Obama The Master Seducer

Joe T. wrote this comment on the Is Obama Alpha? post:

Obama = inherently a beta who built himself up to “honorary alpha status” through smarts and good speaking skills.

Joe has nailed it. Obama is a great example of how a natural beta can acquire alpha mojo. And acquire it before ever actually achieving something that other men would admire. Obama seduced Michelle when she was higher status — his mentor.

I define an alpha male as one who is desired by many women because that is the best definition that accounts for men who aren’t alpha leaders by the standards of other men but still have what it takes to turn women on and get them to fall in love. Granted, there is a lot of overlap between leader of men alphas and seducer of women alphas, but there are also exceptions. Because fucking is the meaning of life, and because all the societally approved achievements in the world don’t mean a thing if you can’t figure out how to pry her vageen, my elegant definition is inclusive of ALL alpha males.

The one thing every alpha male has in common, and which is the basis for my universal definition: Lots of women desire them.

Obama’s tight game lies in his ability to offer himself up as an empty vessel into which his audience pours their deepest hopes and desires. He does this through a vaguely personalized conversational style (a la Bill Clinton) and cool, unflappable charm. His half-black, half-white background, natural smarts, unusual upbringing, cosmopolitan instincts, grace under pressure, and adaptability bolsters his mystique. He possesses that powerful Clintonesque combination of lulling his listeners into feeling like they are the most important people in the world while never losing sight of his goals and driving the agenda in the direction he wants it to go. The fact that women are swooning for him like he’s a rock star is no surprise to me. Back in 1992, women (and men to a lesser degree) swooned for Bill Clinton.

Obama is a master seducer. Guys who want to do well with women should observe and learn what Obama does to excite pussy across the land. Obama doesn’t have to act on his seductive power; he just has to show you what his power is capable of inciting.

I have written a lot about Obama in the past few days. I may write some more. He’s a fascinating figure — a once in a lifetime incarnation of the social zeitgeist — not just for who he is as a man, but for what he symbolizes about the country, about race, about gender relations, about seduction and game, and ultimately, about us.





Comments


  1. Is Obama a “political pimp”.Are his slutty white wannabe “groupies” his “hos.”Have a listen and decide for yourself.

    http://audio.thisamericanlife.org/player/CPRadio_player.php?podcast=http://www.thisamericanlife.org/xmlfeeds/127.xml&proxyloc=http://audio.thisamericanlife.org/player/customproxy.php

    Like


  2. Would Obama be a master seducer if he were an average guy working at an ordinary job?

    Like


  3. on November 6, 2008 at 9:06 pm Cain and Able

    Hmmm…i hope you are not falling for the dark side(Obama), roissy?

    If Obama happens to be hot female, she will have roissy eating out of her hands…LOL.

    Jokes apart, you make a good point.

    Like


  4. Obama is definitely alpha.

    He’s got the alpha swagger.

    Like


  5. I highly recommend everyone listen to the link in #1. I’ve heard it before and it’s the only episode of This American Life I ever liked, and very relevant to this site.

    Like


  6. I highly recommend everyone listen to the link in #1. I’ve heard it before and it’s the only episode of This American Life I ever liked, and very relevant to this site.

    Obama should just call them the new axis of evil and wage a holy war against them.

    Russia is just a drop in the bucket when it comes to the numerous threats to US hegemony.

    I suspect Obama will make some concessions to the Russians (which makes sense) in order to get their assistance with a little problem in the middle east (i.e. Iran).

    Like


  7. Roissy, you don’t realize just how right you are:

    http://tinyurl.com/5zyxsy

    It details his extensive use of NLP and covert hypnosis in his speeches.

    Obama the Speed Seducer!

    Like


  8. Opps, wrong reply.

    Reply number 6 was supposed to be for the previous entry on Obama

    my bad.

    Like


  9. Just because she was his “mentor” doesn’t mean she was higher status at the time. He’s three years older and has an equally prestigious background. What would happen if a female blogger three years younger than you was going to “mentor” you on how to run a website. Exactly.

    Their relationship is more nuanced than you can probably relate to right now. They are both meritocratic hotshots, well into middle life, and have viewpoints and goals very different than the animal urges of a young man.

    Like


  10. Obama, like Kurt Cobain, seems to be the kind of essentially beta person who, through massive, undeniable achievement, manage to aquire alpha status. But even though they objectively have alpha status, their personality remains essentially beta. Which is why they end up with women like Michelle or Courtney.

    Like


  11. I don’t know about all that it seems to me all a girl has to do is imagine those full lips on her vagina.

    Like


  12. Do you remember the biographical video shown on the night Obama accepted the Democratic nomination?

    (From memory)

    Michelle Obama: “When he joined the office, I thought, who names their kid ‘Barack Obama'”?

    “I’d heard he was biracial and from Hawaii. There were rave reviews about him from others in the office.”

    “He said, ‘We need to go out on a date.'”

    “A month later, I heard him speak at a community organizer’s meeting, and I was in love.”

    Like


  13. Madelyn Dunham is very pretty. Stanley Dunham is unattractive and has that overly large chin which his daughter and grandson inherited. Stanley Dunham wasn’t a good provider either. I don’t know what Madelyn Dunham saw in him.

    Like


  14. I suspect Obama will make some concessions to the Russians (which makes sense) in order to get their assistance with a little problem in the middle east (i.e. Iran).

    He just pretty much invited Finland to join NATO. Not that I don’t think it’s the greatest news since 1991, but it sure doesn’t make sense for America. Hardly any plausible move would piss off Russia more… and as a reward you get another small ungrateful ally. Good thinking, there.

    This is great for me since the anti-NATO people are exactly those who are worshiping Obama right now…

    Like


  15. Michelle was higher status than Barack **in his own eyes**, because she was an Authentic Black and he was an unusual species of wigger from Hawaii. And strangely enough he was “lower status” than Michelle because he “acted white” by reading books and shit:

    “Her own skepticism took a different form. His name struck her as odd, as did the fact that he had grown up in Hawaii. She assumed he would be “strange and overly intellectual” and that she would almost certainly dislike him. ”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/10/03/ST2008100302144.html

    “Would Obama be a master seducer if he were an average guy working at an ordinary job?”

    This describes Obama himself for all of his 20s and 30s, and yes. From the article above (age 28):

    “When she first met him, she told her local newspaper, the Hyde Park Herald, “he had no money; he was really broke. He wasn’t ever going to try to impress me with things. His wardrobe was kind of cruddy . . . His first car had so much rust that there was a rusted hole in the passenger door. You could see the ground when you were driving. He loved that car. It would shake ferociously when it would start up. I thought, ‘This brother is not interested in ever making a dime.’ ” ”

    As far as can be extracted from his biography, outside of one white girl he dated for a year, it doesn’t seem like he had many opportunities for sex until he was 28.

    That said, it’s easy to extract from Obama’s biographical details that he always had immense latent game, he just had a lot of other shit besides pussy to worry about growing up. He had had weighty internal priorities that transcended getting a nice car and chicks.

    Like


  16. At last, a slightly mature post about Obama. Roissy, I highly recommend this article about Obama by the leftist journalist Matt Taibbi, you’ll enjoy it and I think find much to agree with in it.

    Obama is very smart, very verbally gifted (Dreams From My Father is brilliantly written), has a lot of insight into people, and has tremendous discipline and self-control. Those qualities can take you far. They took him far.

    He also has a macho streak. He was a high school jock (not very good, but played on the football and basketball teams). Check out this piece from ESPN where he rags on a sportswriter during an interview.

    Like


  17. Huh, my links didn’t go through for some reason — here’s the Taibbi piece:

    http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/48051/

    Like


  18. Shit Thursday, you’re on a roll today.

    Like


  19. MQ @ 16, I give you everything except the brilliant writer thing. His books, while breezy and somewhat engaging, really have awful prose.

    Like


  20. By the way MQ, I just read your Taibbi piece….fuck, now THAT guy can write.

    Like


  21. MQ, if you like Taibbi’s article, you should read a brilliant and short book called “On Bullshit” by Frankfurt. Obama is truly a supreme bullshitter and is brilliant at it, and that’s not an insult, it’s really a gift. This is much different than a liar. Lawyers, for example, tend be bullshitters more than liars, the difference being that to consciously lie you need to know the truth. When bullshitting, the truth doesn’t matter.

    http://politicstheoryphotography.blogspot.com/2007/12/not-even-false.html

    “What bullshit essentially misrepresents is neither the state of affairs to which it refers nor the beliefs of the speaker concerning that state of affairs. Those are what lies misrepresent, by virtue of being false. Since bullshit need not be false, it differs from lies in its misrepresentational intent. The bullshitter may not deceive us, or even intend to do so, either about the facts or about what he takes them to be. What he does necessarily attempt to deceive us about is his enterprise. His only indispensably distinctive characteristic is that in a certain way he misrepresents what he is up to.

    This is the crux of the distinction between him and the liar. Both he and the liar represent themselves falsely as endeavoring to communicate the truth. The success of each depends on upon deceiving us about that. But the fact about himself that the liar hides is that he is attempting to lead us away from a correct apprehension of reality; we are not to know that he wants us to believe something that he supposes to be false. The fact about himself that the bullshitter hides, on the other hand, is that the truth-values of his statements are of no central interest to him; what we are not to understand is that his intention is neither to report the truth nor to conceal it. This does not mean that his speech is anarchically impulsive, but that the motive guiding and controlling it is unconcerned with how the things about which he speaks truly are.”

    Having in this way identified this central feature of bullshit, Frankfurt turns his attention to the consequences of purveying it, that is to the consequences of bullshitting or being a bullshitter. Again, the crucial contrast is with lying.

    “It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter all these bets are off; he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and the liar are, except as they are pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.”

    Like


  22. BTW, Roissy, how would you rank Canada’s late and disputedly great Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau on your alpha/beta scale?

    Not esp. handsome though not unpleasing to look at, a rich dilettante for much of his youth and middle life, he got into politics late (at the request of others) and at the age of 54 he married a pretty co-ed of 22. He told union leaders to f*** off on camera but out of hearing range (or as he explained later, “fuddle duddle”); he told the press, “I guess I won’t have you guys to kick around any more”, when he was temporarily voted out; and he danced a pirouette behind the Queen’s back to express heaven knows what – his French Canadian contempt for the monarchy perhaps. Oh, and he brought down the big guns (our “War Measures Act”) on Canada’s domestic terrorists, the FLQ.

    Also, he conceived an illegitimate daughter with a woman in her 30s when he was in, I believe, his 70s.

    Although I think many/most of his policies and actions were ruinous for Canada, Trudeau, in spite of his quasi-socialism, was, as these anecdotes suggest, a decidedly alpha male, which I suspect is the key to his lingering popularity among those who ought to know better.

    Clio

    Like


  23. … and to make the point, roissy floods his blog with a never ending series of “why do they all want obama’s dick” posts to demonstrate what it’s like to be obsessed with a guy so alpha he seduced most people on this planet.

    Like


  24. … and to make the point, roissy floods his blog with a never ending series of “why do they all want obama’s dick” posts to demonstrate what it’s like to be obsessed with a guy so alpha he seduced most people on this planet.

    Like


  25. You are sooo sexy Clio…

    Like


  26. The “messiah” aura which you wrote about, is just the aura of a very charismatic man. Clinton had it, remember my little middle school story as well as the stories of women who worked around him during his time in the white house. GWB, faked it until he thought me made it. Al Gore was handsome in his younger days but was still lacking something. Poor John Kerry was like a walking corpse in both looks and demeanor.

    Like


  27. Clinton was in some ways Obama part I.

    Like


  28. D, when you’re done, do you think you could explain what exactly was “sexy” about my last comment? Preferably in words that won’t make me squirm with discomfort…

    Clio

    Like


  29. On this topic, check out the New Yorker article on Berlusconi’s Italy (“Girls! Girls! Girls!” 11/3/08). Dude is running what Junot Diaz would call a “culocracy”–government of, by and for the ass.

    Like


  30. Berlusconi’s Italy is the result of Italians being fed up with invasions of Roma and North Africans and wanting them kicked out, regardless of what the EU says. It’s the only reason a corrupt retread like Berlusconi is in power. Italians may be many things, but ashamed of being Italian they are not.

    All the EU elitism produced a nasty populism, one with some Camorra overtones and influence too. The Camorra make the Mafia look like Boy Scouts.

    Obama is not Alpha. He’s a joke. Putin, now there’s a guy who is Alpha. Or Ayman Al Zawahari. Once, Zawhari found two boys who were both 12, had been forced through brutal blackmail to spy on him by the Egyptian Secret police (after Zawahari tried and failed to assassinate Mubarak during his visit to the Sudan). He got the other jihadis together and had a “trial” of the boys who tearfully confessed, along with the nature of the brutal blackmail (it’s in Lawrence Wright’s “Looming Tower,” remarkably ugly). The jihadis wanted to let the boys go, they were of no further use or threat, and they felt sorry for them due to the nature of the blackmail. These were hardened jihadi killers by the way. But they felt they were just boys. Zawahari yanked down their pants, pointed to their pubic hair, and shot them both with a pistol. Personally. Point made.

    THAT at it’s most brutal is Alpha. Holding and personally exercising the power of life and death over, well in this case 12 year old boys.

    Obama … please. He’s a talker. That’s all. Women are impressed with that because times are good and it’s been a time for BS talkers. But that’s all. The time for talk is nearly done.

    Like


  31. Perhaps not a master seducer in the literal sense , but more a master politician … up till now anyway.

    Like


  32. Whiskey, I don’t know if that’s Alpha or just extreme sociopath, unless you think there is some serious overlap between the two, which is not far-fetched.

    Like


  33. Whiskey – Being alpha is getting what you want by convincing the other party to willingly give it to you, not violently taking it. I agree with T: Zawahari is a murdering sociopath.

    Like


  34. For all their left-wing sympathies, neither the Italians nor the French worry much about being “politically correct”. The French, after all, banned gay marriage (though not civil unions – for them there’s a sharp distinction because they have a long tradition of civil marriage) on the grounds that it would be bad for the family. Oriana Falaci got into trouble for attacking multi-culturalism with the international press and the EU, but not so much with her fellow-citizens, if I’m remembering correctly.

    And wasn’t it an Italian who ripped the mask off his face when about to be shot by his al-quaeda captors? He said something about wanting to die “like an Italian”, I believe.

    clio

    Like


  35. “like an Italian” – yes, Fabrizio Quattrocchi.

    I also can’t help but notice that Italians are over-represented among great anti-immigrationists in the US: Rep. Tom Tancredo, mayor Lou Barletta, and that guy in philadelphia who wouldn’t sell subs to people who won’t order in English.

    Like


  36. Chic,
    Thanks for bringing up charisma! I’ve been thinking about charisma a lot lately since I’ve reading this blog and thinking about game. Charismatic people have an undeniable “something different” about them. Books claiming to teach average people to be charismatic really just teach social skills, not unlike seduction community lit. But social skills and charisma aren’t the same thing. I once dated a guy who was waist-deep in pickup. All day he prattled on about PUAs, AFCs negs etc. Compared to his PUA pals his game was very good. But he was not charismatic. A charismatic person who develops himself can go gold. An average person can polish himself to the hilt but only be bronze

    Like


  37. I think Italians tend to be, if not nationalistic, very attached to the soil where they were born. My Italian relatives are like this, as am I to an extent.

    Like


  38. Well, recall the setting — Zawahari was among other killers. Women did not come up. He killed people, among other hardened killers, well because he liked it but because he wanted to be the undisputed boss of the other killers and dissuade anyone from getting ideas.

    Yes he’s extreme, but I used the extreme example to show that Alpha is not merely one dimension, that of being the verbal, slick player. Bill Clinton or Obama would have pooped in their pants at that scene.

    A guy like say, Patton, would have shot Zawahari himself, to spare the boys, and make HIS point. That he was the boss. Violence, and often shocking personal violence, is a LOT closer to the surface of our society than we think, in extreme conditions. In brutal situations, that is often the way men revert.

    A more “American” example would be Sherman. Plagued by mined roads, he had Confederate prisoners of war brought out and made to clear them by walking in front of his men. Brutal and against the laws of war, Sherman broke every regulation and newspapers crucified him for it. His troops loved him even more. After a few raiders against him were captured, he had a few shot by lot, even though ALL his junior officers protested and some threatened to resign. Sherman responded by offering them a place next to those shot.

    At no time were women involved. In fact, in the most brutal but most “critical” elements — War, being Alpha is irrelevant to how many women you can pull or impress. It’s not as if Sherman ever impressed any of the ladies, he always looked like an unmade bed and stank of Whiskey and Cigars. He really did not care how he looked.

    Like


  39. Sherman had a nervous breakdown during the war and was widely regarded as emotionally unstable, which doesn’t fit with most definitions of Alpha.

    Like


  40. on November 7, 2008 at 3:44 am ironrailsironweights

    My reasoned belief is that almost any man who has achieved fame in government, the military, business, even the arts, is far more Alpha than the average non-celebrity. Some may act Beta, for example Woody Allen or the guy from King of Queens, but that’s exactly what it is, an act.

    Peter

    Like


  41. on November 7, 2008 at 3:49 am ironrailsironweights

    The jihadis wanted to let the boys go, they were of no further use or threat, and they felt sorry for them due to the nature of the blackmail. These were hardened jihadi killers by the way. But they felt they were just boys. Zawahari yanked down their pants, pointed to their pubic hair, and shot them both with a pistol. Personally. Point made.

    This comment is just begging for a reply from me, but as there’s nothing even remotely appropriate I could say, I’ll have to pass.

    I agree with a prior comment, Zawahari is an insane killer and not Alpha at all.

    Peter

    Like


  42. ” Some may act Beta, for example Woody Allen or the guy from King of Queens, but that’s exactly what it is, an act.”

    I’d say they’re just more balanced and realistic. Well, not Woody Allen but you get my drift. People who contantly have to dominate in every situation are insecure, a bit paranoid and rarely get very far.

    Like


  43. It sounds like Whiskey has been misinterpreting too much Nietzsche

    Like


  44. “vi faccio vedere come muore un italiano!” — “I’ll show you how an Italian dies!”

    Fabrizio Quattrocchi

    – MPM

    Like


  45. Obama is definitely alpha, no two ways about it. I wish people would give up saying that he isn’t. But I guess the question of what brand of alpha is still open.

    I’d say he’s a natural alpha. He’s been top dog winner his *entire* life. He’s not a dumb loser beta pulled along by daddy’s money like George Bush and bossed around by his VP. He’s a self made success. And has been his whole life.

    It simply doesn’t get any more naturally alpha than that.

    Like


  46. 33 Fabian:

    Whiskey – Being alpha is getting what you want by convincing the other party to willingly give it to you, not violently taking it.

    That’s the more refined version.

    In the end, all that matters is what wins. Violent or otherwise.

    Look at the female attention serial killers and murderous tyrants throughout history have garnered. That’s the will of nature speaking through female mate selection.

    Like


  47. “In the end, all that matters is what wins. Violent or otherwise.”

    What a bleak outlook. Does character enter into this world view?

    Like


  48. “In the end, all that matters is what wins. Violent or otherwise.”

    True. But even better is winning with style.

    – MPM

    Like


  49. 47 hello:

    What a bleak outlook.

    It’s what ensured the progress of civilization. Everything notable and great has, ultimately, been built on “blood” of some sort or another.

    Of course, humans are quite creative in inventing narratives to obscure the reality. No one likes to know how the sausage is made.

    Does character enter into this world view?

    That’s an individual decision. But even then, whatever “character” that evolves to be the new de facto standard is decided in “battle”. History is made by the winners.

    Like


  50. 48 G:

    True. But even better is winning with style.

    Agreed.

    “A great and rare art — give style to oneself!” – Nietzsche

    Like


  51. Roissy is lost.

    Today he writes: “The one thing every alpha male has in common, and which is the basis for my universal definition: Lots of women desire them.”

    Yesterday he wrote: “Alpha males vote libertarian or a religious conservative, preferably paleo-.”

    But Roissy has identified alpha males (Clinton, for example) in the past who don’t vote libertarian or religious conservative.

    So he contradicts himself, like the loser little bitch he is.

    QED

    Like


  52. Tupac’s a moron. Civilization is the victory of rules that allow us to live together with a much lower threat of violence on a daily basis. That’s opposite Tupac’s views.

    Tupac thinks he’d be typing away on the internet in a world where somebody could have walked up an smashed computer scientists in the back of their head with the club. What a total fuckwit.

    Like


  53. Tupac,
    Where do advances like the outlawing of slavery and legal reforms like the abolition of debtor’s prisons fit into this? Were they not noble and great?

    What you describe is one thing for earth-shaking Great Men like Charlemagne and Ghengis Khan but how realistic and useful is it to an insurance claims adjustor? The overwhelming majority of men aren’t building empires (political or corporate, and are just average dudes just trying to muddle through. Y’all complain at length about feminism, but I think the posters here have far more vicious contempt for hapless betas than all but the most extreme feminist.

    Like


  54. 28 The Love That Dares Not Speak Her Name:

    D, when you’re done, do you think you could explain what exactly was “sexy” about my last comment?

    Clio, if I may…

    I would say it’s a combination of: your feminine comportment + your intelligence. Lesser women fly off the handle when confronted with Roissy’s cock-slaps. You remain, as always, unflappable. This is notable.

    Your intelligence is sexy to men because unlike most female “intellectuals” you aren’t some headcase art-chick or heart-hardened feminist.

    You gracefully navigate amongst us vipers here in Roissy’s den of iniquity without sullying your demeanor. That is something. You offer unbiased (for the most part) peeks into women’s minds, regardless of PC dogma.

    But be aware: this is no place for sensitive souls. Surely you understand the psychic dangers of exposing yourself to the stripped-down, cold, uninvolved and uninvested discourse that occurs here? It really is not a good place for tender-hearted women. On the other hand, we men — at least those worthy of the name — are meant to brave the harsh unfeeling facts of the world and to find equanimity within that place. Keep in mind what old Fred said:

    “He who fights with monsters should take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”

    Preferably in words that won’t make me squirm with discomfort…

    I recall reading one of your blog entries where you mentioned doing “research” at Roissy’s and suggested your readers do the same, with the caveat that what they would find here is — as you put it– “EXTREMELY vulgar”. One can imagine you sitting at the computer, scrunching your eyes shut, balling your hands into adorable little fists as you wrote that.

    So cute.

    In closing I would like you to know that, while I understand you are quite a bit older than I (in your forties I’m guessing), if you gave me just one night, I could make you squeal with delight like the little girl bouncing in Daddy’s lap you once were.

    Like


  55. BTW, watching you go off the deep end is entertaining. You don’t think Palin and McCain are true conservatives anyway, do you?

    I know you’ll ignore the question and post something by the brilliant “Ricky Raw”, but do you honestly believe George Bush was a good President?

    Like


  56. There should be a distinction between people who gain appeal from working their way up to power (to get there you need the usual ingredients – luck, intelligence, work ethic, so on, and Obama has loads) and people who gain power through seduction and personal charisma.

    Forget that nonsense about psycho killers and think of someone like Rasputin. A penniless, ugly monk who hasn’t seen anything beyond tiny towns in Siberia gets one chance to meet the royals and he’s catapulted into one of the most influental figures in the world’s largest empire and upper class men are writing about what an honour it is to be cuckolded by the holy man, some ridiculously uncouth monk from the most backwards reaches of Siberia.

    Like


  57. 52 Keif:

    Civilization is the victory of rules that allow us to live together with a much lower threat of violence on a daily basis. That’s opposite Tupac’s views.

    Civilization as such is different than the mechanism behind the evolution and progress of civilization.

    Like


  58. “Civilization as such is different than the mechanism behind the evolution and progress of civilization.”

    Could you elaborate on this please?

    Like


  59. with all this alpha male talk roissy, i’d like to read an analysis about don draper, the main character on amc’s mad men.

    Like


  60. I once dated a guy who was waist-deep in pickup. All day he prattled on about PUAs, AFCs negs etc. Compared to his PUA pals his game was very good. But he was not charismatic.

    ummm, why would you ever date someone like this? it sounds horrible. But I guess female attraction to dickheads is pretty central to game.

    Look at the female attention serial killers and murderous tyrants throughout history have garnered.

    there’s a huge difference between serial killers and murderous tyrants. Serial killers are almost always frustrated losers who turn sadistic out of their frustration. They only get female attention from a sprinkling of unbalanced women, and only get this once they are safely in jail. Even a “charming” type like Ted Bundy, one of the most “attractive” of serial killers, was a psycho whose life was entering a downward spiral.

    Some “murderous tyrants” were unbalanced sadists too, but some have been people who pragmatically used violence to successfully amass power. Although those more functional types are usually remembered as something more than a “murderous tyrant”.

    Like


  61. “Serial killers are almost always frustrated losers”

    Untrue. The average serial killer is middle class and appears normal to others. He also has a higher than average number of sexual partners. A characteristic trait of psychopathy is superficial charm.

    ” who turn sadistic out of their frustration.”

    Evidence shows psychopaths are sadistic even in childhood. It’s the strongest predictor of later violence. Being unpopular doesn’t turn people into sadists, though this is a common enough way to stigmatize introverts.

    Like


  62. 60 MQ:

    Some “murderous tyrants” were unbalanced sadists too, but some have been people who pragmatically used violence to successfully amass power. Although those more functional types are usually remembered as something more than a “murderous tyrant”.

    Precisely. People love power even as they pay lip service to humanitarian ideals. After the dirty deeds have been employed, and the goal have been reached, people like to forget this petty part of themselves as quickly as possible.

    The difference between the “terrorist” and “freedom fighter” depends on where you’re standing — and on whom is victorious.

    Like


  63. Untrue. The average serial killer is middle class and appears normal to others.

    where the hell did you read this? The guide to writing Hollywood thrillers? It’s false. Check out the bios of some actual serial killers sometime. There are a few people it fits — like the BTK killer — but not many.

    Like


  64. 58 hello:

    Could you elaborate on this please?

    Watch until the last scene.

    I’m short on time.

    Like


  65. The difference between the “terrorist” and “freedom fighter” depends on where you’re standing — and on whom is victorious.

    one reason why Bill Ayers — who set some bombs in empty buildings that did a little property damage — is a terrorist, while John McCain, who flew missions in a bombing campaign of North Vietnam that killed many tens of thousands of civilians, is a war hero.

    Like


  66. Didn’t someone in Ayers’ gang kill a bank guard?

    Like


  67. In 1981 some ex-members of the Weathermen, which was Ayers group, did a Brinks truck robbery where they killed some people. This was after the Weathermen had broken up, criminal charges against Ayers had been dismissed (because they were tied to Nixon administration illegal wiretaps — Ayers certainly did violate the law), and his wife Bernadine Dohrn had surrendered to authorities.

    Ayers and Dohrn later became legal guardians of a child after their parents were sentenced to life in prison due to the Brinks robbery.

    Like


  68. anyway, Ayers had no direct involvement at all with the Brinks robbery — he’d still be in jail today if he did, everyone associated with that got life in prison, with extreme prejudice.

    Like


  69. anyway, Ayers had no direct involvement at all with the Brinks robbery — he’d still be in jail today if he did, everyone associated with that got life in prison, with extreme prejudice.

    Like


  70. on November 7, 2008 at 5:20 pm Large Hadron Collider

    Ayer? still talking about Ayers? Jesus [email protected] misdirection from the prize guys

    Here is what happened in the last 8 years

    GWB was “given” the stolen election in 2000

    Their job was to screw up everything a badly as possible without taking America down all of the way.

    During that time – more billions were skimmed for the main benefit of a very small percentage of 1% of Americans – using the tax code and government contracts.

    part 3 is that it will take down the Social Security and NMedicare entitlements with deniability when they say they wnat to save it but there is no money left.

    Everyone is being played. You will never meet the players.

    My sincere best wishes go to Obama.

    Too bad Americans didn’t stop the W. bush “disasteracy”

    Roissy – thanks for the distractions

    Like


  71. 70 is spot on.

    Regarding Obama as Alpha, it seems he was insecure as a young man for a variety of reasons, including his racial heritage and unorthodox upbringing. He may have been unsuccessful with women, but probably because he was too cerebral, intelligent. Meanwhile, he worked his balls off on his career and killed it. Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe he married up, economically speaking, and has gradually grown into his Alpha status as he has aged. Just because he wasnt partying his whole 20s and gaming bitches doesnt mean he isnt Alpha. And just because you disagree with his worldview/policies doesnt make him Beta. Anyone commenting on here should wish they were even close to being on Obama’s level.

    Like


  72. The difference between the “terrorist” and “freedom fighter” depends on where you’re standing — and on whom is victorious. — Tupac

    one reason why Bill Ayers — who set some bombs in empty buildings that did a little property damage — is a terrorist, while John McCain, who flew missions in a bombing campaign of North Vietnam that killed many tens of thousands of civilians, is a war hero. — MQ, responding to Tupac

    MQ, tupac’s understanding of the word “terrorist” is just about defensible. In a nation whose gov’t is in a state of collapse, or in a civil war, the definition of who is a terrorist and who is a patriot depends very much upon the outcome of the struggle, upon who wins.

    But in a war between nations like that between the US and Viet Nam, using the word “terrorist” to designate a soldier sent by his government to fulfill a military commitment, seems wrong-headed at the very least.

    I believe that the defining trait of terrorism is its military uselessness. Terrorist acts are not undertaken, strictly speaking, to win territory from an enemy. They are carried out in order to strike fear and horror into the heart of the enemy. Thus I think the fire-bombings of German cities in WWII meet the definition of terrorism, as most sources seem to agree that they were militarily unnecessary. The bombing of Hiroshima (which I think was morally indefensible) was nevertheless not a terrorist act – though the point is arguable – because it had a clear military goal.

    The terrorist acts of various radical Islamic suicide bombers and so forth are pure terrorism, for the most part, even those of Palestinian guerilla groups, because their authors know that such acts have no direct military purpose beyond inspiring fear in the enemy.

    clio

    Like


  73. on November 7, 2008 at 6:14 pm Seeking_Alpha

    GWB was “given” the stolen election in 2000

    It’s always funny how this is trotted out. It’s the Supreme Court’s job to decide these things. Should we have ignored the constitution? Just flipped a coin?

    Well I know the real answer of course. You should have picked it. All of modern-day liberalism (not the good, classical kind) has totalitarianism at its heart. If only you give us a little more power, a little more money, we can make things better!

    Like


  74. So for MQ, I’m guessing a guy like McVeigh is a hero. He did what a pussy like Ayers only talked about! McVeigh had the balls to stick it to the man big time and when he got grabbed, kept his mouth shut until they fried him.

    Like


  75. @72 Clio – You’ve hit the nail on the difference between “terrorist” and any other act of aggression, so no need to say more there. But your statement about the bombing of Hiroshima being “morally indefensible” is puzzling. Lots of people today have a problem distinguishing between morally defensible violence and immoral violence. This is no place to get into a detailed treatise on the subject, but I will say that the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were very morally justifiable. Completely crushing the will of the Japanese with overwhelming force, and shocking the populace into realizing that they have no further interest in supporting their government’s efforts was a legitimate military goal for decisively ending the war. Above and beyond that, it was a punishment to the Japanese for even starting the war; an expression of allied anger and bitterness that so many lives and so many resources were needlessly lost. Yes, punishment is a legitimate military goal.

    On to Obama – If i understand “Game” at all, it appears to be the skill of bypassing women’s cerebral insecurities, tickling their deepest desires, and getting them to associate their resulting good feelings with me, the man standing in front of them. That’s what Obama just did to a majority of the nation. I may not agree with most of his opinions, but I must admit, he got skillz…

    Like


  76. “This is no place to get into a detailed treatise on the subject, but I will say that the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were very morally justifiable. Completely crushing the will of the Japanese with overwhelming force, and shocking the populace into realizing that they have no further interest in supporting their government’s efforts was a legitimate military goal for decisively ending the war. Above and beyond that, it was a punishment to the Japanese for even starting the war; an expression of allied anger and bitterness that so many lives and so many resources were needlessly lost. Yes, punishment is a legitimate military goal. ”

    It saved untold US lives. The invasion of Japan would have resulted in massive casaulties and even more dead Japanese that Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan would have been utterly devastated.

    Like


  77. Fabian, the philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe made some interesting comments on the subject of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the kind of thinking that she referred to as “consequentialism”. It is online at the address below, and accompanied by some remarks by a libertarian who disagrees with some but not all of her points. Anscombe, by the way, was a pupil of Wittgenstein’s and one of the more influential 20th century philsophers.

    Here’s the address: http://www.anthonyflood.com/anscombetrumansdegree.htm

    clio

    Like


  78. Clio- Thanks for the link. I don’t have time now, but I’ll read it.

    Like


  79. @76 B. Mitchell – That’s right. I read that it was estimated that over a million GIs would be killed in an invasion.

    Like


  80. But in a war between nations like that between the US and Viet Nam, using the word “terrorist” to designate a soldier sent by his government to fulfill a military commitment, seems wrong-headed at the very least. I believe that the defining trait of terrorism is its military uselessness.

    all you’re doing here is giving established governments a free pass. War is the use of violence to attain political goals. Terrorism also uses violence to attain political goals. Terrorism can be and has been a successful strategy to attain political goals — this is a matter of historical fact. Historical terrorist campaigns have been successful over periods as short as 5-10 years; certainly if one expanded the time window to 40-50 years it seems highly plausible that current Islamic terrorism could be politically effective in e.g. getting the U.S. to disengage from historically Islamic lands. Bin Laden’s 9/11 strike has already succeeded in getting U.S. troops out of Saudi Arabian “holy places”, which was one of his stated goals.

    Operation “Rolling Thunder”, which McCain was engaging in, bombed power plants, factories, and roads in an attempt to destroy North Vietnam’s capacity and will to fight South Vietnam. There were numerous civilian casualties. If a non-governmental entity did exactly the same thing to us, we would certainly call it terrorism. It’s true that we had some vague hope of actually destroying North Vietnam’s *capacity* to fight, as opposed to just their psychological will, but great power bombing campaigns have almost always been justified by the chance of destroying the enemy’s will to fight. Certainly this was a justification for Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

    All political violence should be judged by A) whether this is the minimum violence necessary to attain the goal, B) the possibility that violence will succeed in attaining the goal, and most important C) the moral significance of the goal compared to the minimum violence necessary to attain it. This puts “terrorists” and state militaries on an equal moral footing.

    By these standards, I disapprove of the violence engaged in by Ayers, McCain, and McVeigh. However, I judge McVeigh more morally culpable personally than the other two (Ayers deliberately didn’t kill anybody, McCain was a soldier). Part of the reason we don’t judge soldiers like McCain as badly as terrorists is that there are huge moral pressures on individuals to participate in state militaries, it’s taken for granted and people are socialized to it as normal. But this actually makes state militaries very dangerous. If civilization is destroyed violently, it will probably be by a state military obeying orders.

    Like


  81. Me: “Untrue. The average serial killer is middle class and appears normal to others.”

    MQ: “where the hell did you read this? The guide to writing Hollywood thrillers? It’s false. Check out the bios of some actual serial killers sometime. There are a few people it fits — like the BTK killer — but not many.”

    Like everything else I say on this blog and elsewhere, I knew it from my familiarity with the actual scientific literature:

    “The average serial killer profile is white, male, low-middle socioeconomic status, in his 20s or 30s, has a history of childhood abuse or neglect, is sociopathic/psychopathic, is a chameleon to his environment, and appears normal to others”

    http://brief-treatment.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/7/2/151

    Like


  82. MQ, did you read the whole of my comment? I’m not giving established govt’s a “free pass” though I admit that the first part of the comment could be read that way. But I did go on to say that I thought that the fire-bombing of German cities in WWII, which was carried out by soldiers fighting on behalf of established governments, DID meet my criteria for terrorism because it was militarily useless.

    I certainly do not believe that governments cannot carry out terrorist campaigns. I just do not believe that the US’s presence in Viet Nam, or the majority of its actions there, constitute terrorism in the true sense of the word. Call them immoral, if you like – although I’m still not certain about that myself. But I do not believe that they constitute “terrorism”.

    Clio

    Like


  83. Tupac Chopra
    47 hello:

    What a bleak outlook.

    It’s what ensured the progress of civilization. Everything notable and great has, ultimately, been built on “blood” of some sort or another.

    Of course, humans are quite creative in inventing narratives to obscure the reality. No one likes to know how the sausage is made

    I2I Tupac I2I

    Like


  84. Tupac said But be aware: this is no place for sensitive souls. Surely you understand the psychic dangers of exposing yourself to the stripped-down, cold, uninvolved and uninvested discourse that occurs here? It really is not a good place for tender-hearted women.

    You bet your bottom dollar it isn’t.

    Like


  85. MQ, the problem is that your definition of terrorism is just that. *Your* definition. Most people define terrorism in terms of purpose. Blowing up infrastructure to stop an army and blowing up a building to bring low a people or make them listen to you have different purposes. You may have heard how we have a legal system where the difference between murder and manslaughter is intent.

    Like


  86. MQ said:one reason why Bill Ayers — who set some bombs in empty buildings that did a little property damage — is a terrorist, while John McCain, who flew missions in a bombing campaign of North Vietnam that killed many tens of thousands of civilians, is a war hero.
    Tupac said
    Of course, humans are quite creative in inventing narratives to obscure the reality
    &
    War is the use of violence to attain political goals. Terrorism also uses violence to attain political goals. Terrorism can be and has been a successful strategy to attain political goals — this is a matter of historical fact. If civilization is destroyed violently, it will probably be by a state military obeying orders.

    Pure genius MQ. I will pay for you to receive a quality lap dance if our paths should ever cross.

    The terrorist acts of various radical Islamic suicide bombers and so forth are pure terrorism, for the most part, even those of Palestinian guerilla groups, because their authors know that such acts have no direct military purpose beyond inspiring fear in the enemy.
    Clio

    Clio, putting fear into your enemies can work in your favor if you can make them retreat or give in to our demands.

    Like


  87. Not even reading the other comments. Your posts are ridiculous. Clearly you’re jealous of President-Elect Obama. And if he’s an “alpha” or a “beta” so what? He’s about to rule this country! And he clearly has ten million times more integrity and character than you.

    Like


  88. Most people define terrorism in terms of purpose. Blowing up infrastructure to stop an army and blowing up a building to bring low a people or make them listen to you have different purposes.

    The point is, state militaries (including the U.S. military) do the latter all the time. What do you think “shock and awe” was about?

    Pure genius MQ. I will pay for you to receive a quality lap dance if our paths should ever cross.

    thanks, but I have plenty of money. You’ll have to give me the lap dance yourself.

    Your posts are ridiculous. Clearly you’re jealous of President-Elect Obama.

    it goes beyond that — Obama has just blown the entire divisive, paranoid, fear-based right-wing narrative to high heaven. If a black community organizer named Barack Hussein Obama can win the presidency after the right throws everything it’s got at him, then it’s a new day.

    What’s more, Obama did it by clearly being the class act all through the longest, most trying campaign ever. Agree or disagree with him, he was class all the way.

    Like


  89. after the right throws everything it’s got at him

    That’s a joke, right?

    Like


  90. I’ll agree that on a personal level, Obama appears to be a decent guy, given his commie grandparents, schizo mother, and drunkard deadbeat father. To have made a stable family life for himself and come off like a class act in comparison with two preceding presidents counts for something.

    Neertheless, he is a radical leftist with a nasty past. I look forward to his administration because it will as HillaryCare ’92 became Welfare Reform ’95, Forced Commujity Service ’09 will became something good. Maybe Immigration Halt 2010?

    Like


  91. That’s a joke, right?

    You gotta admit, the weird name, allegations of being a Muslim, associations with Ayres and Reverend Wright, charges of socialism, minimal time in government, and associations with Chicago machines should have sunk his ass at some point, right?

    Forced Commujity Service ‘09 will became something good. Maybe Immigration Halt 2010?

    I voted for increased transit funding, not for forced community service. One would suspect that he’s not stupid enough to blow political capital on such silly ideas, but then the DNC can really fuck up stuff from time time. As for immigration, I have no problems with switching to a points system like Canada along with substitute methods of entry (i.e scoring 1100+ on an SAT if one didn’t attend university) for immigration reform. I have no qualms with attempts to reduce illegal immigration, especially of the clandestine nature via the border with Mexico. I do have qualms with a de facto ban on non-white immigration in the United States.

    Like


  92. Palin was savaged by the media and by many in her own party, mainly the loathsome slithering pieces of salamander shit known as Neocons. Especially now, as they’re trying to play her the patsie for McCain’s loss.

    Obama, on the other hand, had the mainstream media sort of acknowledge the realities of Obama’s past and ideology, but only because they knew they can’t completely ingnore the noise on the internet.

    But what made MQ’s comment a jole is that McCain’s campaign was in any way “right wing,” and and that he attacked Obama in any way other than in the most perfunctory and reluctant way possible.

    Whether intended or not, McCain played the part of sham-opposition party lackey perfectly. Some right wing.

    Like


  93. Obama busts Nancy Reagan’s balls. Alpha supreme. Case closed.

    Like


  94. Yeah, insulting an elderly widow and then apologizing like a schoolboy is so alpha.

    Like


  95. 58 hello:

    Could you elaborate on this please?

    Sorry for yet another cut-n-paste:
    —————————————————————-

    *The greatest cause of violence is the
    refusal to label violent behavior violent.*

    All human behavior is violent.
    By violence I mean, the act of getting more, the act of
    collecting space, the act of competing and negotiating, the act of
    living itself. Even digestion is violent.
    Violence, the killing and transforming of energy sources is not
    a moral concept but a biological and psychological one.
    Making violence moral simply politicizes the making of
    weak, sick slaves. *It is time that some of us have the stomach to
    face up to what we are really doing*. In reality all living things are
    doing the same thing — living off of other living things.
    What makes humans different and possibly more dangerous is that
    we lie about it. Remember lies are useful as well as dangerous. We
    must ask ourselves who requires what set of lies to function. The
    more complex and confusing the standards which motivate lying the more
    cowardly (though possibly) creative the liar.
    Civilization and the social contract have at their base the
    exchange of personal violence for collective violence repackaged as
    deception.
    We agree to let other people be violent for us . The use of the
    word violence in this context is usually reserved for physical
    violence against other people. The social contract exchanges the
    “right” of physical violence of the individual, for collective
    violence known as “justice.”
    In other words, the concept of justice is “necessary” for the
    practice of collective violence. It removes the guilt and shame from
    the individual for not “fighting” his own battles and “justifies” his
    cowardly and sneaky behavior.
    It is claimed by those who benefit most from the “social
    contract” that one of its purposes is to protect the weak from the
    strong. This is a gross deception. The truly strong find it
    inefficient to exploit weak individuals by physical violence. Direct
    exploitation runs a risk of revolt and a reduction in gross profits.
    The social contract allows the strong to exploit the weak without fear
    of their own blood being shed. Blood is too expensive for the strong.
    Insurance policies are cheaper and more profitable.
    When physical violence is seen as necessary and the goal is
    reached, the first act of the victor is to outlaw the use of further
    physical violence. Like all governments, America was founded on
    violence and has survived on violence. Yet when individuals act
    violently to assure their existence they are beaten-up by the system.
    Then the leaders tell the victims that violence is not a solution to
    their problems.
    The social contract allows the development of a class of
    individuals which act as a protective buffer between the upper and
    lower classes. This is the *middle* class. The worst of these is the
    upper-middle class.
    This subgroup is intellectual, cowardly and inflated, and prefers
    lawyers and slight of hand to guns. They use law to steal from each
    other. They make the weaker minded impotent by using metaphysical
    concepts such as right and wrong, good and bad, moral and immoral.
    They use law to commit murder, they use law to steal and they use law
    to make impotent those who might rise against them. This they call
    education. What they want is “more.” Too much competition is
    dangerous so they create more laws and regulations making it more
    difficult to compete with them. Law is the ultimate act of
    camouflage.
    The upper-middle class (UMC) label these laws as *necessary* to
    protect weaker people from being exploited. This assertion is the
    bait which most everyone can agree with because everyone from time to
    time feels weak and dependent. Boiled down, the whole procedure is a
    “club” with various levels of initiation.
    They thrive on regulatory agencies who are staffed by lesser
    (middle and lower-middle class) individuals who have nothing to lose
    if their regulation fails.
    The intermediate class, like all groups, are allowed up to a
    point, to steal, rob and murder for profit, much like the strong. The
    only differences are that they do it on a small scale and they label
    it differently. In the case of the doctor and lawyer it is called
    “service.” In the case of the shopkeeper it is called
    “merchandising.” Whatever it is called it is violence.
    “More” is what is wanted. Nothing more or nothing less. “More”
    is the answer. The nice thing about this plan is that everyone is
    doing it to everyone else. There are no honest men. Everyone is a
    thief. To make such harsh statements as this will not make me
    popular; no one likes to be stripped of his camouflage.
    It is important to note that all that I have said is true only if
    we assume that the lies of the propagandists are true. That is, the
    idea of an honest man, a man of virtue, etc. as described by the
    Bible: the lawyer and the educationist. As the “necessity” of these
    values — their “other-worldly” quality are simply assumptions, or
    whims — we are forced to ask the horrible question: “who do these
    values serve?”
    These values, like any other values, are “unessential” in their
    content. Thus we are left with a relativistic picture making the
    moral tone of my discussion simply misleading. There are no thieves
    — dishonest men — *a priori*.
    They only become so within a system of relativistic values which
    change as the wind blows. But, the secret to all this is to make
    these relativistic values “necessary” for life to continue — in other
    words, necessary for survival. We are then faced with the question:
    whose survival?

    Forced now to ask the question, “What *is* necessary for
    survival?” I reply, “For whom?” For a man without a pancreas insulin
    is necessary. For a man without lungs an artificial breathing device
    is necessary. Yet the question I have asked concerning survival is
    misleading. A more interesting question is “What is necessary for
    life to expand” since, as we said earlier, man is interested in “more”
    and not simply in staying alive like other animals. What is necessary
    for “more?” For one thing, *time*. “More” is also self-defined. For
    one man “more” can mean “more” lovers, for another, “more” can be
    safety. I knew one fellow who spent his entire life figuring out ways
    not to be hurt by other people. No matter what plan he came up with
    he always found “more” ways to improve it until he reached a point
    when he figured out that he couldn’t afford the money it would require
    to build his ultimate fortress.
    Man survives to make “more.” If we can, for a moment, assume
    this to be true, the foundation of life itself is a value system which
    might have its basis in the nature of man himself and not in other
    worldliness. As men are different, the “mores” which they desire are
    different in kind and in degree. Yet, there is conflict and the
    purpose of civilization is to provide bloodless means of resolving
    these conflicts and allow for the creation of “more.”
    What I am positing is that the means have become more important,
    more essential than what they are supposed to resolve. And this is
    something we would expect from the “more” hypothesis. However, what
    we observe is that the “essential and more” of civilization is now
    creating “less,” and the only way around the “less” is to violate the
    “More” factor of civilization.
    In other words we have a means-ends reversal. If the end was
    “More”, the means to accomplishing “More” is creating “less.” Thus,
    the means for “More” is restriction and not freedom. What is wanted
    is “More” control. “More” control can only occur by reducing
    variability (individual differences). A “golden mean” is created,
    allowing for “More” control. This is created by law, a three letter
    word for violence. The purpose of law is first and foremost to
    prevent those in power from losing it. All other explanations are
    propaganda, albeit necessary propaganda for those who require massive
    amounts of illusions.

    But, what about those who require less illusion and more freedom?
    This desire is the beginning of the underground, a world not seen, but
    felt. It keeps the upper-lower class, the entire middle class, the
    lower-upper class, the middle-upper class, and some of the upper-upper
    class nervous. Those who really understand the problem of information
    and wealth are fortified by the underground; they know that
    information, used properly, creates wealth and that true wealth
    creates information. The street poor understand this too, but are
    unable to apply it beyond certain limited situations. They know what
    it means to live off of refuse.They know what it means to kill or be
    killed.
    But is this all that civilization promises? Less painful and
    horrifying ways of dying and having unused goods? No. Civilization
    means safety for those who require it and from our analysis they seem
    to far outweigh the ones who prefer freedom and “more.” The majority
    of the population demands “more” without payment. And what is the
    payment? The possibility of having “less.” The majority of the
    population requires more safety without concern of price.

    LIES BUILT UPON LIES BUILT UPON MORE LIES

    Psychoanalysis is a prime example of lies built upon lies. A
    behaviorist can remove a phobia in a few months for $1000.00 A
    pschoanalyst cannot, as a rule, remove the same phobia in five years
    for a cost of $50,000.00. Yet, psychoanalysis is allowed to be
    labeled a treatment. Now, a treatment which fails almost consistently
    should not be called a treatment. Yet, there it is. It takes years
    of training to do nothing but provide an environment where change is
    taking place simply because of time and a change of “scenery.”
    In fact many psychoanalysts understand this and justify their
    “profession” by calling it “research” into how the mind works. Now is
    the patient interested in paying for this. Of course not. There is
    little scientific evidence available to show that the “treatment”
    called psychoanalysis is any better than “maturation” or time itself.
    Psychoanalysis is simply a holding intervention at best. To call it
    treatment is like calling blood-letting a treatment for fever when an
    antibiotic is cheaper and more effective.
    Psychoanalysis is safe because it can do little harm to a person
    except seperate him from his money and prevent him from getting a
    treatment which might be of value. The labels make it both attractive
    and workable. Of course, psychoanalysts have much to say about more
    effective treatments. They say it is not a cure and new symptoms will
    occur. What is the evidence for this claim? “Freud or so and so said
    it.” And what is their evidence? Well?
    Who *are* these psychoanalysts, be they Freudians or Jungians or
    whatever? They are the upper-middle class, those who get “more” by
    acts of deception. Their hands are clean. There is no blood. As
    laws create criminals, the profession of psychoanalysis creates
    psychopathology and patients — eternal patients — some staying in
    “treatment” for as long as 20 years. Yet, this form of violence is
    done legally and morally, as long as the Doctor is qualified by some
    qualifying agency. And what qualifies the qualifying agency? Law, of
    course. Yet, where did the law come from? From those who had the
    power to enforce their will upon others and then outlaw the
    possibility of someone doing the same to them.
    Thus physical violence is filtered through enough labels and
    procedures that it no longer appears as violence. The longer an
    institution exists, the further it is seperated from the blood it shed
    to establish itself, the more “legitimate” it appears to its
    “graduates” and to the public. Time not only heals wounds, it hides
    the blood.

    — Christopher S. Hyatt

    Like


  96. By violence I mean, the act of getting more, the act of
    collecting space, the act of competing and negotiating, the act of living itself. Even digestion is violent….Making violence moral simply politicizes the making of weak, sick slaves. *It is time that some of us have the stomach to face up to what we are really doing*. In reality all living things are doing the same thing — living off of other living things.

    this kind of moral equivalence is ridiculous — like Andrea Dworkin saying that all heterosexual sex is rape because it involves scary penetration of a female by a male. It’s easy enough to morally distinguish between violent aggression and just living in the world.

    I do however think it’s a violent act to jack a thread with a 10,000 word essay.

    Like


  97. @96

    Of course. Tupac’s full of shit but is too douchey “alpha” to admit it, so he just redefines his terms every time he gets caught. Just like Roissy.

    Like


  98. There is at least one important difference between soldiers and terrorists.

    Soldiers identify themselves as such, because they wear the uniform of their nation-state. Even if they perform missions that harm civilians, they do so while wearing the uniform, and the other side can distinguish them from its own civilian population.

    Terrorists/saboteurs/spies do not identify themselves. They pose as civilians and blend into the civil society of their target state for the purposes of undermining that target state.

    Both morally and legally, these are different things. Soliders, if captured, are entitled to better treatment under the Geneva Convention than terrorists/spies/saboteurs. There are laws governing the capture and treatment of enemy soldiers; these laws protect enemy soliders. Not so much for terrorists/spies/saboteurs.

    CIA Agents, for example, if discovered, can be killed without a second thought, and they have.

    For certain Special Forces guys, they care a lot whether a mission is “clandestine” (which means it’s secret but still military) or “covert” (which means it’s secret and non-military). If it’s the latter, their lives really, really suck if they get caught.

    Like


  99. on November 8, 2008 at 6:31 pm Comment_Thought_Excuses

    It is interesting to see people talk about Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and to apply “thought excuses” to the behaviour. “Thought Excuses” like “Thought Crimes” are bad because you can imagine whatever you like as your excuse.

    It’s interesting that because the Japanese are Asians the “Though Excuses” for mass murdering tens of thousands of men, women, and children and releasing a massive amount of lethal radiation only rises to “we hit them back for starting it” and “it saved lives” (even though a serious, honest military historian wouldn’t really believe that.).

    When the English were getting there *bleeps* handed to them in the Boer war they concentration camped all the women and children and then perceded to starve, freeze, and infect them, mass killing really, until the Germany farmers broke.

    The English don’t talk about ‘hitting back though’, they instead pretend that ‘they didn’t know’. So apparently killing Europeans requires a higher grade of “Thought Excuse”.

    Interestingly enough, the English were only able to beat the Boer’s because the Boer’s were stupid enough to allow British Immigration into their lands:
    ******
    When, in 1886, massive deposits of gold were discovered in the Transvaal, a huge inflow of uitlanders (foreigners), mainly from Britain, came to the region in search of employment and fortune. Gold made the Transvaal the richest and potentially the most powerful nation in southern Africa but it also resulted in the number of uitlanders in the Transvaal eventually exceeding the number of Boers and precipitated confrontations over the old order and the new. Disputes over uitlander political and economic rights resulted in the failed Jameson Raid of 1895. This raid led by (and named after) Dr Leander Starr Jameson, the Administrator in Rhodesia of the Chartered Company, was intended to encourage an uprising of the uitlanders in Johannesburg.
    *******

    And then the English mass murdered the German families and took their land.

    Like


  100. This is no place to get into a detailed treatise on the subject, but I will say that the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were very morally justifiable. Completely crushing the will of the Japanese with overwhelming force, and shocking the populace into realizing that they have no further interest in supporting their government’s efforts was a legitimate military goal for decisively ending the war. Above and beyond that, it was a punishment to the Japanese for even starting the war; an expression of allied anger and bitterness that so many lives and so many resources were needlessly lost. Yes, punishment is a legitimate military goal.

    Reading arguments like these makes me wish it had been the Imperial Japanese Government that developed the atom bomb and then used it on San Francisco and Los Angeles, obviously only after the United States had accepted to surrender. We would have as much a outrageous crime as the one we had in the real world, but probably much less hypocrisy afterward.

    Also good to know that you think “punishment” is justification for murder and that “shocking the populace into realizing that they have no further interest in supporting their government’s efforts was a legitimate military goal”. You have just justified the actions of Mr. Osama Bin Laden.

    Like


  101. 96 MQ:

    this kind of moral equivalence is ridiculous — like Andrea Dworkin saying that all heterosexual sex is rape because it involves scary penetration of a female by a male. It’s easy enough to morally distinguish between violent aggression and just living in the world.

    It’s on a continuum. You’re free to draw your lines wherever you like (the ensuing debate here over what type of violence is “moral” shows just how slippery and subjective those lines can be, btw) but I think it’s wise to not be too terribly charitable in these matters.

    But, if it comforts you to interpret the current financial debacle caused by the incestous relationships between the power brokers in congress and Wall street (and their devious method of wealth transfer from the working classes to the elites) as anything other than an act of violence, be my guest.

    BTW, as far as the Dworkin thing: I have said here on this blog before that there IS something to the radfem’s notion of sex as an act of aggression. Because, fundamentally, it IS. A woman *must* yield/surrender during sex for it to be worthy of the name. The radfem’s recognized this fact but were uncomfortable with it because, deep down, they were not feminine, i.e., they were lesbians. Or close enough to it.

    One of the problems the egghead/geek types have is getting past this thing in their own head. Guys like David Alexander insist on applying a moral filter to what is essentially an amoral act. Furthermore, this insistence on ideals of “equality” and “fairness” poison their pickup attempts as they bleed whatever remaining masculinity they have onto the floor.

    Sometimes you need to bat the bunny around:

    I do however think it’s a violent act to jack a thread with a 10,000 word essay.

    Hey, I’m all aboot caring.

    Like


  102. 97 Kieth:

    Of course. Tupac’s full of shit but is too douchey “alpha” to admit it, so he just redefines his terms every time he gets caught. Just like Roissy.

    Do you have anything useful, edifying or at the very least entertaining to contribute here, or are you content to run around sticking your face in our asses and then excitedly announcing to the audience, wonder of wonders, it smells bad?

    You’re a bore.

    Like


  103. @102 Tpk – “You’re a bore.”

    Yeah, getting slapped around like the bitch you are has to get boring after awhile. Just be glad I’m keeping it open-handed.

    And even your choice of words for your lame insult shows that you realize you just spew shit.

    You’re just another little pussy who isn’t man enough to admit when he’s wrong. Hell, your cunty little passive aggressive deliberate misspelling of my name totally proves it.

    That’s how you can spot the ultimate loser douchebag, when they pretend not to remember somebody’s name, or deliberately get it wrong, in their total pussy-ass attempt to gain status.

    Like


  104. @99 Comment_Thought_Excuses

    “De La Rey, De La Rey…”

    I’m an Israeli, and I know the excuses we make. Depends a bit what you think of the new ZA.

    Like


  105. Tupac to clio:

    Surely you understand the psychic dangers of exposing yourself to the stripped-down, cold, uninvolved and uninvested discourse that occurs here? It really is not a good place for tender-hearted women. On the other hand, we men — at least those worthy of the name — are meant to brave the harsh unfeeling facts of the world and to find equanimity within that place.

    Tupac, congratulations on your new career in Internet comedy!

    Like


  106. Terrorism is a means to an end, a tactic employed by organizations, typically (but see below) non-state, in pursuit of a political objective. The tactic is characterized by a deliberate focus on non-military (more properly, unarmed, unable to fight back) targets, and this tactic is central to the terrorist’s mode of operation. Collateral damage, in the strict sense of the word is unintended damage. So a terrorist slaughtering innocent civilians isn’t producing collateral damage, he’s achieving his tactical objective.

    Freedom fighter is a designation based on a goal. A freedom fighter can be a terrorist…if he targets the unarmed and defenceless as his preferred tactic. If he employs the means of the terrorist, he’s a terrorist.

    That pseudo-sophisticated hand-waving blah-blah about “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” is either the product of intellectual cowardice, the refusal to think hard about the world, or intellectual laziness, the other refusal to think hard about the world. Either way, it’s faux-sophistication. The real article requires the willingness to make distinctions, not fog them over with a blast of rhetorical hot air.

    Obviously, governments under this definition can be terrorists. Uniformed soldiers can be terrorists too. The designation needs to be broadened from its too narrow focus on the activities of spies and saboteurs.

    As for whether the mass bombing campaign was “terrorism”, it was called “terror bombing”, which indicates some degree of insight into its real nature. And “Bomber” Harris, who ran the British bombing campaign, was the only major British commander not to be knighted after the war.

    Some guilty consciences there, I think.

    Like


  107. clio, with imperturable blinding clio-speed:

    D, when you’re done, do you think you could explain what exactly was “sexy” about my last comment? Preferably in words that won’t make me squirm with discomfort…

    Now, clio, you can’t be claiming a reluctance to read things that make you “squirm with discomfort” and start the previous sentence with “when you’re done”.

    Done? Done what? Gack, AC, that is a sick-making image. You made me “squirm with discomfort” here.

    I love the way you slip these zingers in with such aplomb. And the Pimple Posse never even catches them!

    Now, I do agree with Tupac: I’m pretty sure you’re tender-hearted; more than I am definitely. But I can only conclude after that softly delivered shiv that I am the one with the delicate feelings.

    You…you’re just straight up ruthless.

    Like


  108. Terrorism is a means to an end, a tactic employed by organizations, typically (but see below) non-state, in pursuit of a political objective. The tactic is characterized by a deliberate focus on non-military (more properly, unarmed, unable to fight back) targets, and this tactic is central to the terrorist’s mode of operation. Collateral damage, in the strict sense of the word is unintended damage.

    The problem is that this makes moral judgements dependent on the subjective state of mind of not even an individual, but an institution. States use military tactics that they damn well, for sure, know will produce civilian casualties, but then wave it off as “unintended” when it predictably happens. Then they use the example of non-state violence which focuses only on civilians and psychological warfare through terrorism as an excuse for their actions — “we may have killed more civilians than the terrorists, but unlike them, we didn’t *mean* to!” This is a major deal in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, where the Israeli military has actually killed several times more Palestinian civilians than the Palestinian terrorists have killed Israeli civilians. (Note I’m not saying the Israelis weren’t justified, just that it’s a little rich to say that they are justified because the Palestinians are somehow uniquely the terrorists in the conflict).

    Modern bombing campaigns are explicitly focused on destroying the other sides capacity and will to fight broadly speaking, which includes destroying critical civilian infrastructure and predictably kills civilians. War isn’t knights jousting on a field any more.

    Obviously, governments under this definition can be terrorists. Uniformed soldiers can be terrorists too. The designation needs to be broadened from its too narrow focus on the activities of spies and saboteurs.

    if you want to come up with a consistent definition of terrorism and apply it to state and non-state violence alike, that would be great. Just don’t make it depend on subjective intention alone.

    I think the better thing is to take some attention off the tactic and focus on the use of violence more generally. Note that this shouldn’t lead us to condemn the actions of a Bin Laden any less, but it might lead us to examine our own more carefully.

    Like


  109. PatrickH:

    Tupac, congratulations on your new career in Internet comedy!

    Dimmy…why you do this to me Dimmy? Why?

    Don’t be hatin’ just cuz your girl prefers hanging out with us bad kids here at Roissy’s place.

    Like


  110. PatrickH:

    Done? Done what? Gack, AC, that is a sick-making image. You made me “squirm with discomfort” here.

    Oh come on Patrick.

    Like you haven’t.

    Like


  111. PatrickH:

    Either way, it’s faux-sophistication. The real article requires the willingness to make distinctions, not fog them over with a blast of rhetorical hot air.

    Oh, distinctions will be made alright — I wasn’t denying that — just that those distinctions will be highly subjective in nature.

    You boil down all the motivational rationalizing and after-the-fact CYA-ing and what you get is:

    I (we) want/desire/will “X”. You (they) want/desire/will “Y”.

    And then it’s: May the best/strongest/cleverest man (tribe/nation) win.

    Humans can’t help but impute moral meaning to their actions. We can’t function without it. But I didn’t say that there was no difference between the terrorist and the freedom fighter — just that the difference depends on where you’re standing, i.e., what side of the playing field you’re on. A subtle distinction.

    Like


  112. Fing is NOT the meaning of life. Stick it in your ear, please.

    Like