition would enjoy playing free-association word games. To my surprise, some of them did not find these exercises useful; in fact, many of them either would not or could not engage in them. It was not until some years later that I discovered the reason for this: introverted intuition (Ni) and extraverted intuition (Ne) are oppositional. If we are engaging one of these processes, we cannot also engage the other at the same time. I have come to believe that it was the verbal, interactive quality of such word association games that seemed to block the normal creativity of Ni dominants. In asking introverted intuitives to play such in-class word games as a way to begin writing, it seems that I was requiring them to surrender their superior function. A mantra for using type in writing, developed by John DiTiberio and George Jensen (1995), is: Write from your preferences, edit from your non-preferences. My introverted intuitive students were getting blocked by my directions, which required them to begin with a non-preferred function.'
psychology  personality  creativity  improvisation  writing 
7 weeks ago
Aeon -- What is a good death in a secular age?
'Over the course of several years, I sat with dementia patients receiving hospice care at a down-at-heel nursing home in Manhattan. Few of the dying people I met there seemed to have family or friends who visited regularly, and for the most part, it was impossible to know their plans for death, or if they’d had any. Most seemed lonely and anxious. A man in his seventies, whom I shall call Mr Pollard, appeared to be on a brutal psychic treadmill, reawakening, moment after moment, into panic, not knowing where he was or how he’d gotten there. He would relax a little when I held his hand. Of course, improving the circumstances and care of the sick, old and dying – doing what we can to ensure people get the good death they want – is critical; a humanitarian revolution that has yet to take place. But most of the circumstances of our deaths are ultimately beyond our control. Any one of us could be Mr Pollard. It could be me sitting in a drenched diaper with the TV blasting. It could be me having food shovelled in my mouth when I don’t want to eat. It could be me asking for morphine when I’m wracked with pain and hearing I’ll have to wait two hours for the next dose. The only thing that is within our control is inside. To die contentedly like that, in a dingy room with no privacy, filled with indifferent strangers, will take serious inner work. If I can get that ‘thing’ from the meditation, it will be the most reliable medicine I can have, accessible whenever I need it, when all else fails. As I see it, it’s the only hope for the good death I want – unburdened, unafraid, mindful.'
7 weeks ago
Mother Jones -- The Men's Rights Movement and the Women Who Love It
'She [Janet Bloomfield/Judgy Bitch] also dismisses concept of "rape culture," as "a giant rape fantasy—one in which all women can imagine all men desire them with such force and such passion that they're willing to commit a crime."' -- Janet Bloomfield on Rape Culture: http://youtu.be/162SfR9irKg
men  women  sexuality  fantasy  agencyvspatiency 
8 weeks ago
Honey Badger Brigade -- Gamergate: Journalism as a Social Justice War Game by Hannah Wallen
'...The bottom rung nerd/geek has a very different risk/reward system than for those higher up the social ladder. They don’t have overall social acceptance as an incentive, or rejection as a threat, because they’re always rejected by the majority of the social ladder, and among their own ranks there’s a level of acceptance that comes from banding together under the safety-in-numbers, survivors’ huddle kind of bond. You can’t manipulate someone’s opinions or beliefs by making them appear popular if popularity is not a motivating factor for him. You can’t manipulate someone’s behavior by making certain beliefs or actions appear unpopular if he’s already accepted being unpopular. -- There are aspects of that on the second rung as well because there’s a huge difference between fitting in enough to functionally interact with people and being genuinely accepted. At the same time, having any ability to fit in makes you less trustworthy among people who never could because they are so used to being bullied by those who totally do that fitting in at all is a red flag. There is also an issue of some – sometimes many – second rung outcasts throwing bottom rung outcasts under the bus in social situations due to the flawed belief that climbing the ladder is a worthwhile pursuit, and that doing so will help them move up. -- Among preppies there were individuals who weren’t necessarily nerds, but just wanted to have good career prospects when they got out of school… but there were also very nerdy people who adopted the fashion and social standards of a preppie to fit in. In other words, among preppies were nerds who were to the social ladder of intellectually minded individuals what house slaves were to the social ladder of slavery. -- Some of them were real assholes about it. -- Some were the type to throw old friends and classmates with whom they had common ground under the bus for social cred. Others were the type to lord their social status over those below them on that ladder. -- That’s the social aspect of journalists vs gamers in the gamergate controversy. -- That social aspect is where the Bertha better-than-you attitude comes in. Preppies aren’t all like that, but those who are consider themselves a superior breed of nerd. They’re the civilized nerds, and the rest of us are the unfocused, uncouth rabble. -- Throw in politics, particularly the politics of elitist social justice war mongering, and you now have “socially responsible” house nerds looking down on the independent, uncouth, and unfocused or undisciplined field nerd as socially irresponsible and in need of wrangling. -- It’s pretty much the same attitude that SJWs in established media have overall toward the general public – that attitude that leads to “If you don’t accept my worldview it’s because you’re stupid and immoral, not because I might be wrong.” It’s an entitled attitude of intellectual and moral superiority that comes from a very bad place and is threatening to take us all to that place, except that those bottom rungs are never going to make it there because we can’t. -- I will never be socially adept. I don’t have it in me. I can be a salesman, and I can tread water in unscripted social situations, but I will never, ever really swim or really climb up that ladder, and I don’t want to. I would go so far as to say that when it comes to the upper rungs, I don’t give a flying fuck. I did once for a short while, but I got over it. I think there’s a rather large group of people who have had that same epiphany, a group whose experiences and the resulting attitudes SJWs aren’t taking into consideration. -- That’s a part of the conflict that I think is being overlooked in some ways. -- On one side, you have the elitist, snobby house nerds flat out DEMANDING that the rabble they look down on invest themselves in an alien, largely (to us) meaningless worldview and trying to use threats of social rejection to enforce that demand. On the other side you have a group that really doesn’t give a shit about the social ladder, looking at that demand and wondering what the hell the SJWs smoked before coming up with that idea. -- Journalists reporting on games and game design are basically just doing what it takes to continue to be accepted higher up on the social ladder. They’re fitting in. In the 80s, it was talking about Saturday Night Live sketches and sitcom characters, going to the right parties, wearing penny loafers and Izod shirts. Now, it’s touting the social justice warrior victim-cred caste system and social engineering as a solution to the “problems” of people with the higest victim-cred. -- Being an SJW is how an intellectual fits in to modern pop culture and maintains his or her spot on the social acceptance ladder. It’s not really about justice or morality. Those concepts are just methods of worldview enforcement. It’s 100% about fitting in for these people. -- And just like back in the 80s and 90s, they have no problem stepping on the rungs below them to get to and hold their position. -- THAT is what is going on with the journalists in gamer gate. They don’t give a rat’s ruddy ass about girl gamers, misogyny, violent games, tropes, or the social attitudes of the unshaven masses of the gaming community. -- They just don’t want to lose their position as house nerds. -- What we’re seeing here is the same thing that’s happening everywhere. It’s more obvious in this community because this is a community that does not have the social camouflage others do. This is where nerds and geeks have ceased to care about being social outcasts and just decided to be themselves. -- That shaming, demanding diatribe game journalists are targeting gamers with right now exists in pretty much all aspects of established media, but everywhere else it’s having at least to some degree the intended impact. Social justice isn’t just an attack on free speech. It’s an attack on the right to control one’s own interaction with other people. It’s an attack on an individual’s right to determine his or her own relationships with and to others. Under the social justice onus, you don’t have the right to decide what you will or will not do, like, accept, engage in, or allow to be done to you. The community decides that for you, and if you object the community will smack you down and put you right back in your place. -- It works because most people value their position on the social ladder enough to fear falling from it. The general public mostly occupies the rungs between the mostly rejected and the social elite. They care just enough about maintaining their position that the threat of being accused of social impropriety is enough to keep them in line. That’s the risk/reward system that social engineers in the media are accustomed to dealing with. -- The only people who are equipped to fight off that rushing tide of manipulation and control are those for whom potential social rejection doesn’t constitute a threat. -- That, gamers, is why gamergate is not about any one of the damseling drama queens receiving the coverage in gaming media that is now spilling over into other news sources. It not about the media themselves, either, or the companies supporting the industry. -- It’s about us. -- We’re not under attack because we owe anyone anything we have refused to give, or because we’ve done anything we shouldn’t have done. We’re under attack because we’re one of the last shields that human individuality in western society has.'
status  narcissism  unwarrantedselfimportance  victimhood  feminism  marxism  thoughtpolice  backlash  manifesto  * 
8 weeks ago
Encyclopedia Dramatica -- GamerGate
'One of the oldest techniques of the journalism trade is the leak, only this time, it was used against them. -- As would be expected, a lot of writers who wanted to tell the truth about what was going on were not happy about being told to get with the party line or join the unemployment line. They were even less happy when they were told to write articles denouncing gamers or get fired. So they did what journalists do and leaked information. -- Many people working for gaming press began anonymously posting wherever they could and exposing the gaming site's strategy ahead of time. They exposed that they were planning to try and change the topic, how they were planning to do it, what they were going to change the topic to, and the reason they were doing it, which was... OH FUCK! OUR SPONSORS ARE MAD! -- Well, it's because they were all getting angry calls from sponsors who were paying attention and were not fooled by any of this so they started getting dropped by them and hemorrhaging money. -- All the negative attention prompted a massive letter writing campaign where any site or reporter suspect of misconduct was swiftly told on to his editor. But, since the editors were already in on this and refused to do anything, the emails were then sent to the sponsors instead. -- The sponsors, not wanting to be associated with sites known for sex scandals and having their reporters call their readership fat racists, started calling up the sites and demanding an explanation as to why they were being flooded by complaints by people telling them that one of their clients just called them a faggot on twitter. The effectiveness of this became known thanks to more leaks and only lead to more emails being sent, driving the gaming sites to go into maximum damage control mode and... Step Five (guys), "Gamer" and "Gaming" are DEAD!!!! Finally, in a pathetic, last ditch effort to stop this, the correspondents started going on a final, coordinated PR assault between several gaming news websites that together all published about 20 articles on the same day about how the terms "Gamer" and "Gamer Culture" are officially dead. Essentially trying to stop the bleeding by saying gamers can no longer criticize them because gamers as an identity have ceased to exist overnight. But, as happy as we would have been for that to be true, sadly it isn't. Hilariously, they even used non gaming websites that are part of the same news network to post more of these articles to create the false impression that this is the popular opinion shared by multiple people. -- So now you must be asking: "What's the actual problem that people are protesting?". I'm glad you asked! Social Justice pandering -- The first issue at hand is the sudden shift to political agenda in gaming press over the last few years. -- The field has become overrun by Tumblr feminists, white knights, social justice warriors and scam artists. Those who are not actively part of any of those while working in the gaming press are pressured by those who are from within and from without to conform or find another job. Resulting in a flood of brilliant articles like: #"How games oppress women" #"Why seeing tits in a video game is misogyny and gave me a panic attack" #"Rape in video games" #"How women are raped by video games" #"5 ways a video game raped me"and #"Raping the rape-rape in rape town video game rape" -- At the moment the various gaming sites are trying to paint these complaints as a bunch of fat guys who don't want to let girls into their clubhouse. Ignoring the fact that maybe it's easier to let them into your clubhouse when you've already stuck your meat wand into every orifice in their body like these journalists seems to have done. -- m00t sells out 4chan... https://encyclopediadramatica.es/M00t%27s_GamerGate_Sellout The Reddit Censorship Scandal...'
internet  leaky  journalism  pr  feminism  4chan 
8 weeks ago
YouTube -- Freedomain Radio: Is It Immoral to Hang with Statists?
'To what degree is it immoral to maintain relationships with statists, theists and other people who have deranged beliefs? Are you an accomplice to a crime? Have you set events in motion which have led to immorality? Were you an accomplice to the War in Iraq? Once you make the philosophical case for the immorality of the use of force, how long do you give somebody before considering them morally complicit? What is the moral standing of those around you?' -- But who would enable the enablers?!?!
statism  morality  StefanMolyneux 
8 weeks ago
The College Fix -- University of Michigan: Withholding Sex, Discounting Feelings are ‘Sexual Violence’
'...the University of Michigan’s domestic violence awareness website say “sexual violence” includes “withholding sex and affection” and “discounting the partner’s feelings regarding sex”... -- The terms, found under the heading “definitions,” also suggest verbal or psychological abuse include: “insulting the partner; ignoring the partner’s feelings; withholding approval as a form of punishment; yelling at the partner; labeling the partner with terms like crazy [and] stupid.” -- Also included in the definition of sexual violence is the example of having “sex with other people.”' -- Feelscrime
men  women  victimhood 
8 weeks ago
Paul Craig Roberts -- Will Russia and China Hold Their Fire Until War Is the Only Alternative?
'... The Federal Reserve cannot print foreign currencies with which to buy up the dollars. The dollar’s exchange value would collapse and with it the dollar’s use as world reserve currency. The US would become just another broke country unable to pay for its imports. -- Possibly, Washington could get Japan and the European Central Bank to print enough yen and euros to buy up the dumped dollars. However, the likelihood is that this would bring down the yen and euro along with the dollar. -- Flight would occur into the Chinese and Russian currencies, and financial hegemony would depart the West. -- By their restraint, Russia and China enable Washington’s attack upon them. Last week Washington put thousands of its NGO operatives into the Moscow streets protesting “Putin’s war against Ukraine.” Foolishly, Russia has permitted foreign interests to buy up its newspapers, and these interests continually denounce Putin and the Russian government to their Russian readers. -- Did Russia sell its soul and communication system for dollars? Did a few oligarchs sell out Russia for Swiss and London bank deposits? -- Both Russia and China have Muslim populations among whom the CIA operates encouraging disassociation, rebellion, and violence. Washington intends to break up the Russian Federation into smaller, weaker countries that could not stand in the way of Washington’s hegemony. Russian and Chinese fear of discord among their own Muslim populations have caused both governments to make the extremely serious strategic mistake of aligning with Washington against ISIS and with Washington’s policy of protecting Washington’s status quo in the Muslim world. -- If Russia and China understood the deadly threat that Washington presents, both governments would operate according to the time honored principle that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Russia and China would arm ISIS with surface to air missiles to bring down the American planes and with military intelligence in order to achieve an American defeat. With defeat would come the overthrow of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Egypt and all of the American puppet rulers in the area. Washington would lose control over oil, and the petro-dollar would be history. It is extraordinary that instead Russia and China are working to protect Washington’s control over the Middle East and the petro-dollar...' -- You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no Third Worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems. One vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multi-varied, multi-national dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rands, rubles, pounds and shekels. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI5hrcwU7Dk
america  empire  dollar  petrodollar  oligarchicalcollectivism 
8 weeks ago
The Daily Bell -- The Muddle of 21st Century Warfare
'In our efforts to cover elite memes and their successes and failures, we occasionally notice significant signposts – reports that indicate the strengthening or weakening of a given thematic element. -- Chief among the instruments in the global toolkit are war and various kinds of economic disintegration. War gives government officials access to tremendous powers they would not otherwise be able to justify. Economic ruin also empowers officials while impoverishing citizens and making it more difficult for the middle class to monitor democratic erosions because they are too busy struggling to pay the bills. -- But what we call the Internet Reformation has made such manipulations more apparent – easier to spot. And that brings us to the above article excerpt reporting on Iranian president Hassan Rouhani's speech to the United Nations. There, he virtually accused the West of creating various factions of "Islamic" terror. -- ...the big news in the Rouhani speech was his statement – not significantly reported by Western media – that Western intel agencies have put "blades in the hands of madmen." -- In the 20th century, such manipulations were often hard to spot, but in the 21st century, the Internet reveals the inescapable reality of such patterns. In the 20th century, Rouhani might not have made such a statement but in the 21st century it is merely a recognition of a more general knowledge, certainly in the Middle East. -- In fact, in the past few weeks there have been breathless Western reports that many in the general populace suspect that the CIA is funding IS – ISIS – whatever it is called, along with Al Qaeda. Beyond this there is a widespread suspicion that the Ebola outbreak is the work of Western hands as well. -- This is a significant and emergent belief structure that the West has not had to deal with before – or not in such a public context. It is certainly justified in the sense that Western meddling in the Middle East and Africa is a long-term phenomenon, adequately documented in both the mainstream media and the academic press. -- This "awakening" is complicated by the clumsiness of the current military narrative in the Middle East, Ukraine and Africa. For instance, ISIS is said to have been funded by Middle East radical factions, but most of these factions seem located in such places as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait. These are the same states that are purportedly some of the US's closest allies, either overtly or covertly. -- Additionally, the US has now approached Syria and Russia about supporting the US effort to eradicate ISIS. The US wants to encourage the growth of "moderate" militant Islam once ISIS has been tamed and eliminated. The trouble is that such factions are weak and pose little threat to the current Syrian government. -- The creation and deployment of nuclear devices has made fomenting large-scale "world wars" difficult in the 21st century. But as war remains a powerful transformative tool, both politically and economically, those who seek to use such mechanisms to reshape regions and to create malleable dialectics have concentrated on regional wars. -- But if we look at the muddle in Africa and the Middle East it soon becomes clear that such regional warfare is difficult to control and sustain with any kind of narrative clarity. -- We have spent the past several years searching for a sensible and dominant social theme appropriately implemented; increasingly, we wonder if there is one. -- Perhaps serial warfare is not nearly so effective a tool as more widespread militarization of the kind that occurred in the 20th century.'
statism  war  perpetualwar  empire  cognitivesurplus 
8 weeks ago
The Onion -- Obama Informs Nation Anarchy Will Reign During Search For New Attorney General
'“Until a majority of senators agree on a candidate of my nomination, everything and nothing at all will be permitted. Darkness and cruelty will overtake the hearts of even the most upright civilians.” “My administration aims to begin the nomination and hearings process some time after the November recess,” Obama added. “But pending the confirmation of a new attorney general, I urge you all: Murder or be murdered.”'
TheOnion  "anarchy"  statism  law  satire 
8 weeks ago
Terra Nova -- Making it official: RIP Terra Nova
'...it seems to me this morning that there was one factor of virtual worlds that did not "go" anywhere but proved irremediably toxic to the medium itself: The people themselves. It proved impossible to make everyone feel like a hero in a world populated by millions of would-be heroes. It proved impossible to construct mechanisms that allowed people to find fulfillment from their fellow-players rather than frustration. In the end, the concept of a multi-player fantasy world broke on the shoals of the infinite weirdness of human personality. -- Perhaps virtual world designers were the latest incarnation of the utopian community builders of the 19th and earlier centuries. "If only we set up the rules correctly, people will naturally have a blast together!" No; I guess they won't. Not even if the utocrat can control physics down to the very atoms. Not even if the art and sound of the world is heavenly. Not even if people are given thousands of meaningful missions and wonderfully uplifting stories. Perhaps the mere presence of Others breaks whatever dream people are trying to have.'
virtualworlds  augmentationistsvsimmersionists 
8 weeks ago
Psychology Today -- Domestic Violence and Child Abuse in the NFL
'Victims of physical abuse often feel they disappointed their parent or other authority figure and thus deserved to be chastised or even beaten. Many of my clients who were severely physically abused argue with me when I call what happened to them “abuse.” I’ve heard everything from “You don’t know what a terror I was. My mother could only control me by hitting me with that cord” to “I deserved every beating I got. My father was just trying to teach me to be a man.” -- In addition to the shame perpetuated by believing the abuse was their fault there is the shame associated with the violation itself. This is the shame that comes from feeling rejected and abandoned by an adult who one loves and desperately wants to be loved by. Facing up to the truth—that they were powerless and helpless or that they were abandoned by someone they loved—is so painful and frightening that many simply refuse to do it. -- There are certain tendencies that those with a history of having been abused have when it comes to how they view and treat their children, including: an inability to have compassion toward their child, a tendency to take things too personally (causing them to overreact to their children’s behavior), being overly invested in their children looking good (and themselves looking good as their parent) because of a lack of self-confidence, and an insistence on their children “minding” or respecting them to compensate for their own shame or lack of confidence. -- And there is another reason, not often discussed, that can cause a parent to become abusive: seeing their own weakness or vulnerability in their child. Those with a history of having been victimized may respond by hating or despising weakness. If they see weakness in their child, they may have been reminded of their own vulnerability and victimization and this may have ignited self-hatred, causing them to lash out at their child. (This phenomena can be likened to what causes bullies to attack other children). -- When Adrian Peterson stated that he was just doing to his son what was done to him he was no doubt telling us the truth. -- As those who work with victims of child abuse can attest, victims of child abuse typically deny they were abused and repeatedly defend their abusive parent’s actions. These behaviors serve the function of preserving the child’s primary attachment to his parents, even in the face of daily evidence of malice or indifference.'
psychology  childhood  neglect  abuse  shame  humiliation  denial  narcissism  parenting  psychohistory 
9 weeks ago
Psychology Today -- Why Having a Best Friend Can Be Dangerous for Teen Girls by Guy Winch
'...a relatively new line of research is examining a new factor and finding that it has a much bigger impact on depression rates among teenaged girls than previously suspected—their friendships. -- Specifically, studies have investigated what teenagers talk about with their best friends. They found that teenaged girls spend a disproportionate amount of discussion time focusing on problems and negative feelings and feeding off one another when doing so. They named this tendency co-rumination. -- Teenage girls can spend hours rehashing problems, complaints, and concerns, dissecting them from every angle, and commiserating with one another about the negative feelings these issues elicit. Co-ruminating in this way, involves something that on the surface seems positive and useful—one girl responding to another’s distress by asking questions, validating her feelings, and encouraging further disclosure. -- However, what makes this process damaging rather than emotionally healthy is the sheer amount of time girls can spend focusing on problems and negative emotions. Further, girls are much less likely to balance their ‘complaint-talk’ with problem-solving strategies that can help them identify how to better their situation. -- Brooding about problems without including a problem-solving element is, by definition, what distinguishes unhealthy rumination from healthier forms of self-reflection (read The Seven Hidden Dangers of Brooding). The massive amounts of time adolescent girls spend rehashing feelings of sadness, helplessness, hopelessness, rejection, victimhood, and others such negative emotions with their friend(s) can have a huge impact on their emotional well-being and sense of identity. -- In case you’re wondering why adolescent girls would persist in a behavior that can make them feel depressed, there is a good reason. Amanda Rose also found that co-ruminating with a best friend is actually good for the friendship as it increases closeness and social bonding. In other words, there are aspects of co-rumination that are rewarding and feel good. These immediate benefits are much more apparent to teenage girls than the longer term threat of depression (which after all, they have no reason to attribute to the nature of their conversations with a best friend).'
women  agencyvspatiency  victimhood  depression  psychology  attachment 
9 weeks ago
Stan Tatkin -- Working Bottom Up in PACT
'All clinicians have seen how a couple can become reactive and operated out of conditioned responses from childhood. Their brains can register threat in nano seconds. The autonomic nervous system (ANS) moves at lightning speed in response to facial gestures, dangerous words and phrases, jerky gestures, tone and prosody, as well as general body language. PACT therapists watch moment-to-moment shifts of the ANS, implicit expressions in the face, voice, eyes, and body posture and body language to assess what is happening between partners’ two nervous systems. Content takes a backseat to process. -- The use of bottom-up interventions makes PACT a “show me therapy,” rather than a “tell me therapy.” PACT therapists work in real time with couples in the office, reenacting psychobiological scenarios that can make palpable and possible differences at home.'
psychology  psychotherapy  relationships  affectregulation 
9 weeks ago
The Daily Bell -- US Pursues 134 Wars Around the World
'The US is now involved in 134 wars or none, depending on your definition of war.'
america  empire  war 
10 weeks ago
YouTube -- Freedomain Radio: The Truth About ISIS Beheadings: 9/11 Continued...
'...has the United States learned anything from the War on Terror, or is it doomed to repeat the same mistakes?' -- "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” ~ Upton Sinclair
terrorism!  statism  america  empire  war  perpetualwar  StefanMolyneux 
10 weeks ago
The Progress Report -- Geo-Libertarianism gets Criticized by Fred Foldvary
'...Cuneo says “There is nothing special that says land should have different rules of ownership than, say, baseball bats.” But what makes land different from labor is that it was created by nature rather than by human action, and self-ownership cannot apply to what the self did not create. -- Cuneo agrees that the supply of spatial land is fixed, but points out that the use of land can expand. But the expansion of use and the existence of unused land are irrelevant; what matters is that the rent is created by natural benefits and by the presence of a community. Land rent comes from the scarcity of land of that quality, but geoism does not depend only on scarcity, since labor is also scarce. -- Another confusing term used by Georgists is that allodial ownership prevents an “equal access” to land. What geoists mean is that the collection of all the economic rent of land brings the purchase price down to about zero, and that provides better access to the purchase of land by lower-income people whose credit worthiness is uncertain to lenders. But geoism supports the individual right of exclusive possession when the title holder pays the community rental, hence geoism is not really based on physical access. Mike Cuneo is focusing on the unfortunate terminology without analyzing the fundamental principles of geo-libertarianism. -- Cuneo then makes the common error in mixing labor and capital goods into land. He points out that “landlords” invest their time and resources to maintain and invest in real estate. But the economic meaning of land excludes labor and capital goods. The pure “land” lord is the economic role only as a land title holder, aside from his other roles. When the holder of land also applies his time, the person is in the role a worker earning wages. When he invests in development, he does so as a capital lord. -- Mike Cuneo then argues that a similar geoist argument could be made for water. Its natural supply too is limited. Water too is essential for life. “Why aren’t Geo-Libertarians endorsing a Water Value Tax?” In fact, they do endorse a water-value tax, because natural water is land, as is oil in the ground. The tapping of land rent should include the economic rent of water and other material lands.'
economics  land  property  geoism  landlordism  "capitalism"  FredFoldvary 
10 weeks ago
The Progress Report -- Infrastructure Can Pay for Itself with No Selloffs, No Tricks
'...That the banks are the principal beneficiaries of ever-climbing housing prices is yet another largely overlooked fact. The more banks can lend people to buy houses, the more expensive real estate gets, the more money banks get to lend and the more profit they make. It’s a beautiful self-perpetuating gravy train. -- Politicians feign concern about housing affordability and how hard it is for first home buyers to get into the market but they don’t enact any of the policy measures that we know would improve affordability for fear of upsetting the financial industry, the real estate industry and all the “mum and dad” property investors who’ve been lured into real estate by distortionary government policies like negative gearing and concessional treatment of capital gains (both of which are effectively corporate welfare for the banks).'
economics  land  rentseeking  landlordism  "capitalism" 
10 weeks ago
Seeking Alpha -- McDonalds Is a Real Estate Company
'Most people don't realize it, but McDonald's (NYSE:MCD) is not a burger-flipping restaurant chain; it is one of the world's best real estate portfolios. Franchisees flip the burgers. McDonald's simply owns the best commercial property all over the world. -- McDonald's will buy properties that it feels are, or will be, hot locations, and it of course sells properties that are under performing or otherwise not doing so well.' -- Location, location, location.
economics  land  rentseeking 
10 weeks ago
McLuhan Galaxy -- A Reassessment of Marshall McLuhan by a Public Relations Professional
'In Wired‘s launch issue interview with a virtual McLuhan, whose consciousness they said had been preserved in a programmed bot, he says that the real message of media today is ubiquity. It is not something that we do. Rather it is something we are part of from the outside that excites all our senses. It is, he said through Wired‘s medium, as if we have amputated not our ears or our eyes, but ourselves, and then established a total prosthesis – an automaton – in our place.'
McLuhan  media  themediumisthemassage  amputation  malgorithms 
10 weeks ago
ROUGH TYPE -- Speak, algorithm
'When we allow ourselves to be guided by predictive algorithms, in acting, speaking, or thinking, we inevitably become more predictable ourselves... Predicted responses begin to replace responses, simply because it’s a little more efficient to simulate a response —a thought, a sentence, a gesture — than to undertake the small amount of work necessary to have a response. And then that small amount of work begins to seem like a lot of work — like correcting your own typos rather than allowing the spellchecker to do it. And then, as original responses become rarer, the predictions become predictions based on earlier predictions. Where does the algorithm end and the self begin?'
automation  algorithms  malgorithms  circumscription  probabilityspace 
10 weeks ago
The New Inquiry -- Preemptive personalization
'When we start measure the self, concretely, in quantified attention and the density of network connectivity rather than in terms of the nebulous concept of “effort,” it begins to make sense to accept algorithmic personalization, which reports the self to us as something we can consume. The algorithm takes the data and spits out a statistically unique self for us, that lets us consume our uniqueness as as a kind of one-of-a-kind delicacy. It masks from us the way our direct relations with other people shape who are, preserving the fantasy we are sui generis. It protects us not only from the work of being somebody — all that tiring self-generated desire — but more insidiously from the emotion work of acknowledging and respecting the ways our actions have consequences for other people at very fundamental levels of their being. Automated selfhood frees us from recognizing and coping with our interdependency, outsourcing it to an algorithm. -- The point of “being unique” has broadened; it is a consumer pleasure as well as a pseudo-accomplishment of self-actualization. So all at once, “uniqueness” (1) motivates content production for social-media platforms, (2) excuses intensified surveillance, and (3) allows filter bubbles to be imposed as a kind of flattery (which ultimately isolates us and prevents self-knowledge, of knowledge of our social relations). Uniqueness is as much a mechanism of control as an apparent expression of our distinctiveness. -- ...becoming “more unique” is an impossible, nonsensical goal for self-actualization: self-knowledge probably involves coming to terms with how generic our wants and needs and thoughts are, and how dependent they are on the social groups within which we come to know ourselves, as opposed to some procedure of uncovering their pure idiosyncrasy. The idea that self-becoming or self-knowledge is something we’d want to make more “convenient” seems counterproductive. The effort to be a self is its own end. That is what Orwell seemed to think: “The tendency of mechanical progress, then, is to frustrate the human need for effort and creation.”' -- Behold, I teach you the overman. The overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth! I beseech you, my brothers, remain faithful to the earth, and do not believe those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes! Poison-mixers are they, whether they know it or not. Despisers of life are they, decaying and poisoned themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so let them go.
technoutopianism  theadvertisedlife  consumering  technology  temes  malgorithms  circumscription 
10 weeks ago
The Los Angeles Review of Books -- The Manipulators: Facebook’s Social Engineering Project
'...If the Post Office had ever disclosed that it was reading everyone’s mail and choosing which letters to deliver and which not to, people would have been apoplectic, yet that is essentially what Facebook has been doing. In formulating the algorithms that run its News Feed and other media services, it molds what its billion-plus members see and then tracks their responses. It uses the resulting data to further adjust its algorithms, and the cycle of experiments begins anew. Because the algorithms are secret, people have no idea which of their buttons are being pushed — or when, or why. -- The problem with manipulation is that it hems us in. It weakens our volition and circumscribes our will, substituting the intentions of others for our own. When efforts to manipulate us are hidden from us, the likelihood that we’ll fall victim to them grows. Other than the unusually dim or gullible, most people in the past understood that corporate marketing tactics, from advertisements to celebrity endorsements to package designs, were intended to be manipulative. As long as those tactics were visible, we could evaluate them and resist them — maybe even make jokes about them. That’s no longer the case, at least not when it comes to online services. When companies wield moment-by-moment control over the flow of personal correspondence and other intimate or sensitive information, tweaking it in ways that are concealed from us, we’re unable to discern, much less evaluate, the manipulative acts. We find ourselves inside a black box. -- Because algorithms impose on us the interests and biases of others, we have not only a right, but also an obligation to carefully examine and, when appropriate, judiciously regulate those algorithms. We have a right and an obligation to understand how we, and our information, are being manipulated. To ignore that responsibility, or to shirk it because it raises hard problems, is to grant a small group of people — the kind of people who carried out the Facebook and OKCupid experiments — the power to play with us at their whim.' -- Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: "I seek God! I seek God!" As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? Emigrated? Thus they yelled and laughed. The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him – you and I. All of us are his murderers... How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers?"
internet  malgorithms  circumscription 
10 weeks ago
Kazerad's Tumblr -- Faceless Together
'...When a controversial figure declares they were hacked or bullied, 4chan are the ones compiling evidence of whether or not it was faked. When someone tries to defend a position with their social standing or identity, 4chan is the first to stand against them, confronting them as an equal. And when someone preaches what others should be doing, 4chan is the first to get on their case if they don’t do it themselves. They are not a unified group so much as a group of people who share a common mindset - that inequality and its associated social pressures are the root cause of problems. They tend to confront people as equals - and if that doesn’t work, they try to knock them down to their level.'
internet  immunesystem  4chan  anonymity  civility 
10 weeks ago
Psychology Today -- Nine Reasons Why It’s So Easy to Be Misunderstood by Leon F. Seltzer
'...whenever you feel seriously misconstrued, it’s wise—gingerly—to say something like: “What did you just hear me say? I’m puzzled by your reaction. Might I have reminded you of somebody else?”'
psychology  emotionalintelligence  projection  communication 
11 weeks ago
« earlier      
"capitalism" #bandwidth #socialization * 1984 abuse activism addiction advertising advice america art attachment attention augmentationistsvsimmersionists avatars backlash banking behaviours bitcoin blogging brain branding business businessmodels celebrity centralbanking centralnervoussystem childhood children china climate code cognitivesurplus collaboration collapse collectiveintelligence communication communities conformity consumerism content corporatism creativity criticism crowdsourcing culture data datamining debt delusion design documentaries dollar economics emotionalintelligence empire entertainment evolution existentialism experience extensionsofman facebook fame feedback feminism finance forcedmemes freedom funny games gaming geoism globalgovernment google government greatestdepression groupthink hackersvsvectoralists hacking health hipsterrunoff history ideas identity ideology immateriallabour immunesystem incrementalism inflation information innovation interface internet irrationality journalism land law leaky learning legalese life lifecasting literaryculturevsoralculture mapping marketing markets media men mercantilism mobile money morality music narcissism narrativeactivism narrativeenvironments narrativeobjects networks news numbers objects oligarchicalcollectivism oligarchy parasitism parenting pathocracy people performance philosophy planning play politics privacy productnarratives propaganda psychohistory psychology psychotherapy puppetry quotes reality realityprogramming reflexivity relationships religion rent rentseeking research retribalization roleplay satire science search security self selfservers sexuality shame simulation slavery socialgraph socialism socialmedia socialnetworking sociology software sousveillance space statism status stefanmolyneux storytelling strategy surveillance tagging technology television temes terrorism! theadvertisedlife thegamingofeverydaylife theonion thinking tools transmedia trauma tv twitter uk victimhood violence virtuality virtualworlds visualization voluntaryism war wikileaks women wordpress work

Copy this bookmark: