Link: Why are people so blind?

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/why-are-people-so-blind.html

  1. their religion is hedonism
  2. their understanding of good is false (it never existed)
  3. evil is a joke
  4. “hate the sin, love the sinner” – Satan
  5. punishment seems impossible when there are unprecedented rewards
  6. the odds of things catching up to them seem remote (they aren’t)
  7. having absolute standards (read: any standards) is un-cool
  8. most people are losers and without this sociosexual rebellion, they know they have nothing.

Similarly provocative

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/what-was-it-like-to-be-jesus.html

“he always knew exactly what to do: he knew and did the right thing.”

Prudence – now an insult.

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/soulmates-love-and-sex.html

“The right partner in marriage is the best possible experience we can have of our unconscious and unrealised nature.”

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/my-xtmas-wish-for-you-please-please.html

please, Please, PLEASE don’t waste your time in pointing-out the inconsistencies of The Mainstream Left (i.e. our society), or trying to make sense of them…

They want attention, don’t feed the trolls.

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/the-red-pill-must-indeed-be-pill.html

“Those who talk most about themselves having-been Red-Pilled are examples of ‘false-awakening’: still asleep but merely dreaming that they have awoken”

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/common-error-regression-to-mean-of.html

“In other words, to the extent that a high IQ individual comes from a genetically-relatively-intelligence-inbreeding caste or class; there is no regression to the mean.”

Galton never wrote it that way, the guy who invented both IQ (originally) and regression as a concept.

It was twisted that way but actually it doesn’t apply to high IQ, only to the slightly above-average IQ, with a standard deviation or two. The fully top-tier have a common cause – low genetic load, which must be inherited by the offspring since 1. it is recessive and 2. both parents have it. There is a similar heritability with true retardation but it isn’t PC to say so. Regression to the mean apply to normative groups, anything that deserves separate categories must be conforming to different assumptions and ‘rules’. e.g. we all live in the population but there is a select sample of us with green eyes, can we assume the global melanin levels (brown) apply to this sample?

Samples are not populations. I repeat, samples are not populations.
False reports of high IQ will regress to the mean, on the other hand. Scientism is full of false reports.

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/which-sex-is-more-vulnerable-to-being.html

“The modern world depends on a spiritual-Christian awakening – both men and women are necessary; but it cannot happen without women.”

At the moment, the things he lists are not choices, they are options after men have made the choices (to settle down, marry, reproduce), they are largely male economic decisions e.g. to propose. The men I’ve asked are in the same position as the women, “I would like to, one day, but I can’t afford to (now)”.

We’ve been whipped, all of us, into productivity, and out of re-productivity.
Celebrating bachelors in the Baby Boomer Bond-era was the beginning of the end. How many of those eventually got married (by which I mean, stayed married, faithfully)? The rise of spinsters came after the playboy bachelor celebration, women followed men into anti-natal decisions.

https://albionawakening.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/is-albion-woman.html

Yes.

All male role models have been a let-down (degenerate) or defined by their women (Arthur).
America was healthy in the times its role model was Lady Liberty more than Uncle Sam.
Male role models appear to be the harbinger of Martian decision-making, reckless and stupid, an extreme of hasty but courageous.
The EU has Captain Euro. It’s a trend.
Britain’s glory days were presaged by Elizabeth I and Britannia.
Boats are female, nations are typically female too. It’s probably the rich soil Goddess versus fertile sky God dynamic. War heroes and industrialists are typically male. Beauties and artists skew feminine.
There is a pattern to the successful society, but what few know is that the prototypic female of plenty was Ceres. Sometimes, as in Britannia, the female also has traces of Athene. This is the only model of female power that worked, alongside possibly Merlin (a positive Saturn) or Jupiter. A young male role model or one with a single purpose (destructive, Uncle Sam) leads to disaster.
Role models of family-centred societies must be hearth-like and probably virginal, at least maternal. Classically a female domain, but I wouldn’t object to male variations e.g. like a male nurse, Apollo. Women seem to be more about preserving rights (to this day, but the wrong ‘rights’) whereas men are, as historically expected, the destructive, who charge in and take or destroy good systems rather than repairing them (handiwork, homework).
Alexander the Great was never a role model.

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/who-what-is-antichrist-recognise-by.html

“No – what makes Antichrist, and what makes Antichrist detectable, is any kind of Christianity pursued with unChristian motivation.”

I can still be a Christian and fuck around doing XYZ people.

Sure. It doesn’t count, to you. I can be a vegan and eat eggs on weekends.
See points up-top.

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/q-are-psychological-biological-group.html

“So, from this experience, I learned the futility of arguing about evidence when it comes to matters of fundamental assumptions – of metaphysics. If you assume that group differences are plausible – there is ample, high quality of evidence consistent with such assumptions. But if you assume that there are no such differences – then it is an easy matter to explain-away any and every piece of apparent evidence, and to dismiss the arguments of those who oppose you.”

Science v. Scientism.

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/the-disaster-of-increased-funding-new.html

“The New Left cannot be ‘fought’, nor organised-against – rather we must opt-out from it.”

Anything you can do to decrease their funding.

1. Be civil. 2. Be logical or fair. 3. Do not bore me.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s