SOTT Focus:

The Solution to the Hatred of Identity Politics Is Psychological Knowledge

Ryan Jones
Sott.net
Thu, 21 Dec 2017 22:51 UTC

Identity politics is stupid. It divides humans into various arbitrary "identity groups" and then stops there. All analysis and understanding go no further than the level of the group. But what is identity? It comes from the Latin idem, meaning "the same, in the sense of repeating over and over". In other words, identity implies something about you that carries over from one instant to the next, making you you. Of course, things like your sex, skin color, and orientation do that. Contrary to popular opinion, you can't just decide you're a lesbian Mexican grandmother. But the idea that any or all of those things define you completely is absurd. Identity politics makes all members of a group, Blacks for example, identical. If that sounds racist, it's because it is.

No, identity is more than what biological category you happen to have been born in. It's who you are - singular. The only true identity politics would have to go down to the level of the individual, because no matter how similar two people are, they are never identical. Another definition for identity comes from information technology: "an object that represents a user".^[1] This is a good analogy - at least it approaches the level of the individual. But even individuals can change. Given sufficient stress, a person's personality can become warped. Identity should be something more permanent.

Most of the time, we operate in the world based on 'rules' or habits accumulated throughout our lives, shaped from conception by our genes and socialization. Our gift of higher reasoning allows us some measure of control over these habits - to monitor, and if necessary, inhibit the aggressive or fearful knee-jerk responses in order to provide for conscious control during situations to which our personalities may be unadapted - for instance, a severe change in the conditions of our external environment.

Group identity is absurd. Identity as personality is lazy - a cosmic accident. Identity as self-knowledge and self-made character is where it's at. Only that is solid enough to withstand pressure and truly be called one's own. Human beings are an interesting species. We weep, fight, laugh, love, and a great deal of this all happens automatically and repetitively. However, some types of human experience cannot happen automatically. For growth to occur, effort must be made. Truth, understanding, and free will must be applied in order to ensure harmonious, creative outcomes. Mozart's Requiem was not written without copious amounts of 'blood, sweat, and tears', nor did Pythagoras discover that a² + b² = c² without a prodigious amount of study and search. Not all songs are beautiful though, and not all ideas nourish the soul.

Attachment to ideas that are wrong - incorporating lies into our identity - causes chaos. Just as some give their lives to ideas of beauty, harmony, creativity and truth, so do some give their lives to ideas of ugliness, discord, entropy and lies. And most of the time, people are somewhere in-between, drifting one way, then pulled the other. Identity politics has all the stupidity of making an ideal of group identity, and all the chaos of an untrained personality pushed and pulled by emotions over which they have no control.

A video on Twitter provides a visceral example of all this. It shows a young woman in the US at an Antifa protest. She is screaming, not at the 'opposition', but at a fellow protester. The reason? Because he was white, and not being an 'ally' by acting violently enough towards the 'Nazis'. In the video, she yelled:

"You're white, you're inherently racist, it's in your blood, it's in your DNA."

That what she said was immensely racist - indeed, it conveyed the very essence of racism - didn't seem to occur to her at all. All she cared about, in that moment, was her idea that white people were the cause of all problems in the US, therefore they were the enemy, and the enemy needed to be fought. She was unable to even countenance the idea that a white person could be an ally unless they were willing to perpetrate violence against other whites.

This mentality is, obviously, no different to the Nazis she claims to be against. No self-knowledge, no ability to reason, no self-control - all in the service of the basest emotions.

What we have been seeing over the past few years in the United States is an unprecedented polarisation of ideas the like of which we have not seen in the world since the Second World War. And it is not the "far right" that is the problem, as it was during Germany's Weimar Republic. This time it is the "far left". The idea that the same dynamics as played out in 1930s Germany could play out in 21st-century America but on the other side of the 'political spectrum' is something that just doesn't seem to occur to most people. The 'left' are supposed to be the "bleeding-heart good guys".

The minds of the 'left' in the United States (and other majority-anglophone countries) have been progressively radicalized by an education system that champions and celebrates identity politics, in particular minority identity politics. For a long time a person's political affiliation was to a political party, like 'Democrat', 'Republican' or some other moniker that broadly defined a world view. Today however, minority identity politics means that a small group of people look to their own racial, ethnic, genetic or sexual nature and define that as their 'politics'. It's the 'century of the self' on steroids, and moving to Capitol Hill.

Much of the source of modern identity politics is found in the 60s-70s, postmodern philosophical ideas, Trotskyite political theories, behaviourist psychology, and New Age 'spirituality' that have been broadcast from university lecterns (and into the minds of students) across the western world by professors who were and are psychologically more akin to psychotics in a sanitarium than responsible pedagogues.

Whether or not the young people attending these universities became politically active, they no doubt absorbed a great deal of pathological ideology. As the "Baby Boomers" gave birth to "Generation X", who then gave birth to the "Millennials", an ideological battle began to take place in universities, with dissenting or disobedient voices sacked, suspended, or bullied into silence, with once-venerable institutions now little more than 'brainwashing factories' tasked with ensuring the most intelligent of our youth cannot receive the skills that make them suitable for or capable of securing the high-paying productive employment that they ostensibly attended university to secure.

Consider this list of courses that are taught at Universities across the USA today:

MCL 135: Vampires: Evolution of a Sexy Monster (University of Kentucky)
HIST 336: Saints, Witches, and Madwomen (University of Nebraska)
WOMGEN 1225: Leaning In, Hooking Up (Harvard University)
SOAN 261: Campus Sex in the Digital Age (Washington & Lee University)
GSWS 434: The Politics of Ugly (University of Pennsylvania)
AMS 398: FAT: The F-Word and the Public Body (Princeton University)
GWS 462: Hip Hop Feminism (University of Illinois)
GWS 255: Queer Lives, Queer Politics (University of Illinois)
SOC 388: Marriage in the Age of Trump (Davidson College)
HISTORY 330-0: Medieval Sexuality (Northwestern University)
AI 318: Zombies: Modern Myths, Race, and Capitalism (DePaul University)
SOCI 332: Alternative Genders (Texas A&M University)
AMCULT 103: Drag in America (University of Michigan)
AMCULT 334: Race, Gender, Sexuality and U.S. Culture in Video Games (University of Michigan)
AMCULT 411: Rednecks, Queers, and Country Music (University of Michigan)
WGS 255: Deconstructing the Diva (DePaul University)
GLBT 3404: Transnational Sexualities (University of Minnesota)
GSFS 0208: Unruly Bodies: Black Womanhood in Popular Culture(Middlebury College)
MC 2002: Media, Sport and Culture: Amplifying the Sporting-Ism(Louisiana State University)
THEO 025: The Bible and Horror (Georgetown University)
SOAS 3500: Queerness in South Asian Literature and Cinema(University of Iowa)
AADS 2204: Black Women and the Politics of Blackness and Beauty (Vanderbilt University)
AFR 334: Radical Theories of Political Struggle: Anti-Black Racism and the Obama Administration (Williams College)
COLT 0510F: Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, The Men and the Myths (Brown University)
HIST 379: Queering Colonialism (Washington & Lee University)
AMST 274: Rainbow Cowboys (and Girls): Gender, Race, Class, and Sexuality in Westerns (Wellesley College)
AFA 4430: Black Lives Matter (University of Florida)
RELI GU 4355: The African American Prophetic Political Tradition from David Walker to Barack Obama (Columbia University)
RELG 032: Queering God: Feminist and Queer Theology(Swarthmore College)
RELG 033: Queering the Bible (Swarthmore College)
ENVS 042: Ecofeminism (Swarthmore College)
FRSEMR 61D: Trying Socrates in the Age of Trump (Harvard University)
GSWS 2219: Deconstructing Masculinities (Bowdoin College)
GSFS 0325: American Misogyny (Middlebury College)
BLSTU 3850: Gender, Hip Hop, and the Politics of Representation(University of Missouri)
AAS 301: Black to the Future: Science, Fiction, and Society(Princeton University)
SOC 105: Race, Religion, & Donald Trump (Davidson College)

As Andrew Lobaczewski describes in his book Political Ponerology, the consequences of all this attempted social engineering by the talentless and/or character-disturbed 'elite' - which is taking place alongside an imperial agenda of foreign colonization and conquest - is the production of a hysterical population where polarisation of opinions and intolerance toward opposition is a symptom of that social hystericisation. If left unremedied, such conditions are suitable for some form of violent revolution in the United States that will inevitably lead to totalitarianism, i.e. pathocracy.

One of the key reasons that such social hystericisation occurs, as Lobaczewski describes, is the lack of psychological knowledge among the majority of the population. During years of 'good times' - people seem to lose the ability to discern evil from good; they start to treat everyone the same, when the biological reality of this planet is this: not all human beings are born the same, nor do they all have the same 'basically good' intentions. To treat a psychopath as if they were a normal human being is a mistake that the psychopath will take advantage of, to the misfortune of the non-psychopath.

Interactions with psychopaths need to be considered in the same way as an interaction with a dangerous, wild, predatory animal, i.e. avoidance if possible, but absolute commitment to self-defence if required. And they most certainly shouldn't be put into positions of responsibility over others - especially representative political office! If, for some reason, circumstances place you in confrontation with a psychopath, ultimately the only thing that will protect you is psychological knowledge - understanding how they act and think, and how you act and think. Sharing your observations with others and getting their feedback also helps. There are many good books available on the subject of psychopaths.^[2]

Identity politics isn't just stupid; it's dangerous. By only seeing people in terms of their identity groups, all individual differences get wiped out. That means the people under the spell of identity politics are blind to the variations within their own group: the highs and lows, the good and the evil. More importantly, they can't see it in themselves. If all that matters is "my group", and the enemy of my group is your group, the problem is obviously not any individuals in my group or your group, it is your group. Full stop. And if your group is my group's enemy, the only solution is to neutralize or destroy your group. That's what the Nazis did to their "identity-group" enemies. That's what the Bolsheviks did to their class enemies. The results were not "social justice"; they were blood, gore, and mass murder.

"My group good, your group evil" is the political equivalent of mental retardation. All it does is make it open season for the psychopaths in the "good group" to run the show while the naive SJWs let out the worst aspects of their personalities without any insight or self-control. If that sounds like your ideal vision of the future, by all means, go full SJW.

References:

Curry & Laws (2016), From IT Pro to Cloud Pro, p. 62.
Cleckley (1988), The Mask Of Sanity; Hare (1999), Without Conscience; Salter (2004), Predators, Pedophiles & Rapists; Stout (2006), The Sociopath Next Door; Babiak & Hare (2007), Snakes In Suits.

Reader Comments

parallax · 2017-12-22T06:50:42Z

Fwiw, this article hits the issues head-on and does not waiver.

" One of the key reasons that such social hystericisation occurs, as Lobaczewski describes, is the lack of psychological knowledge among the majority of the population. "

So true.

These identity groups people see so often whipping everyone up, infecting them with their hysteria, aiming at anyone/any group they place in their sights - with a maximized focus on the incomprehensible, are like spellbinders. They in turn can't possibly sit still long enough to hear anything back. And they don't want to hear. They need to shout, they need the crowds attention and they will mine their energy non-stop.

Before the last European war started, the crowd needed the orator to deliver the message, and tutored with skilled methods, the orator deliver it till it became music to the crowds ears, and then the march was on. To use your words " The results were not "social justice"; they were blood, gore, and mass murder ."

Ryan · 2017-12-23T04:33:56Z

parallax It seems though, at least right now, that the pathocracy do not have such an orator. As such, the 'SJW movement' is generally fractured, divided and focused only upon their own grumbles. This buys time for (hopefully) the population to attain the necessary psychological knowledge they need to immunise themselves! 🙂

hobnob · 2017-12-22T08:05:01Z

Good. An orientation that values self-determination (free will, more or less) is something I think is first necessary to take away something useful from self-knowledge, in a way that doesn't lead to other pathological inclinations.

I have in mind some who understand everything in terms of exploitation, oppression. Psychological knowledge will probably just be projected outwards, and has been.

Ryan · 2017-12-23T08:24:00Z

hobnyeba Self-determination is truly important (osit). And while psychological knowledge can be used as a 'weapon' (Lobaczewski refers to the "special psychological knowledge" of psychopaths), such use may also be based on genetic and/or physiological damage, which is likely to render a faulty and/or incomplete understanding of such knowledge, and the truly protective effect it has. Perhaps, if enough of the population become "immune", a group effort will discover techniques that will enable those who interpret everything as you have described, to be reached. ⛑

nedlud · 2017-12-22T13:30:03Z

THE ARMY GAME

Play the army game.

Wear the uniform, proudly.

Know that you have been 'educated' in a superior manner and have full access to the latest and best technology.

Remember that you are bettering yourself, your future, your family and your community.

You do this by bringing destruction and ruin upon those who wear the 'other' uniform.

These people, of the 'other' uniform, are against you, your future, your family and your community.

In doing so, by playing the army game, you will get cash rewards. If you are really 'good', you will get even bigger cash rewards, and receive numerous awards, medallions and recognition and go on to achieve a higher rank.

Always obey your leaders.

The 'leaders' are the ones with the most money, the most awards, medallions and recognition and also have the highest possible rank.

They are more for you, your future, your family and for your community than anyone else.

So it is only right that they have the most money, the most awards, medallions and recognition and are of the highest possible rank.

Not only that, but they invented the game.

Play the army game.

Always play the army game.

ned,

out

ORION · 2017-12-22T15:41:09Z

''IDEM'' : Line up 100 men naked, no one is the same but they're all reproductive specimen of the human race althought some may not have what it takes, biologically speaking, to enact procreation.

This is how I understand ''gender identity'', period.

Now, if a woman goes for sex changes, getting male organs, hormono therapy growing beard, muscles, she would still have the possibility to have children.

Ryan · 2017-12-23T08:56:02Z

ORION Your understanding of ‘gender identity’ is wrong. A man may be physically damaged in such a way as to prevent procreation, but may still understand himself a man, nevertheless. One may even argue that reproductively-capable male psychopaths are less of a “man” than such a person. Gender identity, although in some cases affected by pathologies or delayed development, is generally fixed by a person’s biological sex and psychological imprinting at an early age.

Your example of a woman getting a sex change is faulty. If a woman gets a “sex change”, she is then, by definition, male and therefore unable to bear children. You seem to be confusing a “sex change” with hermaphroditism. I suggest some more reading on the topic. 🙂

LonSabbatical · 2017-12-22T16:11:31Z

Good article but I see some hints of absurdity... the argument by the sott editor doesn't mesh in with the articles and editorial comments we as readers of SOTT get about REFUGEES.

Refugees are treated as one homogenous group. Europe has a 'refugee' problem etc. Muslims aren't far behind. We rarely get articles or commentary that deal with refugees or muslims as a group of individuals... instead we get articles treating them as a homogenous group. This view is based on articles and commentary I see on sott.

If identity politics is bad as explained in the article above, why are refugees in particular treated and defined by the group they belong to over here of all places?

In addition... if I say for example I am left leaning... will you attempt to see me beyond that to my individual merits or will you think... oh gosh, he's probably a brainwashed post modernist hillary supporting refugee loving snowflake etc? Hmmm... I'm looking at you atreides on this one

Basically what I'm trying to say is I think the article falls slightly off the mark by not being entirely relatable to in terms of lived experience. It pushes one angle (group identity is bad as individual merit should be the defining identity) and ignores the other (where group identity is applied in analysis e.g. with refugees and individual merit gets relegated to meaning nothing).

So can you reconcile this discrepancy... at least to this one reader of your article.

Niall · 2017-12-22T18:35:15Z

Good article but I see some hints of absurdity... the argument by the sott editor doesn't mesh in with the articles and editorial comments we as readers of SOTT get about REFUGEES.

Refugees are treated as one homogenous group. Europe has a 'refugee' problem etc. Muslims aren't far behind. We rarely get articles or commentary that deal with refugees or muslims as a group of individuals... instead we get articles treating them as a homogenous group. This view is based on articles and commentary I see on sott.

A group of individuals? You mean like... a group?!

Here's a recent article about an individual refugee:

Afghan 'teen refugee', who raped and murdered German girl, is actually 33-years-old

The Afghan refugee, who is now on trial for the rape and murder of the medical student Maria Ladenburger in October 2016, is older than previously thought. Hussein Khavari entered Germany in...

In addition... if I say for example I am left leaning... will you attempt to see me beyond that to my individual merits or will you think... oh gosh, he's probably a brainwashed post modernist hillary supporting refugee loving snowflake etc? Hmmm... I'm looking at you atreides on this one

You don't wanna bait him, trust me.

Niall · 2017-12-22T19:15:35Z

LonSabbatical The main backlash against refugees is that people turn to 'their group', usually their nation, which further polarizes them from the identity politics 'group', who welcome the refugees.

hkoehli · 2017-12-22T20:05:39Z

LonSabbatical I don't think SOTT has ever endorsed the idea that all refugees should be seen as identical. On the whole, mass migration appears to have been a very bad idea. But that doesn't imply that all immigrants are the same. There are several issues: the economic ability of a host country to take in a large number of unskilled migrants, the number of said migrants who can't or won't integrate into the host culture, the over-representation of crime being a few. Of course, most migrants are not criminals, many do integrate, and some are skilled workers. That doesn't mean mass migration is a good idea, though.

LonSabbatical · 2017-12-22T20:39:46Z

hkoeli, but these refugees are fleeing countries at war or in high degree of duress... where would you rather they went? Or should they remain behind in their countries and take their chances with head choppers and bombs from fighter jets?

I don't understand.

Ryan · 2017-12-23T10:41:20Z

LonSabbatical Hi LS,

Firstly, I don’t currently work as an editor for SOTT; I submit articles on a freelance basis. Secondly, the article has nothing to do with refugees, although a tangential connection could be claimed in that racism and views on immigration are not completely-unrelated! In this sense, I would consider that what I’ve written is fully aligned with SOTT’s commentary regarding refugees.

Personally, I have seen plenty of articles on SOTT about multiple different groups of refugees. J. Michael Springmeyer was interviewed not too long ago on an episode of the “Behind the Headlines” podcast - the whole podcast was devoted to the topic of refugees in Europe. Plenty of articles were published about the ‘Rohingya’ situation in Myanmar when that flared up, too. SOTT has never shied away from confronting situations where there has been suffering by displaced persons, no matter how small a group.

If your view is based on articles and commentary you see on SOTT, then I suggest you need to read more of them to get a better understanding of what SOTT’s perspective is. If you realise this, you will see that the contradiction you think is apparent - refugees being treated as a “homogenous group” in the ‘identity politics’ sense - is not actually there.

If your lived experience is that SOTT presents a “right-leaning” view of refugees, then you haven’t been looking closely enough - your experience is likely subjectively filtered through beliefs that - sorry, yes - contain elements of snowflakery. 😋 Atreides is pretty on-point with his views on this stuff - I recommend reading and re-reading his articles as a good “snowflake antidote”!

Also, the “group identity vs individual merit” answer should be obvious - individual merit trumps group identity every time. If the other “angle” is that group identity beats individual merit, then that angle is obtuse. 😁 Why should a person reap unearned benefits simply because they are part of a group?

Hope that makes things a bit clearer for you. 🙂

LonSabbatical · 2017-12-23T11:18:34Z

Thanks Ryan, that made things much clearer.

Ryan · 2017-12-23T12:00:32Z

LonSabbatical If we're talking hypotheticals, I'm pretty sure that Harrison would prefer the refugees' home countries not bombed or subjected to war in the first place, so that the native populations could live peacefully in their homelands. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that one, Harrison. 😄

LS, the point is that mass migration places unreasonable stress and responsibility on the nations that have to accept the refugees. It's not simply a matter of saying "countries have a responsibility to accept refugees", it's taking the complexities of the situation into account. If the host country was easily able to accommodate the refugees, mass migration might be the best solution for the situation. If the host country wasn't able to do that, it could be a disaster. Imagine if all the Syrian refugees had decided to go to Lebanon, for example?

Then we have such facts as US support for jihadi terrorism that has resulted in refugee migrations containing actual terrorists disguised as refugees. Obviously, this is a problem for the authorities in the destination countries that are mostly trying to preserve law and order. It's not quite as black and white as emotionally-driven left-wing rhetoric makes it sound.

Ryan · 2017-12-23T12:28:46Z

LonSabbatical You're very welcome, LS! 🙂

Niall · 2017-12-23T12:45:05Z

hkoeli, but these refugees are fleeing countries at war or in high degree of duress

You've just lumped them all together into one group.

... where would you rather they went? Or should they remain behind in their countries and take their chances with head choppers and bombs from fighter jets?

I don't understand.

It's not that black-and-white. There are different motivations for 'fleeing'. In the case of Syrian refugees (a 'sub-group', you'll notice), most of them stayed in western Syria, Lebanon, or southern Turkey throughout the war. It's not a coincidence that we see so many of the sub-sub-group who reached Europe speak the lies about 'the Syrian regime'. I.e., they had an axe to grind in the first place.

So that's already two levels of differentiation of 'the refugees'.

LonSabbatical · 2017-12-23T13:33:40Z

Okay... so it's complicated with regards to refugees. The solution is not to let them all in or shut them all out...

LonSabbatical · 2017-12-23T14:22:52Z

Ryan... I need some of that wisdom on an issue you've touched upon that I can't reconcile in my mind. It's with regard to race... sott have posted a few articles on it which I didn't entirely agree with and if I'm to be honest, I never got to the bottom of it.

With refugees, you cleared the air. So okay, it's a complicated issue with various layers of items to consider as you and Niall said.

With feminists, another hot button topic, I've read some of atreides articles and I see where he's coming from.

Race is an issue still... hence the requirement for your wisdom. So I'll tell you what my problem is and you'll tell me how to resolve it.

So the biggest issue in my eyes is the effects of historical injustices on the modern and current minority population with regard to their current collective position in society. To explain further in more words....

The easiest way to elaborate is with monopoly. Imagine 2 players at the start of the game... Player 1 already owns most of the board and player 2 owns maybe one or 2 developments. Player 2 clearly will not survive in this game. It's inevitable if you've played monopoly.

Right, giving an illustrative example with race

Due to historical injustices, african americans after the civil rights movement started off on the back foot i.e. education levels were low, wealth levels low, business ownership levels low, psychological health in terms of fitting in was low too etc. The neighbourhoods they lived on were under developed, with low property values, under funded schools etc. Introduce the CIA into the mix with drugs, prostitution, crime and you have a supremely dire situation. Contrast to affluent, leafy well off middle class neighbourhoods with individuals who own businesses, run the country, heck run the world and are in complete control of their destiny due to the economic boom of the 50s and cultural revolution of the 60s etc, people who invested in the markets in the 80s had excess cash to set aside for their kids who went on to higher education etc.

So fast forward to now... some of these african americans have put in the graft and are now prosperous through business, entertainment, sports etc but for a VAST unproportional majority there's still lag... not only in terms of opportunity but also in terms of psychological blocks e.g. a kid growing up in a household in the 'projects' no real role models around him wants to better himself but meets lots of resistance e.g. wants to study to be a surgeon lets say but his family don't have the money to pay tuition, his current school in underfunded, gangs run supreme in his area etc.

You get the picture. Basically, one group is handicapped and is expected to compete on equal terms with another group which essentially had a MASSIVE head start.

So when I see some of these kids say stuff like 'white privilege' given the image I have in my head as explicated above, I can't help but see that they might have a point though I also see how this in itself can be racist and foster discord as no one wants to be told they are privileged or have never struggled - it's an affront to their self image and self esteem.

None-the-less, taking emotions away and looking at the objectivity of the situation, I can't help but see that certain groups through whatever means are HIGHLY advantaged in the same way I can say for example the US as a nation is HIGHLY advantaged compared to Guatemala for example. Metaphorically speaking, you can't expect the US and Guatemala to compete and Guatemala to stand a chance.

So anyways Ryan... help me reconcile this. In my mind, Guatemala needs all the help it can get, african americans need all the help they can get, countries under the boot of the world bank and imperialism need all the help they can get and so do their citizens including refugees from these places. They are highly disadvantaged, playing a game of monopoly where they basically don't own any piece of the board including suffer huge mental blocks from a well concerted effort of psychological warfare horned and executed through the might and ability of organisations such as the CIA.

I am talking here in terms of 'groups' not individuals the way I can talk in terms of bodies of nations e.g. the West, the BRICS etc. Yes... their are minorities who are VERY wealthy and have multiple opportunities and vice versa BUT we can't take them as examples to IGNORE states of groups... another example there are many healthy people BUT can't take them as examples to ignore rising obesity levels or increase in all sorts of conditions due to poor modern diets that is affecting humanity as a group etc. You get the picture!

LindaMay · 2017-12-23T14:31:42Z

Victimhood or Victors is the baseline.... within oneself lon.

Ryan · 2017-12-30T11:12:36Z

LonSabbatical Hi LS,

You’ve correctly identified that there is some historical legitimacy for certain grievances by black people within the United States - the problem hasn’t been entirely of their own making. Modern ‘identity politics’ however, at this point only encourages a “victim mentality” based upon ethnic and/or cultural group identity. There is rarely any dialogue about how black people have contributed to the current situation by - mostly - remaining ignorant of their own responsibility to integrate - and they do have such a responsibility due to the ethnic and cultural make-up of the society in which they live. Of course, no member of an ethnic group would prefer to reside in conditions where 4/5 of the people around them are of a different ethnic group, but then again most people would prefer not to be born into conditions of widespread suffering or poverty, either. This situation is what it is, and black people have to, at some point, suck it up and face it. Heroes such as Malcolm X and MLK showed black people constructive ways to deal with their unfair situation, but it seems there has been little progress since the civil rights movement - the postmodernism movement of the 60’s appears to have created the ideological underpinnings for modern identity politics which looks to have diverted many black people into “victim mentality”, and away from objectively looking at their situation and doing something about it collectively.

Your analogy that life is basically a game of “Monopoly” is fundamentally flawed though; this might be why you are having difficulty reconciling what I wrote with the typical ‘leftist’ perspective. The object of “Monopoly” is to dominate the ‘market’ by owning all the ‘stuff’. Life is more like ‘Poly-opoly’, where the ‘players’ benefit by making everyone else rich, as well as themselves. And there are no losers - everyone wins. If, for some reason, you ‘need’ to think of it as a game, think of it as a non-zero-sum one.

Cheers! 🙂

Observer · 2017-12-23T20:25:18Z

"In my mind, Guatemala needs all the help it can get"

Why? To what end?

Your supposition is that perceived inequality between groups is an 'injustice' that needs to be corrected?

Do you want to make life fair?

How many people have to be killed for fairness to be achieved?

Imagine if you will space aliens with your politics find earth. Will they see earthlings as 'disadvantaged' and proceed to correct the injustice?

Will the people of earth appreciate such intervention even if its being done "for their own good"?

I of course agree with you that meddlers like the CIA need to be abolished, however the aspect of your argument I disagree with is the notion that circumstantial lack of advantage is an injustice...

Observer · 2017-12-23T20:26:12Z

Observer this comment was meant to be in reply to: LonSabbatical

LonSabbatical · 2017-12-23T21:26:43Z

Hey Observer...

I will try and reply back logically and not driven by reaction or emotion.

First thing I want to say is I agree with the points you've made though I feel that these points have been taken from a specific situation and are now getting applied to an unrelated situation. I refer to the issue of communism where many people had to die for this supposed equality you talk about!

I fail to see how the correction of racial and imperial injustices are relatable to communism. First of all, these situations were not circumstantial, they were deliberate and thought out. They are not equivalent to say being born with less talent or working in a field that rewards less compared to a more lucrative one (e.g. Waitress vs Banker). In 'circumstantial' situations inequality is inevitable and is a reflection of natural differences. Inequality is not unfair. A waitress on minimum wage is not experiencing injustice for not earning as much as a banker... she just happens to be in the wrong profession for accumulating wealth. This is ignoring the nature of any specific society and if minimum wage is enough to support an independent dignified life vs if being wealthy means having billions etc. The same applies to talent... if I run in the olympics and get beat by a usain bolt for example, it's fair and not a reflection of injustice.

However, if your country invades mine, installs a dictator, world bank comes in and forces dictator to take massive loans resulting in indentured servitude of the country and outright robbery of its resources to pay back said debts, I would consider that gross injustice that needed correction.

If a whole group of people were enslaved for centuries, their original countries of origin pillaged and colonised and said people, both the slaves and conquered kept in physical, emotional, spiritual and heck, intellectual duress for centuries where development was restricted and so was accumulation of wealth and by the time they got 'free' they were so behind that at the very minimum countless of generations will have to pass including good fortune and some form of mercy shown from their original conquerers in the shape of reparations and giving back of resources, forgiveness of debts etc before any form of equity can even make a glimpse appearance, I WOULD CONSIDER THAT INJUSTICE OF THE HIGHEST MAGNITUDES.

Correction of said injustices doesn't mean death of millions. That is a cop out of an answer and a stance on the side of said injustices. Millions if not billions of people, mostly racial minorites in and outside the US are in very high degree of duress due to the shit that went down for centuries and still goes down today (like the US wars of imperialism on Brown and black countries)...

I fail to see how correction of said situation is relatable to what you said which essentially reads as 'well, life just aint fair' you might as well get over it.

"In my mind, Guatemala needs all the help it can get"

Why? To what end?

So that its people can determine their own future... have america stop meddling in its internal affairs etc.

With racial injustices, young and old african americans and natives need subsidised high quality education programmes implemented to bring them onto par and start a generational domino effect, particular focus should be placed in run down communities to bring the populations there up to a proper standard both psychologically in terms of knowledge, integration and material/wealth creation and/or jobs that promote economic growth.

You tell me how that is a bad thing? All these identity politics education programmes are crap as they don't actually improve anything however the idea of education itself based on history, the effect of history on the current population both materially and psychologically is not.

But hey of course that would never happen in the real world... lets all continue on the current trajectory and watch war and natural chaos consume us all. In the end Observer, nature will do what man can't - return harmony and balance.

Ps, Ryan this is the problem I have... can you please help me correct it.

LindaMay · 2017-12-23T22:12:04Z

Cease believing people (you) are/is VICTIM.

VICTIMhood does not exist.... it s an illusion LonS

LonSabbatical · 2017-12-23T22:17:52Z

LM I admire your attempt to rise beyond our material world into some spiritual realm. I feel though the view you express is divorced from reality.

Victims exist and is a widely acknowledged fact. A woman who has been raped is a victim for example or a child that has suffered abuse.

To try and paint the picture in any other way is to simply refuse basic facts of reality.

Observer · 2017-12-23T22:40:13Z

LonSabbatical "I fail to see how the correction of racial and imperial injustices are relatable to communism."

They cant be corrected! The past is the past!

What CAN be done, and HAS been done is to create a society in which everyone is afforded the same equality of opportunity (by law). As well as making sure new injustices are not committed (and bring to justice those who commit them), otherwise known as rule of law.

So I think I can boil it down to this. We are actually in agreement except for one key point, in many ways it is also the key difference between left and right political ideological thinking.

As part of your described "injustice" you used these words/phrases: "by the time they got 'free' they were so behind ... bring them onto par ... bring the populations there up to a proper standard"

"You tell me how that is a bad thing?"

We both agree that government has done and is doing bad things, we used the CIA as an example in the way it interferes/meddles in the affairs of others including other nations.

We both agree that such practices need to end.

Yet as part of your 'solution' to the problem you want to use government (force) to "bring the populations there up to a proper standard". I guess not realizing the cause of the problem cannot be used to solve it!

What standard? Whose standard? Yours? You say "proper standard both psychologically in terms of knowledge, integration and material/wealth creation and/or jobs that promote economic growth. "

This is why I used the commie space aliens analogies...

You are judging other's as inferior and needing to be 'uplifted' so to speak to your own standards in order to solve the perceived problem of injustice.

It is exactly like the attempts to civilize the 'barbaric' natives of the new world hundreds of years ago... which ultimately resulted in the very injustices you are now trying to 'fix' using the same methods that caused the problem to begin with!

You see its actually very simple, there is no race that humans are participating in, there is no "being behind". The word human is interesting because hu is like hue, hue as in a slice of a spectrum of possibilities, each human is different each a exploring a different perspective of the world and exploring a different state of being because of it.

So your desire to unify everybody, to bring them all to the same 'standard' it is perhaps anti-human.

Justice is not predicated on material wealth and standard of education. A just society only needs to meet a simple requirement: right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

What does that require? SELF-DETERMINISM!

Individuals cannot have self-determinism when governments are FORCING them to meet your standards of what YOU deem to be just!

What makes the STO entities STO? Simple, they do not interfere! They respect free will! Live and let live!

What makes STS entities STS? Simple they act in their own self interest in ways that impose their will unto others! They do not respect free will, nor self-determinism!

LindaMay ·

Suit yourself LonS.

· 2017-12-23T23:26:42Z

LonSabbatical · 2017-12-23T23:40:32Z

Hi observer, nice to see we aren't so different in our views!

We do however have one glaring point of difference. You seem like a reasonable guy so lets explore this... I think I know where you are coming from, you mirror the views expressed on sott and a lot by the group opposed to sjws. In effect the view you express though couched in your reasonable nature are a product of what you've absorbed in the way of education.

What CAN be done, and HAS been done is to create a society in which everyone is afforded the same equality of opportunity (by law). As well as making sure new injustices are not committed (and bring to justice those who commit them), otherwise known as rule of law.

So I don't entirely agree. The reason is the above ignores the effects of the past on the present. The present does not exist in isolation.

I can not see how a reasonable solution to the present can be suggested that doesn't take into account what has gone before.

Which leads to our point of difference: education and support.

It is exactly like the attempts to civilize the 'barbaric' natives of the new world hundreds of years ago... which ultimately resulted in the very injustices you are now trying to 'fix' using the same methods that caused the problem to begin with!

It is not to 'civilize'... Civilize was a word which in practise meant conquer. The romans tried to civilise the barbarians or Europe tried to civilise the world. We know what they actually meant, by the fruits of their action was to conquer and subjugate.

In this context I speak off, if you are to use that term, I mean it in the sense of 'education' and offering of 'opportunity'.

With regard to government, if we are to live in a society... we need an organising force a.k.a government for society to work. The problem is not government, the problem are the types of people who run government, their make up and motivations.

So your desire to unify everybody, to bring them all to the same 'standard' it is perhaps anti-human.

Not to the 'same' standard... to a minimum standard where they can't be exploited through their lack of knowledge by unscrupulous individuals. Why do you think their is a dumbing down programme in education?

Why do you think their is propaganda? Because the information people take in affect how they perceive and react to the world.

In society, the information people take in is controlled by 'government' and/or corporate bodies.

Justice is not predicated on material wealth and standard of education.

Education/knowledge minimises the chance of injustice...

Individuals cannot have self-determinism when governments are FORCING them to meet your standards of what YOU deem to be just!

Not 'my' standards... the minimum standard of knowledge to be able to function without being exploited within a society.

To know about the past and its effects on the present and how the decisions we make now will not only affect our immediate environment and brethren but also the future can only be a good thing to society. As part of this past, yes... people will know how actions have favoured certain groups and disfavoured others based on nothing but greed and a desire for conquest and control.

You talk about STS/STO, I talk about knowledge and what it affords in addition to 'opportunities' presented to correct for the past e.g. reduced or no education tuition fees to low income families especially those trapped in generational poverty cycles, revisiting debt programmes with the developing world, revisiting trade agreements that were agreed under the yoke of imperialism, revisiting relationships with governments that have been forcibly installed, decimating knowledge of what truly happened in the past that got us to the edge of this horrendous cliff where we face the real risk of extinction etc.

It's a utopian dream but hey ho....

LindaMay · 2017-12-24T00:00:47Z

LonS... you and Observer are universes apart. Observer is trying to help you along but you just have the writer's bug.

LindaMay · 2017-12-24T00:18:59Z

Divorce i dont believe in either LonS. It s probably the major most costly birdbrained fucked-up human maladie *mal à dire*.

Observer · 2017-12-24T03:05:58Z

LonSabbatical

"In effect the view you express though couched in your reasonable nature are a product of what you've absorbed in the way of education."

Hmm? That seems like a non-statement (meaningless), perhaps clarify what you were trying to communicate?

"So I don't entirely agree. The reason is the above ignores the effects of the past on the present. The present does not exist in isolation. "

Well it doesn't, that sort of foundation to our civilization (USA) is the product of both experience and a study of other civilizations existing at the time as well of the past. The founders were quite the objective thinkers!

If however that is not what you meant but rather that we are to look over history and try to account or 'make up' for past injustices in the PRESENT... well such a notion is radical to the extreme, it is akin to blaming the child for the sins of the parent! How is that tenable?!

"I can not see how a reasonable solution to the present can be suggested that doesn't take into account what has gone before."

Of course, I have not suggested otherwise. The point of contention is with what the problem is, and with what the solution should be.

"Civilize was a word which in practise meant conquer"

So going by your own definition here, isn't that what you are proposing? You literally said:

"With racial injustices, young and old african americans and natives need subsidised high quality education programmes implemented to bring them onto par and start a generational domino effect, particular focus should be placed in run down communities to bring the populations there up to a proper standard both psychologically in terms of knowledge, integration and material/wealth creation and/or jobs that promote economic growth.

You tell me how that is a bad thing?"

Subsidized education.. implying government controlled education.

To create a generational domino effect.. (educate them into our culture, displacing their own)

Psychologically in terms of knowledge.. as in how to be good citizens obedient to the government that taught them !

Integration into the economy.. as in productive chattel.. aka proper tax slaves.

That is your proposed solution and you said that after you had pointed out how the government was acting to disenfranchise such peoples and how the world bank is used to enslave peoples/nations through debt scams!

Again I say, the cause of the problem cannot be used as a solution... The solution is to remove the cause of the problem!

"Not to the 'same' standard... to a minimum standard"

Really? A minimum standard IS a standard. A minimum is standard of value. Like minimum wage is a standard of pay.

"to a minimum standard where they can't be exploited through their lack of knowledge by unscrupulous individuals."

hah! How do you substantiate the minimum required for that? It would be like an infinite minimum! Yes if we could teach everybody to be God, then they couldn't be exploited through ignorance!

" Why do you think their is a dumbing down programme in education? "

I love how in this one paragraph I have to address each sentence! I will answer your question by using a quote from your previous paragraph!:

"we need an organising force a.k.a government for society to work. The problem is not government"

Although government can be an organizing force, that is not an equal/explicit comparison. Government is a monopoly on the threat and use of physical violence , the authority/power to GOVERN over subjects by use of potentially violent force!

But it is more than that, government (that has grown beyond its restraints) is a parasite, it is a parasite that drains its host population of its vital essence, of its prosperity, of its potential, and in the case of physical war (with other governments).. of the lives of the host populations children.

The insidious nature of the psychopathic parasitical machination known as government truly reveals itself once it has taken control over the education of its host population to indoctrinate children TO BELIEVE THAT GOVERNMENT IS GOOD AND NECESSARY!

Think about that fact that in all of your comments in this thread you have pointed out the evil acts of governments, and inexplicably you also claim that government is necessary and is not the problem?!

Reflect on the possibility that you are the answer to the question "Why they dumb down the education programs".

I'm not trying to be mean, I just tend to be blunt, and frankly you have presented an egregiously hypocritical position that warranted being called out.

You try to rationalize your position with the statement:

"the problem are the types of people who run government, their make up and motivations. "

The problem with this argument is that government is like a machine, it is a machination of laws, rules, regulations, policies, and a compartmentalized control hierarchy, and it is not something that wants to change, in fact it is designed to be resistant to change.

An individual person in the government is little more than a cog in the machine, their ability to "do good" is severely limited by the rules of the machine that constrain their acts and behavior.

These machinations are paved with "good intentions". Perhaps you know what that means.

As we have seen with the case study that is the US government. It started fairly small, with checks and balances, rule of law was proclaimed. Yet over the decades, centuries, it grew and grew with an insatiable lust for more and more power. Eventually the host's ability to control its government was lost, even a civil war was fought over the reigns of power. The monster of a government we have today is the result.

The only way such a thing can "do good" is by being forced to remove its tendrils from around our necks.

That is the reason Trump was elected, not because what he promised to do to others using force of government but because of what he promised to do TO the government namely draining the swamp, cutting regulations, restoring checks and balances, and cutting taxes!

Look at the response that gets from the 'DC insiders', they are like chickens with their heads cut off, their greatest fear.. that their machinations of power over others is taken from them and disassembled is being realized.. despite the limited extent.

I said: "Justice is not predicated on material wealth and standard of education. "

you replied: "Education/knowledge minimises the chance of injustice.."

It is not an injustice if it is prevented. If a crime is prevented, there is nothing to get justice over... Prevention is good.. ideal actually, but the question was how to resolve an injustice.. post tense obviously. So in that respect for an injustice to be resolved, those responsible for it must be held to account and punished with the potential for some amends made to the victim/s. Now maybe you can say improving education curriculum can be an amends, and yes it could be.. IF it was the subject of the injustice and the perpetrators and the victims are both in the present, not some vague/unrelated distant past injustice by long dead perpetrators and the children of the supposed victims several generations removed!

I'm starting to think the thread might be too deep.. its like wait what are we arguing over.. we forgot, the war started years ago!

I said: "Individuals cannot have self-determinism when governments are FORCING them to meet your standards of what YOU deem to be just! "

you replied: "Not 'my' standards... the minimum standard of knowledge to be able to function without being exploited within a society."

Again.. that is a standard, and it is yours, as you are the one espousing it!

"It's a utopian dream"

For you maybe... but that is the thing about utopia.. it can only exist in the mind of an individual, not in our shared reality!

I wonder if you actually recognize my points? The last reply just seemed to ignore the main point I made...

LonSabbatical · 2017-12-24T13:31:43Z

I see your points and you see mine... we're just not in agreement.

To quickly clarify what I meant

Hmm? That seems like a non-statement (meaningless), perhaps clarify what you were trying to communicate?

I was trying to point out the irony that what it is you defend, your view against government is a product of government education and control. You talked about the founding fathers and their principles... you worship at their alter. Well, guess what? The education program worked well. At the beginning you made comparisons against commies... guess what, education program worked well there too.

That's all I was trying to say.

Anywhose, thank you for trying to help me reconcile my issue. I'm starting to think it's not an issue anymore... it's just my view. We can have independent and separate views.

Observer · 2017-12-27T22:27:11Z

LonSabbatical

"you worship at their alter"

Uhhh... no. There is a big difference between pointing out the logic behind their vision and worship... I do not worship..

You are making a false comparison there, pointing out the logic to the foundation does not imply support of the current state of government as should have been obvious from everything else I wrote. Governments are obviously not static/unchanging entities.

The whole point of conservatism is to undue the bad changes that progressivism has resulted in, unrestrained government being the most egregious!

"I'm starting to think it's not an issue anymore... it's just my view."

I still get the impression you did not actually read (or rather reflected on) what I wrote. Even if you say you disagree with my points.. you haven't explained why... But that is OK if you don't want to continue.

"We can have independent and separate views"

Of course.

" thank you for trying to help me reconcile my issue."

Welcome, I had fun at least!

Highland Fleet Lute · 2017-12-23T23:08:35Z

"With racial injustices, young and old african americans and natives need subsidised high quality education programmes implemented to bring them onto par and start a generational domino effect, particular focus should be placed in run down communities to bring the populations there up to a proper standard both psychologically in terms of knowledge, integration and material/wealth creation and/or jobs that promote economic growth."

You don't speak for black people. You speak on behalf of your own cocoon, which is a peculiarly Morrissey-like psychological matrix that you refuse to grow out of.

LonSabbatical · 2017-12-23T23:42:29Z

Thanks. Who's Morrissey and what's my cocoon?

LonSabbatical · 2017-12-23T23:45:05Z

Ps, HFL... send them my regards... and thank you for acting like a conduit. There's other ways they can make their message known btw... so I suggest you just go back to minding your own business and stop being a puppet.

LindaMay · 2017-12-24T00:05:11Z

You see LonS... that s the trouble of the "Material Girl" World (Madonna?)

.... control freaks crawlin' n scratchin' all over our Mother's Face.

Said as gently as i could, no illwill intended.

LindaMay · 2017-12-24T00:06:36Z

And i meant you LonS btw. HFL is trying his bestest too

Highland Fleet Lute · 2017-12-24T00:15:21Z

LonSabbatical "what's my cocoon?"

By the looks of things, schizophrenia, possibly. Can't help. I'm out.

LindaMay ·

And i m next

· 2017-12-24T00:19:53Z

LindaMay ·

LonS, you like Madonna?

· 2017-12-24T00:23:49Z

hobnob · 2017-12-27T05:39:47Z

Highland Fleet Lute In my experience, schizophrenics are not going to self-reflect to the extent seen in comments above.

LindaMay · 2017-12-23T23:35:22Z

@ Observer

Very interesting take:

The word human is interesting because hu is like hue, hue as in a slice of a spectrum of possibilities, each human is different each a exploring a different perspective of the world and exploring a different state of being because of it.

So your desire to unify everybody, to bring them all to the same 'standard' it is perhaps anti-human.

Hue makes much sense to me.

Anti-human i would replace by metahuman homoluminous as the ancients call us/them. This is the field of transcendance.... where LonS denies entry.

Out beyond notions of right-doing and wrong-doing there is a field. Will you meet me there?

Rumi

LonSabbatical · 2017-12-24T00:36:07Z

Hfl, LM... I've no interest in talking to either of you 2. There's no respect between us.

Have a merry xmas and happy new year.

Snowflake · 2017-12-24T15:39:52Z

LonSabbatical There's something very condescending about leaving a smiley face at the end of a passive aggressive text.

hobnob · 2017-12-27T05:30:12Z

Snowflake Alright now, I can't say I know too much about how past interactions might have influenced these responses, but can you say that honestly after he/she had been called names like that? It's low, really. Saying there is disrespect is a description, not suggestive of covert aggression. Perhaps it is best not to confuse assertiveness or mere description with aggression.

Beyond all that the above discussions seemed reasonable to a point. Some arguments might be exaggerated a bit, or on the other side unduly associated with different issues. That is the extent of my reaction.

hobnob · 2017-12-27T05:31:05Z

hobnyeba The name-calling was low, not snowflake

pinkfreud · 2017-12-25T21:59:38Z

LonSabbatical. You make a lot of sense. I really wish others could take a look history to find how people of various groups ended up in the positions they are in today. In order to help we must first empathize. Regardless of what others say you have proven yourself as the true “left” (not to be confused with the insane left).

Of course everyone is responsible for themselves but what good is a wolf without empathy and a helping hand?

pinkfreud · 2017-12-25T22:01:20Z

World not wolf. Although what good is a self centered wolf?

LindaMay · 2017-12-25T22:12:08Z

I agree Pinkfreud... but let s keep our balance. Over is like under-doing.

pinkfreud · 2017-12-25T22:31:01Z

LM. Yes. We must keep a bit of a right mind to keep us from falling into the left abyss and likewise we must keep a bit of a left mind from falling over the right abyss. So we have a path to walk down with a cliff on both sides. Now we must find the path.

BlackCartouche · 2017-12-26T00:20:54Z

pinkfreud "what good is a wolf without empathy and a helping hand?" I'm not sure why, but, somehow, that sounds quite profound.

"World not wolf" No, "wolf"!... Definitely wolf! You on a roll tonight Pinkfreud!

pinkfreud · 2017-12-26T00:38:48Z

Right. I know BC. My thumbs can’t keep up with auto correct. I gotta learn to poof weed before I post. 🤓

LindaMay · 2017-12-26T02:24:17Z

Follow the wolf pinkfreud... it s a damned good tracker

Wolf are clan leaders... and the best babysitters

Proofweed too funny

LindaMay ·

Poofweed sorry

· 2017-12-27T18:39:57Z

Dus7 · 2017-12-26T20:49:56Z

Re:

As the "Baby Boomers" gave birth to "Generation X", who then gave birth to the "Millennials", an ideological battle began to take place in universities...

I don't see the connection between the colorfully named and arbitrarily delimited age groups in a population and the list of somewhat silly college courses, the former not having selected the latter. In fact, the former, these groupings by year of birth, may each appear to have distinguishing features but no more so than a group of people with a particular range of skin tones or any other of a myriad born-with characteristics. I thought the myth of homogenity with a group that bears superficial similarities was what the author was arguing against.

Ryan · 2017-12-30T12:21:02Z

Dus7 Don't know where you got that from. The list of university courses is intended to show how infested US universities are with identity politics, and how this is officially sanctioned by the administrations of such universities. You could also use it to illustrate how US university curricula have changed between generations; as you point out, the "Baby Boomers" could not have taken such courses because such courses did not yet exist. I recommend listening to the SOTT "The Truth Perspective" podcast on postmodernism to get an understanding of how western universities were influenced by radical ideologues in the 60’s:

SOTT Focus:The Truth Perspective: Explaining Postmodernism - Interview with Stephen Hicks

This week we're interviewing Professor Stephen Hicks. Stephen is a Canadian-American philosopher who teaches at Rockford University, where he also directs the Center for Ethics and...

Cheers! 🙂

Rowan Cocoan · 2018-01-17T08:34:48Z

But they can't complain about them all; after all, we have an excerpt from the syllabus for;

AMCULT 103: Drag in America (University of Michigan)

Donald Glenn "Don" Garlits (born January 14, 1932, Tampa, Florida) is an American race car driver and automotive engineer. He is considered the father of drag racing. He is known as "Big Daddy" to drag racing fans around the world. Always a pioneer in the field of drag racing, he perfected the rear-engine top fuel

OR,

maybe it's a physics class focusing on the role of friction and resistance in fluid dynamics

Sadly, I am joking.

R.C.

The scientists broadcast a type of GREETING call called a 'whup/throp' through underwater speaker. When the call was played through the water,...

diminished7

Hello, thank you for your article, you can buy Artemisia annua on the Biologiquement laboratory's online store at www.biologiquement.shop Kind...

baomix

and from whence did these neanderthals get that 13 billion ? and...for the protesters, if you Honestly want to make the world a better place....

Shangri

Girls gone wild was a distracting lead up to governments gone wild. Up next, sport hunting and fishing.

JTF Truth

The whale may have been trying to complain about the disturbance caused by the boat's engines.

eulogical

SOTT Focus:

The Solution to the Hatred of Identity Politics Is Psychological Knowledge

Reader Comments

Afghan 'teen refugee', who raped and murdered German girl, is actually 33-years-old

SOTT Focus:The Truth Perspective: Explaining Postmodernism - Interview with Stephen Hicks

Latest News

Picture of the Day

Quote of the Day

Recent Comments

Quantum Quirk