The Western White Male Personality Is Maladaptive

[Blossom]

The problem with their logic is that high carb low fat diets don't maintain a high level of insulin over time, they actually decrease it in serum. High fat diets on the other hand do produce higher and higher levels of insulin AND carb consumption has actually started to decline in the recent decade yet we're still getting fatter so those calories are coming from fat:

Thanks for the detailed reply. I figured it was just more carbophobia blah, blah, blah. I didn't really believe it.

 

[Blossom]

The author may single in on this single dietary point but I think he is missing the bigger picture of dietary change.

The proportion of fat in the diet also became far more unsaturated.

Food additives and fast food that irritate the gut and cause the endotoxin cascade, leading to high estrogen, irritated adrenals secreting DHEA and it’s conversion to androgens.

Greater calorie consumption, increased adiposity, increased estrogen and progesterone being actively blocked by synthetic progestins.

I completely agree. It has to be more complex than high carb/low fat.

 

[Jon]

Thanks for the detailed reply. I figured it was just more carbophobia blah, blah, blah. I didn't really believe it.

I didn't really think you did :) but I wanted to give sound logic to my points lol

 

[Blossom]

I didn't really think you did :) but I wanted to give sound logic to my points lol

I enjoyed reading it and I'm sure others will too. I sincerely appreciate your valuable contributions on the forum! It's hard sometimes to know how my words come across in text v conversation.

 

[Jon]

I enjoyed reading it and I'm sure others will too. I sincerely appreciate your valuable contributions on the forum! It's hard sometimes to know how my words come across in text v conversation.

They were well received :) thank you for your kind words

 

[Badger]

If you took the time (which you didn't) to look at all my posts over the course of 1-2 years here, you'd see I draw on a very wide range of very different sources. All sources have errors and truths. The challenge is always to separate out the wheat from the chaff, the gold from the crap, a big challenge, since there is much more crap out there than gold. You could label any one of of my sources any inflammatory, bigoted term you wish to choose, that doesn't mean I am personally identified with a movement or general POV of that movement or accept their views on other issues and topics they cover. Has it ever occurred to you someone could reject everything a thinker offers, except maybe one or two or three things they say? If I quoted a Nazi or a Communist (a perfectly PC category among many coddled Americans that a lot of people who suffered under Communism would find to be ignorant and criminal to allow to be PC, just like those who suffered under Nazis and Fascists if those things happened to be PC), that 2+2 = 4, does that make me a Nazi or Communist? I don't think so.

In my view, it's of greatest value to look for and seek out the truth anywhere it appears. I may find something true - maybe only one thing - in a school of thinking or movement or philosophy or religion the rest of which everything else they say I find noxious and reject. I don't know who you are talking about when you say white supremacists "hate women" and are "borderline rapists," since I don't read anybody in any school of thought who hates women or are borderline rapists, as I have no interest in anything having to do with the reprehensible activities associated with such people. If you reject something I quote or argue from on the basis of the source alone, one which you find un-PC, for example, you're acting in the role of a rigid, binary-thinking propagandist and authoritarian for whatever brand of absolutism/agenda/favored identity/club membership you are peddling. If you really knew anything about Peat's ideas, you would instead argue against what is being said, examining the logic and evidence it presents, refuting it or confirming it is true, just as with anything else. You wouldn't say "Ha, a Nazi said 2+2 = 4, and since I hate Nazis, I can't accept it." But refuting something on the basis of logic/evidence would be work, effort. Much easier to react with name calling and unproven accusations.

The real core of the problem with people like you in this context is your absolute certainty that the objects of your derision and condemnation - whatever they are, doesn't matter - are the worst of the worst things in the world, when in truth, there always is something worse: stupidity. Their own.

I'm going to ad hominem you and point out that you get your views from white supremacists, who hate women and are at the very least borderline rapists. I think you are exactly the sort of person lacking those "vital abilities" Peat mentioned.

 

[Animalinstinct]

White Man Can’t Jump was loosely based on that survey

 

[Hugh Johnson]

If you took the time (which you didn't) to look at all my posts over the course of 1-2 years here, you'd see I draw on a very wide range of very different sources. All sources have errors and truths. The challenge is always to separate out the wheat from the chaff, the gold from the crap, a big challenge, since there is much more crap out there than gold. You could label any one of of my sources any inflammatory, bigoted term you wish to choose, that doesn't mean I am personally identified with a movement or general POV of that movement or accept their views on other issues and topics they cover. Has it ever occurred to you someone could reject everything a thinker offers, except maybe one or two or three things they say? If I quoted a Nazi or a Communist (a perfectly PC category among many coddled Americans that a lot of people who suffered under Communism would find to be ignorant and criminal to allow to be PC, just like those who suffered under Nazis and Fascists if those things happened to be PC), that 2+2 = 4, does that make me a Nazi or Communist? I don't think so.

In my view, it's of greatest value to look for and seek out the truth anywhere it appears. I may find something true - maybe only one thing - in a school of thinking or movement or philosophy or religion the rest of which everything else they say I find noxious and reject. I don't know who you are talking about when you say white supremacists "hate women" and are "borderline rapists," since I don't read anybody in any school of thought who hates women or are borderline rapists, as I have no interest in anything having to do with the reprehensible activities associated with such people. If you reject something I quote or argue from on the basis of the source alone, one which you find un-PC, for example, you're acting in the role of a rigid, binary-thinking propagandist and authoritarian for whatever brand of absolutism/agenda/favored identity/club membership you are peddling. If you really knew anything about Peat's ideas, you would instead argue against what is being said, examining the logic and evidence it presents, refuting it or confirming it is true, just as with anything else. You wouldn't say "Ha, a Nazi said 2+2 = 4, and since I hate Nazis, I can't accept it." But refuting something on the basis of logic/evidence would be work, effort. Much easier to react with name calling and unproven accusations.

The real core of the problem with people like you in this context is your absolute certainty that the objects of your derision and condemnation - whatever they are, doesn't matter - are the worst of the worst things in the world, when in truth, there always is something worse: stupidity. Their own.

If you quote Hitler or any other actual nazi thought leader as an authority on the Jews, yeah, you would be a nazi. And I did not say white supremacist hate women, I said you quote people who are white supremacists and hate women and are borderline rapists. You might not be intelligent enough to understand how argumentation functions, or you are arguing in bad faith. A nazi saying something does not make it right or wrong. However, a nazi talking about his views on the Jews would be quite different.
W

 

[zewe]

I'd like to clarify some of my thinking. When I voiced concern over the increasingly aggressive behavior in young females, I was not envisioning them going toe to toe in combat w/ men.

Rather, I'm thinking in much broader and futuristic terms. Women bear the children of this planet and for the most part, are the major influence of these children in their formative years. Young children need a FIRM but GENTLE hand in their raising. And they need to feel safe and a consistant, patient, guiding hand.

The kind of aggressiveness I'm noticing in many young women is very threating and getting right up in someone's grill....if ya know what I mean. Add this to the huge number of single mums who really are the major influence and you get a recipe for disaster in the formation of character.

All the studies posted here are interesting food for thought but each offers only a piece of the puzzle.

Society has been heading this way for quite sometime. Hell, I don't know....maybe the introduction of free love from my generation was the begining of the breakdown of the family.
Point is in terms of the children we're rearing, we all need to ponder on this and take hand where we can.....maybe even to give an overstressed family/relative/neighbor raising a kid alone some time/relief.

There are other types of opportunities to do this. I was a Big Sister and they really need men volunteering for the boys.

 

[x-ray peat]

If you took the time (which you didn't) to look at all my posts over the course of 1-2 years here, you'd see I draw on a very wide range of very different sources. All sources have errors and truths. The challenge is always to separate out the wheat from the chaff, the gold from the crap, a big challenge, since there is much more crap out there than gold. You could label any one of of my sources any inflammatory, bigoted term you wish to choose, that doesn't mean I am personally identified with a movement or general POV of that movement or accept their views on other issues and topics they cover. Has it ever occurred to you someone could reject everything a thinker offers, except maybe one or two or three things they say? If I quoted a Nazi or a Communist (a perfectly PC category among many coddled Americans that a lot of people who suffered under Communism would find to be ignorant and criminal to allow to be PC, just like those who suffered under Nazis and Fascists if those things happened to be PC), that 2+2 = 4, does that make me a Nazi or Communist? I don't think so.

In my view, it's of greatest value to look for and seek out the truth anywhere it appears. I may find something true - maybe only one thing - in a school of thinking or movement or philosophy or religion the rest of which everything else they say I find noxious and reject. I don't know who you are talking about when you say white supremacists "hate women" and are "borderline rapists," since I don't read anybody in any school of thought who hates women or are borderline rapists, as I have no interest in anything having to do with the reprehensible activities associated with such people. If you reject something I quote or argue from on the basis of the source alone, one which you find un-PC, for example, you're acting in the role of a rigid, binary-thinking propagandist and authoritarian for whatever brand of absolutism/agenda/favored identity/club membership you are peddling. If you really knew anything about Peat's ideas, you would instead argue against what is being said, examining the logic and evidence it presents, refuting it or confirming it is true, just as with anything else. You wouldn't say "Ha, a Nazi said 2+2 = 4, and since I hate Nazis, I can't accept it." But refuting something on the basis of logic/evidence would be work, effort. Much easier to react with name calling and unproven accusations.

The real core of the problem with people like you in this context is your absolute certainty that the objects of your derision and condemnation - whatever they are, doesn't matter - are the worst of the worst things in the world, when in truth, there always is something worse: stupidity. Their own.

If you quote Hitler or any other actual nazi thought leader as an authority on the Jews, yeah, you would be a nazi. And I did not say white supremacist hate women, I said you quote people who are white supremacists and hate women and are borderline rapists. You might not be intelligent enough to understand how argumentation functions, or you are arguing in bad faith. A nazi saying something does not make it right or wrong. However, a nazi talking about his views on the Jews would be quite different.
W

@Badger if enough people say that you're drunk, maybe it’s time to lie down. We had this exact same discussion on many other threads. I suggest that you put down the bottle of far alt-right disinfo. You don't see it, but you still have a lot of crap covering whatever little gold you think you've found.

 

[x-ray peat]

Stimulating thoughts/info, men.

@Hugh Johnson yes I have read Gatto's work....thoroughly. I homeschooled my son. He didn't do well in that setting and I didn't want him indoctrinated.

Sometimes I think that made it hard on him, not being part of the herd. But once in a while, he thanks me....He grew up w/out TV also. For a short time we had a small black and white for news and Red Green on PBS. Twenty some years later we still don't have one.

He's a Sous Chef now and I'm pround of him. He has a job where he provides an enjoyment for people.

@raypeatclips do you know if Russell was part of the disgusting Travistock Institute?

I'm not sure if Bertrand Russell was officially working for Tavistock but he definitely was on board with the same agenda. He supposedly ran several experimental schools for young children to work out his social engineering ideas. One of his more brilliant discoveries is that if you encourage children to engage in promiscuous activity they will have a very difficult time forming pair bonds later in life. Seems like that has been put into effect for a while now through exposure of children to sex at younger and younger ages. The free love movement you mentioned is certainly consistent with his research.

 

[Badger]

I quote people who hate women and are borderline rapist? No I don't and you don't have any evidence for it. A mere assertion is not proof. If I quote anybody who says something true, no matter what club he is in, it's still true. I argue that at length in prior post, but you choose to ignore it (or lack the brains to understand it) and other things I said. If anybody is arguing in bad faith it is demonstrably you. You are either one or another or both: a troll or stupid. For these reasons, not to be taken seriously.

If you quote Hitler or any other actual nazi thought leader as an authority on the Jews, yeah, you would be a nazi. And I did not say white supremacist hate women, I said you quote people who are white supremacists and hate women and are borderline rapists. You might not be intelligent enough to understand how argumentation functions, or you are arguing in bad faith. A nazi saying something does not make it right or wrong. However, a nazi talking about his views on the Jews would be quite different.
W

 

[Badger]

The same discussion before only with you, and both of you use the same tactics of smear and ignoring the arguments I offer, which again you do here, as usual, as to be expected. If 1000 people tell me 2+2 = 5, all 1,000 of them are still wrong. If 1000 people smear, insult, defame and push ad hominems and refuse to engage the argument and ignore evidence offered, then every single one is still wrong or a troll. Maybe you should be dropping your chauvinist pro-Israeli/Jewish and anti-Catholic disinfo.

@Badger if enough people say that you're drunk, maybe it’s time to lie down. We had this exact same discussion on many other threads. I suggest that you put down the bottle of far alt-right disinfo. You don't see it, but you still have a lot of crap covering whatever little gold you think you've found.

 

[Badger]

I would add that, it seems to me, highly aggressive women would put more feminine women at a disadvantage in the course of carrying on the everyday transactions needed to be done, such as going to the bank, dealing with customer service and buying things. An extreme version of this is the case of boy-morphing-into-girl transgenders who join girls sports teams and beat other girls in competitions due to whatever remnants of greater male strength and size and male aggressiveness that remain in their body before they turned into women or some sort of facsimile of a woman. Odd that no or few feminist pundits complain about this. Perhaps preserving and advancing the prerogatives and privileges of transgenders trumps allowing normal girls to develop self-esteem and skills in sports.

I'd like to clarify some of my thinking. When I voiced concern over the increasingly aggressive behavior in young females, I was not envisioning them going toe to toe in combat w/ men.

Rather, I'm thinking in much broader and futuristic terms. Women bear the children of this planet and for the most part, are the major influence of these children in their formative years. Young children need a FIRM but GENTLE hand in their raising. And they need to feel safe and a consistant, patient, guiding hand.

The kind of aggressiveness I'm noticing in many young women is very threating and getting right up in someone's grill....if ya know what I mean. Add this to the huge number of single mums who really are the major influence and you get a recipe for disaster in the formation of character.

All the studies posted here are interesting food for thought but each offers only a piece of the puzzle.

Society has been heading this way for quite sometime. Hell, I don't know....maybe the introduction of free love from my generation was the begining of the breakdown of the family.
Point is in terms of the children we're rearing, we all need to ponder on this and take hand where we can.....maybe even to give an overstressed family/relative/neighbor raising a kid alone some time/relief.

There are other types of opportunities to do this. I was a Big Sister and they really need men volunteering for the boys.

 

[x-ray peat]

The same discussion before only with you, and both of you use the same tactics of smear and ignoring the arguments I offer, which again you do here, as usual, as to be expected. If 1000 people tell me 2+2 = 5, all 1,000 of them are still wrong. If 1000 people smear, insult, defame and push ad hominems and refuse to engage the argument and ignore evidence offered, then every single one is still wrong or a troll. Maybe you should be dropping your chauvinist pro-Israeli/Jewish and anti-Catholic disinfo.

Always accusing others of what you do; seems like a common tactic of yours and your fellow travelers. You’re the one always hurling insults at others, calling Hugh stupid at least twice and me countless other names. You’re the one not engaging in debate but rather ignoring what you cant refute and ghosting when it gets too hot, as recently as our last encounter. And for the umpteenth, accusing me if being anti-Catholic doesn’t make it so. I specifically address the facts around the Jesuit Order, which many Catholics have done throughout history. I don’t cast aspersions at all Catholics like you do towards all Jews.

 

[Badger]

You conveniently (for your side) failed to mention he - not me - started the ad hominems, and I replied back, as I had a right to, in kind. I'm "always hurling insults at others," really? Who else? Are there many, as you imply? How many are there? Yes, to you I've done a number, but only after you start it. I rarely initiate it. When I do refute, you ignore it or call me names. When I bring in scholarship of others, you label it as anti-Semitic (even when written by Jews ) or other nonsense labels, and now you have a new one, I'm "ghosting." In another thread , BTW, I have not finished my reply, but will be responding, not done with that one. And you do cast aspersions on Catholics - who are you kidding? - when you say, as you did elsewhere, that Roman Catholicism is the continuation of pagan Babylonian mystery religion and you ridiculed the clothes Catholic bishops and cardinals wear, which you say came from those religions. I do not cast aspersions on "all" Jews, as I made extremely clear with much detail - I said much good about them - in another thread. Saying this about me alone obviously shows you lie, implying you have lied about other things. If so, why should anyone believe anything you say?

Always accusing others of what you do; seems like a common tactic of yours and your fellow travelers. You’re the one always hurling insults at others, calling Hugh stupid at least twice and me countless other names. You’re the one not engaging in debate but rather ignoring what you cant refute and ghosting when it gets too hot, as recently as our last encounter. And for the umpteenth, accusing me if being anti-Catholic doesn’t make it so. I specifically address the facts around the Jesuit Order, which many Catholics have done throughout history. I don’t cast aspersions at all Catholics like you do towards all Jews.

 

[Insaneacinamide]

You conveniently (for your side) failed to mention he - not me - started the ad hominems, and I replied back, as I had a right to, in kind. I'm "always hurling insults at others," really? Who else? Are there many, as you imply? How many are there? Yes, to you I've done a number, but only after you start it. I rarely initiate it. When I do refute, you ignore it or call me names. When I bring in scholarship of others, you label it as anti-Semitic (even when written by Jews ) or other nonsense labels, and now you have a new one, I'm "ghosting." In another thread , BTW, I have not finished my reply, but will be responding, not done with that one. And you do cast aspersions on Catholics - who are you kidding? - when you say, as you did elsewhere, that Roman Catholicism is the continuation of pagan Babylonian mystery religion and you ridiculed the clothes Catholic bishops and cardinals wear, which you say came from those religions. I do not cast aspersions on "all" Jews, as I made extremely clear with much detail - I said much good about them - in another thread. Saying this about me alone obviously shows you lie, implying you have lied about other things. If so, why should anyone believe anything you say?

@xray, stop making Badger's mind go:

 

[zewe]

MUSICAL INTERLUDE:

"In Hell I'll Be in Good Company"

 

[Badger]

Ron Unz, whose web site I only fairly recently discovered, supplies, in his mission statement below, a perspective that very much reflects my own view in considering controversial ideas from controversial sources. BTW, he is a Jew who grew up in a Yiddish speaking household. Talking about my head blowing up, there might be a few around this thread whose head, when they become aware of Unz's religio-ethnic heritage and what he publishes, might blow up also (my emphasis below):

For decades I have spent a couple of hours every morning carefully reading The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and several other major newspapers. But although such a detailed study of the American mainstream media is a necessary condition for remaining informed about our world, it is not sufficient. With the rise of the Internet and the alternative media, every thinking individual has increasingly recognized that there exist enormous lacunae in what our media tells us and disturbing patterns in what is regularly ignored or concealed.


In April 2013 I published “Our American Pravda,” a major article highlighting some of the most disturbing omissions of our national media in issues of the greatest national importance. The considerable attention it attracted from The Atlantic, Forbes, and a New York Times economics columnist demonstrated that the mainstream journalists themselves were often all too aware of these problems, but perhaps found them too difficult to address within the confining structure of large media organizations. This reinforced my belief in the reality of the serious condition I had diagnosed.


In an attempt to partially remedy this disturbing situation I will be regularly publishing on this website a selection of the sort of interesting, important, and controversial perspectives that rarely if ever reach the pages of our major newspapers or the pixels of our television sets. The handful of columnists and bloggers whose work I am herein providing represent merely the smallest slice of the enormous range of unconventional ideas that lie just a mouse-click or a Google search away from each of us, and my particular selection is certainly not intended to be comprehensive. But over the years I have regularly read the writings of all these individuals and found their ideas stimulating and useful, and I believe that many others might have the same reaction.


This is not to say that I personally agree with all or even most of what these writers believe or claim. However, sometimes the most valuable insights are obtained by reading opinions sharply divergent from one’s own. Facing a sharp intellectual or ideological challenge forces us to more effectively frame our arguments and buttress the weaknesses in our logic and evidence that had previously remained unnoticed. Taking the measure of an effective critic is always more valuable than listening to a mindless echo. And I would always prefer reading something disturbing than something dull.

The Unz Review

 

[lvysaur]

This slow motion - but accelerating - inversion of the sexes is taking shape (literally) in their size too.

One thing I've noticed in the south here is that a lot of women have peculiar body types. You'll often see women with very very long torsos, and men with very short ones. Often in couples together actually.

There are also women who look hyperfeminine, like the curviest photoshopped model from a rap photoshoot, but white (and real). And then of course there are a lot of general fat people. White southern women in general have large butts.

There are also a lot of women with extremely deep voices, and they always look heavily tanned, wrinkled, redneck, and in their 40s and up. I know menopause does things but this deep voice is something I've only observed in the south and rural areas of the north (which are pretty much like the south).