The “we prefer bears” meme is feminist larping. “Would you rather be stuck in a forest with a man or a bear?” Ha!

Feminists and thots know it’s a joke, which is why most laugh when they respond, on camera, to the question with the ursine answer. In reality, not even one feminist in a hundred would actually choose the bear. The percentage of men who are as dangerous as bears can be is small; the percentage of bears who are in fact as dangerous as bears can be is larger. Feminists say they will choose bears over men because ragging on how dangerous men are is fun, sportive. It’s part of what feminism is. 

The larping goes on, in part because feminism has always been a status game, not a sexually egalitarian movement. It’s been quite successful way for some women to gain status with high status men while doing what most women have always done with alacrity: beef about low-status men. But sub rosa it’s a way of attacking mid-status men for not being high-status. 

The low-status men are the criminals, the layabouts, the gimps, and the insane — the defectives. But some of them have higher sexual cachet among women than the mid-status men. The men feminists really hate.

That’s the most interesting point. Now that monogamy is mostly dead, 80 percent of the women seek 20 percent of the men, and get them in serial monogamy or default polyamory. This leaves 80 percent of men as mockable.

“We prefer bears” is a passive-aggressive way of throwing shade upon not the dangerous men, but the mid-level men who don’t live up to women’s standards.

It’s rather funny. Feminism is the sexual alchemy by which a majority of the male population has been transmuted into the minority, leaving only top-status men as worth anything in women’s (feminists’) judgments. It is wildly unrealistic and nasty, but so preposterous that calling it misandry might be doing it too much honor.

twv

Clarification: Dr. Jill Biden did not compare Latinos to tacos.

She made a stupid simile, but she did not do that. 

I cannot believe I’m defending her. But her phrase was “as unique as the breakfast tacos here in San Antonio.” I read in headlines that she has apologized. Worth an apology? Not really. It was dumb, but not offensive. 

She probably thought she was being funny. Or clever? It was indeed a goofy simile, and goofiness and dumb are close. Politicians and their wives should stop praising “communities.” My guess that the reality is that the community she was talking about is not especially unique (few are) and her dumb comment back-handedly said as much.

Still not offensive.

The word everybody’s looking for? Embarrassing.

twv

I would like to hear Neil Young and Joni Mitchell attempt to discourse on Lysenkoism and its state support and accepted position in mid-century Soviet thought.

I’m curious how these two old cranks would distance themselves from the dogmas of Lysenko, especially how they would defend themselves from any charge related to this startling notion: that today’s scientists that they think spread “harmful misinformation” are in fact parallel to the geneticists and botanists whose thought was suppressed (and who were even executed) by Stalin’s government.

What if the tragedy of Lysenkoism were being repeated now, by our governments? How would they know?

The fact that our governments, like Stalin’s, use marginalization to settle debates — and that Young and Mitchell seek to add on their own boycott power — should give a person pause, no?

I do not know, but suspect, that the mRNA vaxx craze will actually end up with a higher body count than Lysenkoism — which ended up killing millions. Just not right away. Which is how bad policies usually work. The early, fun period of advocacy and repression only leads to mass death later on.It’s possible that this will be the case with the COVID “vaccines.” It should be chilling how rarely anyone talks about the VAERS cases, for instance. The “belief in science” is so strong now that it is trendy to believe proven liars like Fauci. . . .

Though it is not true that The Truth wins all debates, it seems clear that really bad ideas require the suppression of better notions. It also sure seems to be the case that one way to tell who is on the wrong side of an issue is whether they resort to marginalization (or worse) to win arguments. If all you’ve got is marginalization — ridicule, shunning, boycotts, cancellation pressure, censorship, de-platforming, etc. — then you probably lack the truth. Call it a rule of thumb.

This makes Young and Mitchell deleterious to their own cause.

twv

NB Image at top nabbed from ThisIsCommonSense.org. Used without explicit permission.

When I overuse the word ‘entelechy,’ and go on and on about the Law of Nemesis or the Invisible Hand — am I stumbling upon ‘egregore’? Grasping towards noösphere? Or Herbert Spencer’s “super-organic evolution” or ‘the social organism’?

Collective mind?

It certainly feels it. But I don’t understand the concept of a collective mind. I think this is because my main view of mind is as purposive and not merely an emergent set of behaviors. But I do not see how a super-organic system like a social culture can exhibit purpose.

Which is why, when I focus on concepts like The Law of Nemesis, I keep coming back to something in Jung’s ’collective unconscious’ — which I see as an order that emerges from co-evolution of memes.

How it works and how purposive it could be seems murky in the extreme. There is something here but I don’t really understand it. I usually conceive of the Law of Nemesis, and similar processes, as forming and operating like price movements, with formed prices then hugely influencing human behavior. But how “as below, so above” might make sense to me is difficult to achieve.

Any ideas?

I note that those on the lower plain can only have trouble ascending to the higher plain. Ll we have are analogies. A few insights here and there. Perhaps a formula.

But if we have evidence for these higher-plane workings, dismissing the idea is probably hubristic.

And hubris in intellectuals is an ugly thing.

Right now the idea that my mind cannot wrap itself around the idea of a collective, emergent mind is hardly a shocking thing, and I probably shouldn’t worry about it. My usual fear is to think I understand something I do not.

Right now I should be humble, for I read a Psychology Today article a few days ago that I can make hardly any sense of. So there is that.

twv

The UFO taboo is DANGEROUS even if most UFOs are not

A number of people have wondered why the U.S. Government is changing its UFO policy from secrecy, denial and disinformation to apparent disclosure. There could be many reasons. But there is one we should ponder:

Disclosure is happening for the same reason homosexuality was legalized and there are moves to legalize adult sexual activity with children: for national security reasons.

1. Homosexuality’s persecution in the west had major Cold War problems: it set up blackmail opportunities for foreign agents to gain spies and snitches. Making gay acts legal and homosexuals themselves publicly acceptable meant that the blackmail route to turn citizens into traitors was largely closed off.
2. The reason we are seeing increasing interest in decriminalizing and even de-stigmatizing adult-child sexual relations is that such relations become key blackmail opportunities for all sorts of nefarious organizations — and Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself!
3. UFO secrecy and its continued verboten status has meant that it is inordinately difficult to sort paranormal UFOs from the drones and spying devices of foreign powers. Only by coming clean on the paranormal aerial phenomena can the military properly handle the spycrafts of other world powers.

Yes, I am suggesting that the program of secrecy about one type of craft is being used by foreign powers to compromise national security.

This is a fairly obvious point, but it doesn’t get much play from those who assume UFOs must be one phenomenon only. Very dangerous bias. Most phenomena break down into a variety, once identified. Animals that fly are mainly insects and birds, true, but there also exist bats and flying squirrels and, long ago, there were the pterosaurs.

Anyway, before you theorize too deeply about how opportunistic foreign powers could be, leveraging the west’s secrecy about UFOs against western interests — as if leveraging sexual taboos to create gay spies or pedophile traitors — consider Tyler Rogoway’s recent article in The Warzone. I didn’t spin this notion all on my lonesome:

The gross inaction and the stigma surrounding unexplained aerial phenomena as a whole has led to what appears to be the paralyzation of the systems designed to protect us and our most critical military technologies, pointing to a massive failure in U.S. military intelligence. This is a blind spot we ourselves literally created out of cultural taboos and a military-industrial complex that is ill-suited to foresee and counter a lower-end threat that is very hard to defend against.

I am about to set up a new feature on this site, quotations of a pithy nature, to be titled “Laconics of Liberty.” But this passage struck me as a grand example of glorious 19th century exuberance. Not laconic!

“Mr. Mueller should keep his promise to the American people. . . .”

I think government employees should keep their promises to the people they serve, so this statement from White House deputy press secretary Judd Deere does not seem out of line.

What is it all about, though?

Well, special counsel Robert Mueller wrote an infamous report, released early in the year, that failed to establish Trump campaign collaboration with Russia to influence the 2016 election. Last Friday, President Trump did what many thought he would do earlier: grant Roger Stone clemency for his felony convictions — as prosecuted by the Mueller team. And on July 11, Mueller defended himself and especially his team’s prosectuion of Roger Stone) in a special op-ed for the Washington Post.

So, on the 13th, the White House lashed back, saying Mueller should shut up and let his infamous report do all the talking. 

Like he said at the time of the report.

There was a lot of really shady things about the Mueller investigation, and the Stone prosecution and convictions seemed especially iffy, and . . . corrupt. 

Well, depending on who you talked to. 

Everything these days being so partisan that coming to a non-partisan judgment is (a) difficult and (b) almost pointless, since whichever side you come down on, the other will dismiss you.

Politically, clemency for Stone looks like insider dealing to Democrats, and pure justice to Republicans. 

For the rest of us?

Well, Roger Stone remains a character, undoubtedly so, and author of a really “incendiary book,” one that makes a case that LBJ conspired with the Mafia and the CIA to assassinate JFK.

So you can see why certain intel agency insiders (and their Deep State buddies) might have it in for the man.

twv