Celebrities, you know nothing

YOU ARE THE ELITE.

YOU ARE THE RICH.

WE DON’T WANNA EAT YOU.

PAY TAXES.

GET HOLLYWOOD TO PAY ITS TAXES.

STOP GETTING YOUR BULLSHIT MADE IN SWEAT SHOPS.

STOP USING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT LABOUR FOR YOUR BRATS OR YOUR FOOD.

STOP WITH THE PRIVATE JETS.

then we’ll see if you still feel the compulsion to virtue signal.

Credit: Stop being a pleb

I’ve been waiting to roll this one out again.

Esteem without erudition is a bad thing.

Technically, esteem is old. However, it relates to respect in society, in the family model, it’s fully social and honour, personal honour based on virtue and the elimination of vice (so no visiting brothels or carousing). If you were a gentle-person, you were HELD “in esteem”. You don’t get to choose it for yourself. It’s like letting lottery players pick the winner. They can try to change the definition but in adults, that’s what esteem still means.

It is not popularity or friendliness. It is moral authority and intellectual adeptness. A genius is esteemed for their brilliance, a priest is esteemed for their sage purity.

Kids are meant to have esteem in their development. Sure, you might be growing new hair in strange places but this is normal.

Matured adults? You’re meant to have a stable identity, yet we still see teenage habits, patterns and thought processes. It’s disgusting.

They’re backwards, hardly immature exactly but regressing.

As in, they’ll become more emotionally unstable with time, as the duties of adulthood overwhelm them and they falsely view these as a burden, while suffering for the childhood potential they refuse to admit is over.

e.g. those intolerable Baby Boomers weren’t as insufferable 20 years ago, and 20 years before that would probably have seemed okay.

It’s called spoiled rotten for a reason, entitlement is a cancer that sinks in early.

Peter Pan was a warning, a child snatcher would take you and kill you, sure, but becoming a Lost Boy would ruin your life and deaden any potential you might’ve had.

It’s no coincidence in the original, Peter murders them, rather than “letting” them grow up.

Your feelings lie. Your feelings can be totally and utterly false, wrong, bad. In fact, if there’s a major problem in your life, your emotions probably reflect this. They test nothing, Byron was a wreck.

If only we had been warned about this.

http://biblehub.com/jeremiah/17-9.htm

Feelings are largely reactions to physical and circumstantial states.

Especially if you claim not to believe in “biological determinism” (nature).

Therapy wouldn’t ever be needed if feelings were always logical, right and pure.

Our society wants people to glow with virtue, while demonstrating none. Kinda like staring at a glass of Vitamin C rich OJ and hoping it’ll displace your cold.

We listen to our “feelings” (usually a cover for the baser instincts and impulses) to smother the conscience.

Beneath that, spirit. I won’t hold my breath on that one.

You will pay eventually.

http://biblehub.com/jeremiah/17-10.htm

Stolen esteem (we used to call that hubris) + Shitty economy forcing adults to behave like children + Vice after Vice after Vice =

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/millennials-uk-mental-health-depression-world-ranking-second-worst-study-anxiety-a7572026.html

If you are a shitty person and you feel it, that’s a sign all is right and just with the world. Your perceptions are completely right, you just don’t like them because you’re a brat.

God forbid Lord Fauntleroy be expected to change or do something mildly unpleasant.

Feeling bad isn’t a bad thing – if it was just deserts. That’s called guilt, remorse, shame and all sorts of other words we need to bring back. Feeling bad can’t be a punishment from God, can it, atheists? It’s funny how the Nurture people are also first to reach for the pills, although we’re all completely the same, which doesn’t stop at the neck. (Fact: depressed people aren’t actually serotonin deficient, that was a lie debunked to sell pills and the theory hasn’t died).

Atheists don’t believe they are soul-less. They must be. Psychopaths, if you look it up, like other “low empathy” defined conditions e.g. Aspergers, don’t believe they have no feelings for others. Why? Faulty perception.

If humans aren’t sacred, our life is worth nothing. We are like ants, our suffering (rape, theft, murder) is nothing to balk at. It’s natural. Nature is violent and cruel, it’s good for the environment. There is no secular morality possible, it’s an oxymoron. Only holy things have rights per se, bequeathed as part of their spiritual power e.g. holy water has the right to baptize, no other water will do. Only humans go to heaven, not dogs (they don’t need to). Morality is an objective structure (it doesn’t differ by individual; their sex, race, whatever else) and it is based on an absolute premise: there can be no good without the real existence of evil. We shun and punish evil and pursue and reward good, all societies of longevity do this or devolve into savagery. The modern amorality considers popularity and the groupthink of “consensus reality” to determine an ever-changing and propaganda-useful right (elite) and wrong (everyone under them). The Pleasure Principle belonging to Freud defined the rapist, not a good man. You were expected to grow out of the Id-only stage as a toddler.*

They need to brainwash you because mind control only works if the entire group falls for it.

A bad person feeling bad is a good thing.

A good person feeling bad is complicated. For example, more depressed countries tend to be multicultural areas, nobody dare study this.

If you want a secular example of the rights point – only a native citizen has a (God-given) right to live in a country. Rights to do are based on facts of nature, what you are. Those do not change.

*Hedonism is the sure sign of a weakened mind, always has been the #1 indicator of psychiatric dysfunction as long as pathologies have been recorded. They have no authority to lecture from.

The retardation of the brain regions involved in impulse control is the physical, undeniable reason for this.
https://www.apa.org/helpcenter/willpower-gratification.pdf
“When presented with tempting stimuli, individuals with low self-control showed brain patterns that differed from those with high self-control. The researchers found that the prefrontal cortex (a region that controls executive functions, such as making choices) was more active in subjects with higher self-control. [DS: normal] And the ventral striatum (a region thought to process desires and rewards) showed boosted activity in those with lower self-control.” [DS: retarded, compensatory over-excitation]

Literally retarded growth.

On saving the world and other delusions

a repost, but a worthy one

http://thefutureprimaeval.net/on-saving-the-world-and-other-delusions-2/

The nerd’s sense of measuring everything here is a big handicap when it comes to assessing life meaningfulness. Our instincts for impact evolved in a world where only a few dozen people had real agency in your world; you were part of what we’d perceive as a small ingroup by default, and it wouldn’t be too crazy to think you could be one of the most respected and influential people in the known world…

It’s difficult to believe in the sanctity of your own life without a soul.

Psychiatrist: fuck feelings

http://nypost.com/2015/08/23/psychiatrist-says-f-k-happiness-and-f-k-self-esteem/

clapping well done you tony

Adults who want to be handled with kid gloves can indeed fuck right off.

Say you’ve been to therapy, or bought a self-help book, or thought about doing either of those things. You may be wondering, “Why can’t I be happy?” “Why do I have such bad luck?” or “Why is my boss so unfair?”

One shrink has a novel solution: “F–k happy. F–k self-improvement, self-esteem, fairness, helpfulness and everything in between.”

Because if you can set aside all of these obsessions, you might be able to simply accept that there are lots of things you can’t change — and get over it.

Resilience.
Grow up.

That’s the message of the new book “F*ck Feelings” (Simon & Schuster), whose authors combine different skill sets for what amounts to the Ice Bucket Challenge of self-help books. The writers who would like to dump a gallon of ice chunks all over your confused little skull are Dr. Michael Bennett, a Harvard Medical School-trained psychiatrist, and his comedy-writer daughter Sarah Bennett, who used to contribute to the improv act the Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre. So if the book doesn’t fix your life, at least you may get a laugh out of it.

Whenever you have an insoluble “Why?” in your life, the Bennetts offer, the solution is to stop asking the question. “The answer you’ll get from your Maker, when you finally meet Him or Her and get to ask why,” they write, “is the same one you got from your mother when she didn’t know the answer and didn’t want to waste time — ‘because I said so. Now go make yourself useful.’ ”
And don’t expect anyone (except your mother) to pay attention when you’re describing your pains and sorrows.

In the chapter “F–k Self-Esteem,” the Bennetts mock the idea that feeling good about yourself is “an essential vitamin to take before you can gain control of your life.”

All it does is create r-selected Little Emperor sluts (inc. men).

Forget that: “Enjoy bursts of confidence when you can and take credit for your hard work, but beware making confidence a goal, because that implies control, responsibility and blame when you can’t make it happen . . . Instead, assume you’re stuck with s- -t.” So do your best to survive, try not to add to your troubles, and behave as if you like yourself.

A more pressing problem no one is doing anything about is ESE: Excessive Self-Esteem. “It would help humanity a lot more if those suffering from ESE adjusted their self-admiration to more reasonable levels,” the Bennetts write. If only Oprah would do shows entitled, “You’re not that great!”

Useful as the book is in counteracting therapy-speak — it amounts to a nourishing slap in the face for those who need to be shocked out of their crybaby habits — it’s really more important than that. Because the way Americans think about civic life is as flawed as the way we think about our own lives.

The book supplies lists of “things you wish for and can’t have” contrasted with “things you can aim for and actually achieve.” For instance, you wish you could have a “an improved heart free of hate, envy, fear and general ugliness.” Fat chance, buddy. What can you actually achieve? “Act decently in spite of the way you really feel” and “bear the pain of living with ugly feelings.”

I vaguely recall a book being written on this subject already. How to be a good person with a life of meaning.
I believe, now, don’t quote me on this, but I believe it was the Best Selling Book of All Time. Or something. Called The Bible? I think. Maybe.

If Americans ever reached that stage, it would be a natural next step for everyone to think: Hey, other people have feelings I consider ugly. I guess I’ll have to deal with that instead of trying to shut them up, or pretending I need a “safe space” where I can retreat from, say, Christina Hoff Sommers. Sommers’ speech at Oberlin last spring, in which she said “rape culture” on college campuses is overstated, caused a tiny tantrum among infantile students who warned of “toxic, dangerous, and/or violent” people, as though the scholar’s speech contained arsenic or bullets.

lol laughing rdj tony stark heehee haha

TLP, is that you?
Game recognize game. 

Even more important is the chapter, “F–k Fairness.” Sure, watching bad guys suffer makes for great entertainment, but the Bennetts warn about “the amount of evil you can cause by pursuing fairness.” You can’t undo all of the bad things that happen, at least not in this life. “You need to know when to accept the fact that you’ve been f–ked and know when fighting will get you further f–ked,” is the colorful way the Bennetts put it.

Rumination is toxic for the body. I’m not playing. It really is.
This books sound awfully stoic, I may need to add it to my list.

That is sound advice when it comes to your personal life — sorry your Daddy hit you and you didn’t get to hit him back, but there’s nothing you can do about it now. But it also goes for your existence as a citizen. Putting your psychic energy on a politician who promises an end to all the bad stuff that’s happened in the past, or who heralds a new law that is going to prevent bad stuff from happening in the future, or creates a sparkly new agency that is going to protect you from your own stupidity? F–k that.

Yeah, this is going on the list.
Anyone above the age of about 10 who believes in magical solutions should be legally ruled a minor.

“You can do anything” parenting and teaching is actively harmful

http://aeon.co/magazine/psychology/why-telling-kids-to-dream-big-is-a-big-con/

It comes down to IQ grade. IQ denialism, as it was suggested by Haidt, makes about as much sense now as New Earth Creationism in biology, there is simply so much evidence.

Grades are just proxies for IQ — which most parents are too dumb to conceive of.

IQ isn’t strictly a number, it’s a grouping with an error variance. The Binet IQ was intended for school application ONLY – to ascertain how the child’s learning process could be assisted by teachers at each stage (level of work compared to their chronological age), look at modern Sets for the truest application.

If you’re at the top grouping possible for a human, as an adult, A+/200+ High Genius or basic polymath, you have all the choices. And who doesn’t want options for their child (and by ego extension, a compliment to their own genetic material) but the further down the pyramid you go, the more restricted your future prospects. These are facts.

If you wanna be an astronaut, you’d better be making As and Bs. Just because you sat in the same classroom for decades doesn’t mean you’re equal in life quality potential or entitled to the same things as adults (public school kids and pronounced failures regardless of family fortune are the amusing example).

Telling children they all have equal potential may seem nice, and the Nurture Brigade of modern teaching insist it’s fair (if you are ignorant of their status yes, in case) and necessary (see former) – but it traumatizes the average and below-average children and sets them up for a lifetime of suffering, and probable mental illness (hark! Freud’s ghost laughing in the distance). Children blame themselves when they fail or something goes wrong. Fine if the changes needed are within their control… this is rarely the case here.  The self-esteem movement formed to prevent mental illness, theoretically as a shield against it, and now… many young people are popping pills.

This lie about potential doesn’t even sink in (because for this to apply, they are dumb) when they’re adults. Millennials are miserable. They see their age-peers succeed and assume (all else being equal) there is something they can do about it, and feel entitled (+) or wronged (-), that their own course isn’t going the same way (a few come up with lies i.e. their competition is cheating, or secretly evil).

n.b. IQ is computed by age, so child ones are unreliable although age 11/12 is highly correlated, it’s best to get retested as an adult and expect a small dive. Many supposed prodigies fail on this count because they were merely ahead of the curve at school (by external factors of socialisation, see Gladwell’s Outliers), and not genetically ahead (permanently ahead). Hence, prodigies seem to burn out, when in fact the fakes (harsh but true) merely crash into the wall of their genetic potential. Elements of the modern school system e.g. obedience to popular belief, lack of imagination and rote memory dependence also contribute to this false-flagging of intelligence, as it were, rewarding traits which are, in effect, the anti-genius. Lies on the other side of the IQ fence.

Sex, promiscuity and sexual preference

The man who despises himself tries to gain self-esteem from sexual adventures—which can’t be done, because sex is not the cause, but an effect and an expression of a man’s sense of his own value . . .

The men who think that wealth comes from material resources and has no intellectual root or meaning, are the men who think—for the same reason—that sex is a physical capacity which functions independently of one’s mind, choice or code of values. They think that your body creates a desire and makes a choice for you just about in some such way as if iron ore transformed itself into railroad rails of its own volition.

Love is blind, they say; sex is impervious to reason and mocks the power of all philosophers. But, in fact, a man’s sexual choice is the result and the sum of his fundamental convictions. Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life. Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself.

No matter what corruption he’s taught about the virtue of selflessness, sex is the most profoundly selfish of all acts, an act which he cannot perform for any motive but his own enjoyment—just try to think of performing it in a spirit of selfless charity!—an act which is not possible in self-abasement, only in self-exaltation, only in the confidence of being desired and being worthy of desire. It is an act that forces him to stand naked in spirit, as well as in body, and to accept his real ego as his standard of value. He will always be attracted to the woman who reflects his deepest vision of himself, the woman whose surrender permits him to experience—or to fake—a sense of self-esteem . . . . Love is our response to our highest values—and can be nothing else. ~ Rand

 

Why do liberals have low self-esteem?

Because they fail at life on every conceivable level and then make up even more levels to be oppressed on?

http://therightstuff.biz/2014/12/31/liberalism-and-low-self-esteem/

….The first question that needs answering is why liberals would need to increase their self-esteem in a way that conservatives do not. The answer is simple: liberals have less self esteem than conservatives to begin with. This is the conclusion of a 2012 paper published in the Journal of Research on Personality. The paper included two studies that found that liberals had lower self esteem than conservatives. The first study’s sample was moderate in size and consisted of college students. The second study made use of decades of data from the General Social Survey. The GSS is a large and highly representative survey that has been administered in the United States for over 40 years. Another paper published in 2014 replicated this finding in two more samples. Thus, the finding that liberals have low self esteem has been replicated several times, including one replication with an extremely high quality sample….

I mean this article.
Just….. this.