kalmia

I doubt anyone with an IQ less than 100 would post on this forum. This isn't an IQ testing forum, but discussing the ideas that are discussed on here takes a certain IQ level. A basketball forum might discuss height even though it isn't an anatomy forum. I remember mine testing at 130 years ago.

I was born to church-going parents. I continued to go into adulthood hoping for connection and community that I never found.

I think watching too much tv damaged my view of relationships.

Did you have someone to help you sort things like this out when you were an early teen? Did you have a mother who supported and loved you then? I think the thing that makes rejection from a girl sting so hard is not having the feeling that you have a mother who will still love and support you through the rejection. Also, not having a father figure to help you make sense of it adds a huge amount of confusion. I know this is what made it so difficult for me at that age. I didn't see my mother or grandmother empathizing with my boy feelings. I remember pointing out something said to me, and my mother and grandmother would minimize what happened. They didn't bother to try to understand why it bothered me so much. My dad was too awkward to discuss anything like this.

Ideas go nowhere without a tribe that sees them as core beliefs. Isolated individuals with fringe ideas eventually take those ideas to the grave. If it is multi-generational, then taking ideas to the grave makes the whole thing a waste of time and effort. I'm not sure of the evidence of success, but I think he has been taking a strategy of connecting with people as a way of building community.

Many people, including women, have limited social/ emotional energy. I'm pretty introverted so I understand this. If women choose men then they primarily have to be in filter mode. Their focus must be on limiting who they socialize with unless they are super outgoing extrovert. The more attractive they are the higher their filters must be. Imagine an attractive woman has a man pass by her every couple minutes. How many would have sex with her if given the chance? Could she have learned that certain behaviors of hers give certain guys the wrong idea? How much of her time would be consumed with dealing with men who are after her if she gave every one a solid shot? Is she allowed to focus on other things or must she always be a performer? Another thing? How serious or playful is your demeanor? Women often mirror a man's mood.

Is integrity a virtue? Dysfunction is a lack of integrity.

There is a lot of bias demonstrated in a person's focus. A podcast about the truth about Eric Garner is mostly focused on defending his attackers. I'm not convinced they are murderers. But why not discuss why a person would get to the age that he did and have sidewalk cigarette selling as his best economic opportunity? There are so many angles to discuss here. But he focusses on defense of those who attacked him. I am reminded of Stefan's discussion of Down and Out in Paris and London where people speculate on why people are transient, non of which are true to the reality of why. My suggestion for Stefan is if he wants to be responsible in his podcasts and plans to keep discussing police, get out of Mississauga and go hang out in some poor American city and see what things are really like. Going on the write ups that are filtered is missing a lot.

If we assume your argument to be valid, then unequal parenting is a form of abuse too. Stef should beat, molest and scream at Isabella. If he fails to do so, he is giving her an unfair advantage over all the other children who are beaten, molested and yelled at. Maybe the crazy progressives who say every child should be forced to go to a shitty government school as some form of equalizing are onto something.

Yes I know I have limits. I know I have overcome limits in my thinking in the past. I can see some of my current limits, and I have a vague sense of limits I still have but can't quite verbalize. I know my post was lacking in solid evidence. I could spend many hours digging up the exact podcasts and citing the quotes, but I just posted what I remembered. If condemnation (or at least criticism) is deserved for those who defend mothers who look the other way when a father beats or molests, something Stef has argued many times, then we MUST condemn those who defend cops who look the other way when other cops abuse and enforce unjust "laws". Yes, cops do get to choose what laws they enforce. It is impossible to enforce all of them, so they must choose. Parents who abuse are counting on society defending them and silencing and shunning the victim. Cops are also counting on society defending them and silencing and shunning their victims. Most defense of abusive parents is done for social conformity. Most defense of police is done for social conformity. The parallels are so obvious here. I often listen to Stef's conversations and see the parallels to the state as family. When people talk about their family issues, I try to see where those people in the conversation exist in the state system. His podcasts were about much more than showing no racial hate crime was committed. I am very unconvinced there was any racial hate crime. I think the focus on race (something Stef has played into) has distracted from the very real issue that the police DO go after people of any race who are unable to defend themselves in the court and judicial system.

He promotes RTR, and often says he is annoyed or frustrated with a caller on his show. My annoyance isn't an argument, but I figure I ought to throw in my emotional reaction to his podcast. I'm not sure Eric did not act in his own best self interests as I explained above. People who do something that seems irrational or out of their own self interests are often people who are out of options. Corner someone, and that person will lash out, even if it means certain death. I'm not saying anyone should respond in any particular way toward police. I do find it irresponsible for someone who should know that the police are the violent end of the state go on to say that minorities need them. WTF? I have responded very passive, assertive and outright insulting toward cops and similar bureaucrats. I'm still not sure what is the best response. There is a danger in too much passivity. It's all a delicate line to balance on. And sometimes, they are going to get you no matter what you do.

Stefan's recent videos on Eric Garner are a clear demonstration of his bias. I kept thinking, "but you said..." in previous podcasts. I found much of it frustrating and annoying. I was more pissed off at him for saying the things he was saying in the videos, but remember that with anyone in the business of ideas, that person will bump into his limits. Rand could not fully apply the NAP to the state, and Molyneux cannot fully apply the state as family theory to cops and courts. Why this emotional blockage? I don't know. I have tried to speculate, but don't have much. Blacks often have the most abusive dysfunctional families. Black people (and often Hispanics) bond more strongly to their abusers, particularly maternal. It is why there is more of a collectivist identity among these ethnic groups. White people are more likely to reject their parents, fully or partially. It's also why there is more of an individualist identity among whites. If you doubt the above two points, think about insulting the mother of a black, Hispanic or white (non-Hispanic). Who is most likely to blow into a rage? There is a reason "yo mama" insults are closely related to certain types of people. The state is violence. It's solution to problems is violence. (Stef seems to have forgotten that one) Black people bonding with the state is an obvious extension of them bonding with their abusive mothers. Last weekend I was on a train where I saw a black woman with 4 little children across the aisle. There was a toddler who was screaming and crying. She yelled, ignored and eventually smacked the toddler. I thought about how she was imprinting future police abuse as normal on that little brain. That toddler will run to the mother no matter how much she smacks. And when he is older, he will run to the state no matter how much the police abuse him. No, blacks do not kinda need police as Stef said in FDR 2872 unless you are saying that abuse victims need abusers. Stef's insistence that Eric Garner was not choked for selling cigarettes but for resisting is TOTAL abuser apologetics and is a complete abandonment of prior arguments such as taxation is violence. The assertion of the abuser is that taxation is not violence. Resisting the tax man may result in violence but that violence is for resisting. At one point in time, Stef could make this connection. Why his brain farted out in this incident is something I can't figure out. The state needs slave on slave attack. Claiming that those who sell cigarettes at full tax amounts are victims of those who avoid some of the taxes is repeating the language of the abusers. It is supporting slave on slave attack. Stef belabored the point that Eric Garner knew the drill if arrested. I have heard others insist that it's just a matter of stupidity that causes someone to resist. I think it is possible that he knew on some level that he didn't have a lot of time left. An arrest, not matter now frivolous and baseless can take up years of a person's life, especially one who does not have much money, something a person who sells loose cigarettes is not likely to have. It is possible that he saw this is the end either way, and it was his last desperate plea and he knew this would lead to him dying in a jail cell awaiting trial. I'm sure he spent a good chunk of his life tied up in this system. How much actual wrong-doing? I don't know. Conviction or arrest is irrelevant. Convictions don't mean anything to those who know the true nature of the system. Those who take the attitude of co-operate and deal with it in court do this from a position of access to lawyers and resources that many do not have. Reminds me of a podcast on empathy where Stef told of a guy who told Stef to buy something for a team or sport that Stef could not afford. I suggest Stef listen to that podcast and learn something. Those who cannot see obvious connections have some emotional resistance. What is it with Stef?

I wonder how much of the doomsday fantasies are related to religious rapture myth. They may come out of a hatred for the world whose corrupt nature they have become aware of, the leaving Eden myth. My contact with them gives me the impression that many of them are male bitches.

How much did your parents trust your decision making? Did they minimize your decisions and always hold the decisions of others as superior to yours?

Your statement presumes a White Man's Burden. How about not sending militarized police into black neighborhoods and letting them deal with their own crime? You cannot have police going in as invaders and expect the police to see those who they are invading as anything other than prey to conquer and subjugate.

I read Sex at Dawn. Much of it is an explanation and defense of female promiscuity. It also claims that the agricultural revolution subjugated women's natural promiscuity. I don't remember any place where it connected the agricultural revolution to female sexual selection theory. The book does not deny female selection theory. It gives plenty of examples to show that even in a very female promiscuous society, there is still selection. It said that the selection was based on penis size and ability to give women orgasms. Without females selecting for agriculturally skilled males, the agricultural revolution would not have happened. Females not only wanted males to enclose land and hold property for future use but also wanted men to hold them for future use. All male behaviors are the result of female selection.

I spent so many years without anyone to connect with me that I became very comfortable being alone. I still wanted connection despite being able to tune out that desire. I have been able to find people to connect with, but being by myself has become so much the norm that I don't do it much. I wonder if I have positioned myself as someone people chase for attention and connection now. Chasing someone's attention is not connection.

The result of so many men not learning the skills of interacting with women is that all women end up chasing the few remaining alpha players who do have the necessary social skills. Is feminism just a giant shit test?

Try to survive a confrontation by the police, but there is no fighting them in court unless you are fortunate enough to have the wealth to do so. Police intentionally target those who can least afford to defend themselves. "Judges" rubber stamp the accusations of cops as factual, and many millions get forced through this system. The silver lining is that disrespect for the courts will rise among many more people. When the courts can't be trusted, the only option is to deal with the police with the knowledge that they aren't held in check by anyone.

"My question was more about how you let go of the system being shit." I think we have to realize the system is what it is. I have a lot of anger and frustration over the criminal "justice" system. I hate feeling that way. I assume that the best way to deal with negative people in my life is to cut them out of my life. Unfortunately this isn't possible with police and prosecutors. The best idea I have for partially removing them is to work to build community of people who understand people like me. I'm not sure how to do this or if it is even possible. But I have to try. I tend to think that anyone who calls the police for any reason does not understand the true nature of the system. I don't see any legitimate reason to call them to a situation unless it is under compulsion.

.

I've been in the state temples known as courts far too many times than I can remember. And I wonder how many others can see the insanity of it all. How many normalize it? I wish that everyone who supports the state and police would be forced into it at a time when they are least able to defend themselves. I find the whole thing disgusting. But I do see the cops, prosecutors, "judges", and other supporting bureaucrats as playing the role of abusive parents for adults. It's their way. And questioning them is severly punished just as "talking back" is punished for children. We can also see the siding with abusers that is so common with society and abusers of children. They deny the abuse and insist that it was the person who was abused who was wrong.

I'm not sure what made me think of it. I may have heard it or read it elsewhere. But I have learned about evolutionary psychology and about "game" in picking up women and have seen how much of society functions in the ways described. It's like pulling back the curtain and seeing what is really going on. Men gain status and climb a social hierarchy so they are no longer disposable. The state is a concept that certain people get to decide who is at the bottom of this heirarchy. People use the state to limit competition, and males seek to limit competition from other males. If they are looking for who to eliminate they can agree on eliminating those who are involved in businesses that do not hold the state as the top of the social heirarchy. These businesses included those who sell mind and emotion altering substances, not the most dangerous but the substances that most upset the social heirarchy. For example, MDMA is far less dangerous than alcohol or many allowable substances. But MDMA upsets the social heirarchy as those subjugated by their internal self attack loops are no longer subjugated. Marijuana can get some people to more openly question society. But some don't see the threat as so great, and promoting the added wealth that will be recieved by those at the top of the state heirarchy has allowed its use. But notice that permission from those at the top of the state heirarchy is a meme that must not be challenged. To challenge it is to flip the social heirarchy where those at the top move to the bottom. Of course many imprisoned are too low in intelligence to rise to the top of any heirarchy. But they still pose a reproductive threat.

There is a difference in attractiveness and beauty. Exactly what defines objective beauty is something that is not completely settled. But there is something objective even if everyone has a different ideal. There is an objective definition of a chair even if everyone disagrees on what an ideal chair is. To deny that there is an objective beauty is to negate the concept.

I like listening to Alan Watts and Terrance McKenna for a perspective shift at times. It's like getting a second hand psychedelic effect. Both strike me as the type of people who would have really cool podcasts if they were alive today.