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.

Manosphere /fake MGTOW claim: Women can’t do science or Women can’t invent

TLDR:

wrong dr house urgh shut up idiots

I think this claim in particular is ruining the manosphere. This post will be logic and science-heavy. For satirical reasons, and because I’m a little troll at heart with the other chanfags, I’m largely going to use resources written by men. Deny that, bitches!

Fake MGTOW still reading this:

The plight of stupid neolibs everywhere

I’m seeing this picked up increasingly by the sort of insecure moron who couldn’t invent a new form of toaster with a gun to his head. I would own them at robot wars. You can tell they don’t have a job in science (no, IT doesn’t count, tons of Indian women work in it ffs) and have never been to a single conference with their bitchy attitude. Example;

MGTOWERscienceclaimwrong

You know they’re desperate to prove how edgy they are when virginTOW is in their screen-name, Tyler Durden would be more original, or Mr Robot now I guess. MGTOW is being beset by the same sort of loser that drowned Reddit and Atheistkult, with the equivalent male virulence of SJWs to anything exposed to their entryism, and it’s no wonder the movement is now drowning under their dead weight. What’s the rule here from Greene’s Power book you need to heed?
http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/law-10-infection-avoid-unhappy-and.html

It was written by a man so you should pay attention.

Aaron Clarey, another man, was right about these types (for those who don’t know to whom I refer);


They’re beta-omega bitches who feel the need to put women down to feel like men. That’s weak, it’s the reverse of what the feminists do. You shouldn’t need women for your ego as a real MGTOW at all, this is simply an inversion of the pedestal idea. You’re no less needy and I don’t like bullies full stop, feminist or virginTOW. Your sex, like your race, sexuality, whatever, is never a Free Pass. #meritocracyftw

Disclaimer for the whiners: yes, I know the feminist programmes are annoying. Insulting. Patronising. Unfair. They also don’t work, even in Norway. So it hardly matters, realistically. Remember, most women aren’t feminists (by self-report). We won’t do something we don’t want to (like take up extra maths classes). Don’t accept the feminist frame that what they want is what most women want. They don’t speak for us. That’s their Big Lie. Don’t hand them authority by treating them like one (vague TLP reference).

On the other hand, don’t excuse them. Don’t blame phrenology (you’re so scientific) for their dispute of agency, they have a choice to be bitches. They want that excuse, you’re handing them a victim card to play against you. And if you were up on your neuroscience, you’d see that while women have fewer brain cells, thanks to our smaller overall body size btw the ratio balances out, we have more connections. Guess what corresponds better to intelligence?

http://www.jneurosci.org/content/30/16/5519.full

Synaptic plasticity of connections. So pipe the fuck down on that front.
It would be just as specious as claiming women are superior because we have more absolute DNA material. (We do, the Y chromosome has decidedly less and is smaller than X). We have this for the evolutionary purpose of carrying children of both sexes. Group differences don’t make you better as an individual. This is basic statistics. You might have an average male IQ, but that doesn’t mean you’re smarter than every woman you’ll ever meet. Statistically, that would be implausible. Individual differences conflict more than group level because the variance is higher. Since a man invented IQ (Binet) I assume you’d take the prospect seriously.

keep being cocky, see where it gets you

While on the topic of scientist misogyny, most of STEM isn’t. Modern STEM. You aren’t being cool by claiming something as the common opinion (women>suck) that anyone in the industry knows is a MSM lie, it’s as bad as fake gamer girls. Feminazis have finally turned on the Valley, all those Asian and Jewish boys, to try and score some of that sweet sweet VC money. They’ve failed, on the whole. Laughably failed.
Historical scientists usually had a single bad experience they allowed to colour their lives (e.g. Kant Kant Kant Kant Kant and KANT  – talk to women). They were high on a personality trait called Psychoticism, good for their work but awful for their personal life, so it didn’t go well for them and they never tried again (source on genius written by two men, doubleplusgood).

Playing Subject Monopoly is petty. “They” have that subject, “we” have this. It’s the Robber’s Cave false opposition all over again (famous study by a man involving all boys). At the end of the day, it doesn’t mean anything. We’re all working to improve society, and that helps everyone. It’s a social good, it cannot be selective. My monarch is a woman, it doesn’t mean I had anything to do with that. Tesla was a man, the men reading this had nothing to do with that. Have icons for certain, but sex isn’t like race, there isn’t enough genetic connection throughout the group as a whole to claim kinship to accomplishment (HBD reference, check out Jayman, who is yes, a man).

Role call anyway. Subject Monopoly. You feel lucky?

joker DC smile smirk evil grin lol haha

Composers. – Male. The greats were pretty much all male. You win that round, I was discussing composers on a bus once with all-female music students and everyone agreed. As you can imagine, no one present was offended nor a feminist.

Does that make you feel better? It shouldn’t. Modern music is shit (see example comment above). Relative quality isn’t the same realm as absolute greatness.

Exploration – Male. Women usually weren’t allowed out of the house without an escort when places remained for the picking but sure, I’ll let you have that one. But the Vikings got there first, by thousands of years, and half of those were women (they traveled as one unit, look it up, archaeology and history). Are you descended from Vikings? I am. Does this mean I have more claim to that success than you, likely American man? Identity politics by sex is a bust whoever is doing it. By race, with a level of genetic relatedness to claim ingroup status (male science!) it might be supportable, still a big May-Be.

Still, so what? Does that improve the life of any man reading this? Inspiration shouldn’t be used in place of your own accomplishment or ambition (see fandom crazies). That’s co-dependent bullshit. It’s an excuse to do nothing with your own life.

Research … about even. Scientists? Well, until about a century ago women couldn’t get degrees. But still, women now dominate in biology and medicine, which the manosphere complains about, although there are fewer high IQ women than men for sample availability reasons, but also because of this more low IQ men than women. Feeling especially stupid because the male sex contains more retards? 

Thought not.

The modern average researcher is Asian. By simple data, they far outnumber us crackers. The average MGTOW is a middle class spoiled white bitch. You have less in common with him (HBD, genetics) than you do the women in your country you complain about.

Men are better in physics and materials, aka the Harder Sciences instead of Life Science. This is a fair, gendered difference. Ok….

snort lol laugh haha hmph derision yeah duh really uhuh mhmm princess bride

I’m waiting to see how playing to a sex’s strengths for the common good of society is somehow a bad thing? When the manosphere claims that is the Way Things Should Be. (See the Is/Ought guillotine, by a man). Women in the more caring, nurturing roles? Men in the more technical, mathey ones? It’s almost like they’re suggesting women should be blocked from all roles of responsibility, but we already have a shortage of doctors and scientists in the West (Asia outnumbering us again) and if you’re ill, dying in A&E, would you really reject the assistance of a doctor based on her sex? Would you do the same to a black man? Or would you just want a Doctor, any Doctor, now-now-now? That’s the weird thing about positions of responsibility, they are also positions of trust. The tort of law, the duty of care, which sex do you trust to be more caring when your life is on the line?
If your argument to do this female career block is Muh Meritocracy, I’ve already told you why that’s BS. Were you smart enough to see it? If we tightened the requirements based purely on merit, men would suffer more than women. Because more men are retarded from the original population group and hence, by that logic, blocked from professions, than women.

Unintended consequences;

There would be more female scientists and more female doctors, purely based on the starting numbers from IQ.

You didn’t think this through, did you?

eric ooh aah umm uhuh play dumb smile laugh evil grin

Now I get to the meat of this argument, the crux that really pisses me off: Invention. It’s a subject most people (and the manosphere) don’t understand because they believe MSM and Hollywood. They’ve probably never met a real inventor (not Hamburger Headphones types) in their entire lives, yet still feel qualified to discuss the group. I was actually discussing inventors with Henry Dampier in private once (yes, he’s a man, cool guy) and he knows a lot of them, without quoting him without his permission, his opinion was favourable and he appreciated the variety within the occupation (realistic, not the crazy hair crazy men film trope based on Einstein, not really an inventor either). Ask yourself, redpills, how this MSM lie conflicts with the real field full of real people you’re insulting, some of which blog here or know people who blog here (hi!) in the reactosphere.

When did you ever see a film about a female inventor? How many have you seen about male inventors? Compared to the fair hypothetical assumptions prior to evidence of a 50/50 split, or a biased one of 25/75, there’s something odd going on here (and we all know Hollywood is run by Jewish men, they admit it). We certainly know there are high IQ women in existence, it is possible and they must exist. Yet they aren’t in the media, it doesn’t fit Narrative (Einstein was a Jew, remember, his position in Hollywood tropes is no accident). Since the MGTOWER commentator wanted ancient examples, Hypatia is the best, estimated (by men) to have an IQ over 200, a true polymath. She was raised that way deliberately – by her father. This suggests the sexes are highly plastic in their epigenetic potential. Isn’t the manosphere begging for more geniuses? Would they reject the World’s Greatest Genius if they turned out to have a cracking pair of tits too? How would that not constitute actual, real misogyny? Does that polymathy of Hypatia make a random feminist smarter, or you, individual male readers, dumber? Of course fucking not. Cut it out. That’s magical thinking. I won’t tolerate that in a discussion on science.

that's enough stop please karen will and grace

Opposite example for fairness: Ada Lovelace was a smart cookie. No doubt. High IQ. But most of ‘her’ accomplishments were actually those of Babbage, she was the PR for his ideas, that’s why he hired her, yet the feminists are doing the exact same thing with the sexes inverted: rejecting the Great Computer Genius – because penis envy. Don’t be like the feminists, please. You don’t need to put anyone down for something they couldn’t help e.g. sex, which is determined exclusively by the fathers btw. Lovelace frequently discussed Babbage’s work with credit for example, don’t turn on her either, one of the people trying to contribute to the world we all have to live in. Focus on the correct enemy, the people who lie, the talentless, the professional whiners.

The same people in the manosphere who shout down Edison (a man) will demand all male invention is sublime and perfect in the next breath, if it means they can put down a whole sex in the breath afterward (women, actual misogyny). I don’t use the word lightly, it’s the whole 100% group without factual basis (in fact opposed to it) yet they think they’re being subtle! It’s that obvious, it’s becoming common and it reeks of keyboard alpha weakness and confirmation bias. It’s 100%, completely obvious to neutral outsiders what they’re doing, and that’s why normal people (including men who smell BS) are being turned off the manosphere recently. IMHO.

I could list Male Inventors versus Female, but that’s a red herring. It doesn’t account for qualification, expense, historical prominence, legend, scale, lives changed, just general quality. It’s a similar problem in the patent system at the moment and the world law (inc EU) is gearing toward changes intended to assess objective quality. Superficial comparisons like that go for the fame whores instead, like Edison. Who also hired women and wrote his name on their inventions too, since we’re so useless…

American Psycho is the best satire of the 20th century

I could take the easy ironic potshot and remind you that without Hedy Lamarr the porn star (cracking pair of tits) you wouldn’t have this WiFi to bitch about how women are incapable of invention.
And the Allies might have lost WW2 because the Nazis were ahead on signal science prior. 
These are facts.

You know what I think bugs them, the fake MGTOWs? In the realm of speculation here, admittedly.

– Equality of opportunity. 
They honestly believed that women were inferior on all flanks thanks to MSM erasure, so when the outcomes began to even out from proof, they felt personally insecure. Like the men returning from war and seeing their replacements in the munitions factories, the world didn’t end. They were replaceable. After the Hell of war, they realized their work was disposable as their lives. Women already have the innate capacity to create life so womb envy might factor in their desperation to the claim of machine-creation ownership, as if innate to their sex, as well (hey, I mentioned penis envy above, it logically follows if one exists, so must the other).

IN CONCLUSION.

I’ll leave you by one crucial example to refute this fallacious claim. Really, it’s irrefutable without being logically incoherent aka lying.
Who is the Greatest Modern Inventor?

….

Say it aloud.

….

….

….

….
A lot of you said Tesla. Correct.
I assume you mean Nikola?

what wut robot stop eh hold presses a moment

It’s rumoured that Albert Einstein was once asked, “How does it feel to be the smartest man alive?”, he responded, “I don’t know, you’ll have to ask Nikola Tesla.”

This is a fair assumption and I believe it myself.

After all, Hedy’s work required electricity.

But what the manosphere and MGTOW overlap never asks, to cover this truth, is what Nikola Tesla himself thought.

The same man who thought that women, innately, without the corrupting influence of society, were superior to men?

“I had always thought of woman,” says Mr. Tesla, “as possessing those delicate qualities of mind and soul that made her in these respects far superior to man. I had put her on a lofty pedestal, figuratively speaking, and ranked her in certain important attributes considerably higher than man. I worshiped at the feet of the creature I had raised to this height, and, like every true worshiper, I felt myself unworthy of the object of my worship.”

“This struggle of the human female toward sex equality will end in a new sex order, with the female as superior…. 

His prediction is coming true. These weak manboys I’ve covered before are threatened by equality of opportunity, by more competition on the professional playing field, in the same way ugly men are threatened by the open sexual marketplace, where the women rush the best men, when previously Patriarchy would have guaranteed them sex – with a wife.
By keeping that larger, smarter (on average, see Doctor outcome) group from the meritocratic opportunity of the marketplace, they selfishly help themselves individually – at the expense of freedom (individual human/woman), self-actualization (psychological) and the common social good of the progress that competition brings otherwise (making them liars when they call for this improvement in STEM and ask whine it isn’t happening fast enough).

It is not in the shallow physical imitation of men that women will assert first their equality and later their superiority, but in the awakening of the intellect of women.

Through countless generations, from the very beginning, the social subservience of women resulted naturally in the partial atrophy or at least the hereditary suspension of mental qualities which we now know the female sex to be endowed with no less than men.

But the female mind has demonstrated a capacity for all the mental acquirements and achievements of men, and as generations ensue that capacity will be expanded; the average woman will be as well educated as the average man, and then better educated, for the dormant faculties of her brain will be stimulated to an activity that will be all the more intense and powerful because of centuries of repose. Woman will ignore precedent [DS: set by men] and startle civilization with their progress.”

what wut wtf shock surprise slow turn eh littlefinger pause got

Yeah, they don’t like to talk about that part. #bluepillpussies
Nor WHY. Why did he think this way about women, psychologically? He took no wife, no lovers. It must’ve been earlier than that. Childhood, from social learning theory. In Victorian times?! Who was this creature?!! The role model, the proof of concept (real POC, real MVP represent). Where did the genes come from, for his vital visualization skills?

The reason little Nikola went into invention in the first place? The reason we know his name now? Who encouraged him? Who raised him? Who he modelled himself after? If you read his autobiography, My Inventions, you’ll know. A fellow inventor, in his mind, the best inventor: his mother.

That’s right, a woman!

Going by his own, male account. I’ll post a few choice quotes by Tesla about Mama Tesla just to drive home the point: https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/09/17/quotes-by-nikola-tesla-on-mama-tesla/

When you hear these false excuses, claims that

  • Women can’t do science.
  • Women can’t inspire men to be men (aka mothers are useless).
  • Most of all, Women can’t invent.

Your idol says you’re wrong.
Don’t be a little bitch about it. Bitch is a verb as well as a noun.

Takehome: Read books on a niche subject before claiming to know diddly squat about it.

I’ll leave you with a quote about the woman, when it comes to claiming what you’ve no right to;

My mother understood human nature better and never chided. She knew that a man cannot be saved from his own foolishness or vice by someone else’s efforts or protests, but only by the use of his own will.

It’s alright, I won’t rub your nose in it. Then I’d be as petty as you.
Please just learn from this and quit lying.