38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

(John 18; King James Version (KJV) Bible)

The notion of truth is extant in a number of different contexts. In the painting, above, we can find a measure of truth, but this truth is aesthetic. Pilate used the term to mock his position, as judge of a trial which he clearly thought was closer to farce than reality. Postmodernist faggots will often assert that no such thing exists as truth. One of the more annoying aspects of working where I do is having to deal with such goons. They’ll often excuse their devotion to orthodoxy, and my lack of enthusiasm for the same, by asserting something like “that’s your truth, but I have my own.” Such statements are meaningless in themselves, and when I hear them, I make a mental note never to take the speaker seriously, in any context, ever again.

I’d like to discuss the notion of truth in a restricted domain, motivated by logicians like Russell and Tarski, who were also fans of the correspondence theory. Bertrand Russell wrote that the logical proposition is the bearer of truth. (1) He also noted that propositions are encoded in sentences. (2) Tarski’s theory of truth (3) is the one most cited today. Like Russell’s theory, it includes a two-language composite structure. The concept of a sentence as truth-bearer is pretty straightforward. By sentence we mean a set of sounds, uttered in sequence, or a set of squiggly lines, which make up a well-formed formula. In either case, the reader or listener is able to intuitively decode the semantic content of the language, which is then metalinguistically used to get at the logical proposition beneath the words. This last part is the tricky part, because all sorts of things can go wrong in the mind of the reader, as he attempts to unconceal the truth-bearing proposition behind the metalanguage. (4)

So what is truth? I’m a fan of the correspondence theory in most contexts; though there are competitors (5) with their own merits. Aristotle was the first correspondence theorist. He wrote:

But on the other hand there cannot be an intermediate between contradictories, but of one subject we must either affirm or deny any one predicate. This is clear, in the first place, if we define what the true and the false are. To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true; so that he who says of anything that it is, or that it is not, will say either what is true or what is false; but neither what is nor what is not is said to be or not to be.

(6)

The concept of truth is pre-epistemological. This is a fancy way of saying that what we know is based partly upon the truth of the thing we claim to know. You can’t “know” something that is false, because falsehoods evade justification, which is another prerequisite to knowledge. Plato called knowledge “justified true belief,” (7), but the Gettier cases (8) suggest that justification and truth are not enough yet to define knowledge. There is some additional prerequisite, which is very difficult to pin down.

So, what does all this complicated stuff mean for us? Basically it means that, s being a well formed sentence:

s is true iff s

In other words, if I make a statement, I am prepared to back it up with a pointer to some fact, some state-of-affairs, that is verifiable. If I say:

There is a blue car in space no. 4 of the parking lot.

Then any listener who can intuit the semantic import of this well-formed sentence can appropriately check space 4, and verify the existence of the car so mentioned.

The correspondence theory and Tarski’s truth conditions have some notable contextual problems, however. Suppose I write on this blog that:

5 + 3 = 8

Can any of my readers be expected to find the numbers 5, 3 and 8 in some spatiotemporal location? It seems unlikely. Try it out.

There are certain truths that can be uttered without metaphysical correspondence. I can claim this sentence is true (and I do). I can be sure it is true. Perhaps more sure of it than most other things, despite the fact that I can never tell you what the number 5 looks like, or where it’s located.

There are people who make pretty good arguments for the untruth of all mathematical statements. (9) Such epistemologists/metaphysicians generally don’t deny that mathematics is useful, but they find it inconceivable to believe that a sentence full of acausal, abstract objects can bear truth-claims.

1. 1. Russell, Bertrand. The Philosophy of Logical Atomism. London: Routledge, 2010. 12-13.
   2. Russell, Bertrand. “On Denoting” Mind, 1905, 14 (56): 479–493.
   3. Tarski, Alfred. “The Semantic Conception of Truth.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 1944, 4 (3): 341–376.
   4. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Model Theory” Accessed 2018 FEB 05 (link)
   5. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Coherence Theory” Accessed 2018 FEB 05 (link)
   6. Aristotle. Metaphysics IV. (1011b25)
   7. Plato. Theaetetus. (201c-210b)
   8. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Gettier Problems” Accessed 2018 FEB 05 (link)
   9. Field, Hartry. Realism, Mathematics and Modality. New York: Basil Blackwell, 1989.

There’s a heated argument down below, in some ancient thread. Brother Kryptonian wrote:

My position has and always shall be, that man NEEDS women, so please stop side tracking this issue

Despite the angry responses he got, I can’t disagree with this brother. I grew up with the sure knowledge that I needed a woman. I remember expecting to find a cute girlfriend, sometime in my late teens. I figured I would serve a Mormon mission, come home and marry her, and immediately begin cranking out hot Mormon babies. We’d grow old together, each having been each others’ first loves, and eventually be buried in the shade of the temple.

Of course, these dreams and expectations were largely ideological: a product of the pre-fab identity I was born into (see Jacques Lacan and Louis Althusser for more on this idea). They also grew up alongside a great number of other expectations and dreams, which included (but were not limited to) owning a flying car, and taking regular vacations to domed resort cities on the Planet Venus.

Men need women. This can’t be denied. Men also need antibiotics, regular dental checkups, a functional weight room, and a home with electricity and running water on tap. Everything we were created and/or evolved to need is not necessarily available in the world we find ourselves in. Getting basic: Many men starve to death in places like Africa and Asia. The fact that they were born with a need to eat food did not guarantee food to be on offer.

Thus I read Kryptonian’s arguments with Earl, Honeycomb, et. al. to be an argument of nature v. nurture. Men need women for companionship, to keep their homes, and to serve their emotional, sexual and temporal needs. Unfortunately, women are in very short supply presently. What we have instead are skank-ho wimminz.

At some point in time, between my early years of confidence that I’d end up a married father, and have a career as a radio DJ, and the present day, I found AfOR’s blog. The author lived my dream, only to see his life flushed directly into the toilet by his vindictive wife. In my earlier years (going on seven years now) he was my tutor to instruct me. The fact that I use the term “wimminz” to denote most modern females is a direct result of reading his work in those days. I can’t say for certain that his survival guide saved me for a prison sentence, but I know I’m less likely to be on the end of a false accusation because I follow most of his sound advice.

I do not agree with AfOR on everything. For example: NAWALT. I’m totally fine with the assumption that there are chaste women in the world who will keep their commitments and not screw their husbands over. I am confident of this, despite the fact that many of my friends and relatives have been screwed over, by the wives who promised to “love, honor and obey.” The screwing-over came the minute they became bored, or the screwing-over became convenient, with absolutely no thought of the future consequences, to their husbands, their children, or even themselves.

What I am most certain of is that I can not discern the women from the wimminz. This was one of the first propositions in which I ever had complete faith, and I remain absolutely confident in my own inability to pick out a woman from among the wimminz.

Moreover, it is not my burden to do the discerning. In AfOR’s own words:

Now, how do we differentiate between women and wimminz?

 

Simple, as Men, we don’t… IT IS NOT OUR FUCKING PROBLEM!

(Misogynists-R-Us)

I am, of course, happy that Brother Derek has found a decent woman, and is currently engaged in repopulating his part of the world with his descendants. He is a better and more trusting man than I am. I do hope that Kryptonian can find a woman, rather than ending up suckered by a wimminz into giving up all his money. As for me, I find the cost-benefit ratio pretty fearsome, and I won’t be taking that particular plunge.

I got nothing for your Sunday morning. Fortunately, Pastor Manning is ready to fill in. Sit back, and watch the master (troll) deliver a down-home Christian sermon.

https://youtu.be/EY1bFvVMOak

I just got done with Peter Sloterdijk’s book Bubbles, which is the first huge tome in a trilogy entitled Spheres, that, when taken together, will probably compose the author’s magnum opus.

While I’d never call myself a philosopher, I have become competent at reading philosophy, thanks to bothering people who are smarter than I am, while on the clock. Sloterdijk is a philosopher. He’s in residence at Art and Design University, Karlsruhe (Germany). He also hosts a popular television talk show, where he has featured guests as diverse as Paul Virilio and Slavoj Žižek. It’s illustrative to note the difference between European and American tee-vee audiences by this fact alone. I can’t even find middlebrow stuff on pay tee-vee here.

Sloterdijk’s main point in this book is strangely relevant to the ‘sphere (sorry for the pun). It’s a clumsy segue; but, I’m a huge fan of blogs like The Anarchist Notebook, where there’s a fair bit of philosophical import on offer. The author has lately been critiquing open borders libertarians. Our Questioning comrade writes stuff such as:

Open borders advocates’ argument on immigration and human movement, if applied elsewhere, would hold that drug dealers should be allowed to cook meth in an RV within National Parks because the state has no legitimate authority to enforce those rules because it has no just claim to that land it acquired through coercion and finances through theft. Also, in a libertarian society drug dealing would be legal and so would meth production, so the state has no right to enforce anti-drug laws, either.

(Anarchist Notebook)

Libertarians like the idea of open borders because they think that the border jumpers are, at heart, individuals; and that as individuals are basic to a political system, they can be easily integrated into the system they’re jumping into. Thus we see the philosophical problem at the core of political libertarianism: It is a confusion as to what is basic in the political sphere (sorry, again). Libertarians like to think that the individual is basic, but as Sloterdijk points out, individuals don’t exist. Human beings are born with a sense of longing for communion.

Sloterdijk speculates that we come to the conclusion that we are meant to be together with one other due to the presence of the placenta in the womb. The placenta has its own pulse, distinct from the fetus’, and being flushed through the birth canal (and into the underworld) is the beginning of a psychic separation from which we spend the rest of our lives trying to recover.

(Peter Sloterdijk, Spheres Vol. 1: Bubbles. trans: M. Lowenthal. New York: Semiotext(e), 2011. 343-347)

Thus we find ourselves yearning for our twin, and when we find this person, we instinctively marry and settle down and have children.

(Sloterdijk, 414-419)

This is more important than anyone, these days, is prepared to admit. The basic political unit is the dyad: the two-sphere, the family unit, composed of a man and a woman (sorry faggots). This is what the libertarians get wrong, and this is why they’re destined to endlessly circle-jerk from one failure to another, dreaming of a society in which potheads can drive stoned without a government license, without ever causing any accidents. The libertarian paradise suggests that we can successfully integrate 7 billion African refugees into New Mexico without significant social problems. They’re all individuals, and as such, interchangeable with the legal citizens whose people settled that part of North America, so it’s no big deal.

Society in microcosm is not a single person, it is the relationship between two individuals. Herbert Marcuse noted, way back in the 1950’s, that this relationship transcended sex. He also noted that modern industrialized society found it to be too subversive to allow developing naturally. Marcuse invites a comparison:

compare love-making in a meadow and in an automobile, on a lovers’ walk outside the town walls and on a Manhattan street. In the former cases, the environment partakes of and invites libidinal cathexis and tends to be eroticized. Libido transcends beyond the immediate erotogenic zones a process of nonrepressive sublimation. In contrast, a mechanized environment seems to block such self-transcendence of libido. Impelled in the striving to extend the field of erotic gratification, libido becomes less “polymorphous,” less capable of eroticism beyond localized sexuality, and the latter is intensified.

 

Thus diminishing erotic and intensifying sexual energy, the technological reality limits the scope of sublimation. It also reduces the need for sublimation. In the mental apparatus, the tension between that which is desired and that which is permitted seems considerably lowered, and the Reality Principle no longer seems to require a sweeping and painful transformation of instinctual needs. The individual must adapt himself to a world which does not seem to demand the denial of his innermost needs: a world which is not essentially hostile.

(Herbert Marcuse, One Dimensional Man. New York: Routledge, 1991. 77-78)

Ultimately, the study of what exists is ontology. We are designed (by God or nature, it doesn’t really matter) to couple up with someone we like, and we construct a dyadic ontology to protect ourselves, primarily from invasive ideas. The status-quo hates this, and has spent enormous amounts of time and money trying to erase this aspect of human nature, largely through ideological nonsense like radical feminism, white nationalism, and political libertarianism. We can take heart in the fact that eventually, our enemies are doomed to fail. We are hard wired to immunize ourselves from these toxic ideas, and our resistance to them begins at birth.

To begin with, I’d like to sincerely thank our Comrade Soldier, Brother Jason, for sharing his story about overcoming addiction. Given that I could barely quit cigarettes, and still drink coffee, I’m always a bit awestruck at hearing such powerful testimony.  Shades of Nietzsche’s superman peek through such tales.

I should also preface this by admitting that I don’t expect this article to get many hits. Some of you will probably feel offended. That’s fine.

One of the things addictions seem to do is to hollow out the addict’s psychic personality. The constructed subject, in itself, is transformed (often in a very short time) into a machine which has as its goal the procurement of the substance (or behavior) which is the focus of the addiction. All the other aspects of the subject — the things that once made him “him” — are more-or-less blunted to serve the fix, or transformed into means to this end.

Johnny Rotten eulogized his friend, British musician Sid Vicious, in the media. Sid died of a heroin overdose, a day after murdering his Jewish-American girlfriend in New York City. Johnny described Sid’s decline into murder and suicide as a complete transformation: “Once you start on that heroin trail… it’s gone… you just disappear.” (The Unseen Sid Vicious)

What is most interesting is that the same phenomenon seems to happen to many PUA types.

The first clue that this process is at work is an immediate willingness to destroy once close, meaningful social relationships. This is not the same process that single dudes complain about when a brother gets wed. We all know the story about the pal who gets married, and suddenly disappears from view. That’s not what’s happening here. In the first place, the newly married brother has a legitimate commitment to a wife, and is probably working on starting a family. PUA types have no such reasonable conflicts. The women they bang don’t generally want any commitment to a man. They just want to fuck. Fucking such women doesn’t entail long hours at work to save for junior’s private school tuition. Moreover, the meaningful social relationships that such men enjoyed prior to adopting the PUA lifestyle are often destroyed overtly, by antisocial and outrageous behavior. PUA types self-induce a psychic erasure, replacing their authentic personality with a bizarre collection of tics, sexual fetishes, and irregular grooming and dressing habits.

The second clue directly follows from the first. What psychic contents are left are entirely self-centered. PUA types seem to define themselves, far too often, by being as annoying an asshole as possible, despite the fact that this is contextually unnecessary. Before finding books by Tucker Max and Cernovich, many of my pals (and it was not just internet acquaintances – I had meatspace friends who went this route) were on their way to moderately successful careers and had already begun establishing stable lives. After adopting their PUA personae, they generally lost interest in doing interesting stuff, and preferred to slack off, making “being a PUA” their one obvious goal in life. They still made enough money to buy fuzzy hats and get manicured fingernails, but all their higher aspirations seemed to go down the toilet.

In an essay, Jack Donovan defines the “metrosexual” PUA as “a “mirror man” whose highest narcissistic concerns are pleasure-seeking and being regarded as “desirable.” He may be in love with himself, but that, too, is a shallow kind of love. He cares more about how he looks and how well he fucks than what he has achieved or how well he is respected.” (Everyone A Harlot)

Now, the PUA will rebut these observations by claiming that their lifestyle has “liberated” the men who embrace it to build an authentic identity. The opposite is actually true. An authentic personality is socially constructed, and is based upon meaningful interpersonal relationships and ties to community. The PUA lifestyle does not allow for an authentic personality. It obliterates it.

It’s funny because it’s true.

I’ve seen my own clients, many of whom are very decent people, demolished by an anti-male court system…

An interesting video for Monday…

Years ago, I wandered down to my local (back then it was west coast USA) divorce courts. On occasion I’d see some poor bastard trying in vain to enforce his agreement. On one occasion, I saw the judge not bat an eye, when he declared that: “in accord with the agreement signed prior to the marriage, petitioner will keep the house which was bequeathed him by his parents.” He then immediately declared: “Petitioner will buy respondent a house of equal or greater value within the next thirty days.”

This is a rebuttal from BDMG about my Jordan Peterson post. Visit the BDMG blog here.

I wasn’t really that impressed with his debate, to be honest.

It’s interesting that this comes shortly after seeing Jordan Peterson calling MGTOW “pathetic weasles”, then later qualifying it. I didn’t expect him to go straight for the tradcon single shaming right off the bat here… He has had some good material throughout the years; I hope he’s not becoming a gynocentric one-trick pony of anti-MGTOW now…

The world will always be anti-MGTOW, in the same way the world will always be anti-ginger. MGTOW will always be a tiny minority of men. Moreover, MGTOW are a justifiably hated minority. We can whine about the unfairness of this, but it’s due in large part to the antics of scum like Rob Fedders. It is the natural consequence of our own inability to police our spokesmen.

He says they need to “grow up” because “they have something to offer”… Male utility, male disposability, nothing more. These tradcons think that we’re supposed to be worker bees and nothing more.

Men are hard-wired to compete and succeed. The typical MGTOW who insists this isn’t true inevitably spends all day becoming the best possible player of World of Warcraft that he can be.

I remember arguing with one of these types, who wailed endlessly about his state in life as an incel. He interspersed his complaints with the casual admission that he taught himself multilinear algebra, with the help of MIT Open Courseware. Eventually, he showed me his latest software development project.

“Gee,” I remember saying, at the end of this weird conversation, “I did some of that in graduate school… I could never do it as well as you, and I couldn’t do it at all now…”

Feminists will insist that finding a wimminz and spending the rest of one’s life jumping through her hoops is the pinnacle of masculinity. Who are we to deny this, given what we see around us? It’s better to just admit that most men enjoy being unhappy. It’s also to our advantage to leave such men alone. They fund our society, giving us the opportunity to read books, go out to eat at nice restaurants, and screw trashy women. We also have the opportunity to excel in the field of our choice, without a woman to support. Why should we bother the traditional types, in context?

See here’s the thing: he is seeing part of the problem, he’s accurately seeing a lot of the effects, but he’s acting like a Protestant pastor and putting all of the responsibility on the men for things that have gone wrong. Women are the ones that have changed; this attitude is putting the onus on men to accept women under unacceptable terms, instead of changing the terms back to something acceptable.

The men who accept responsibility for female misbehavior are freeing us up, so that we don’t have to. Do you want to get married to some ball-busting whore? I didn’t think so. Let Joe Blow marry her. He’ll find happiness in slavery, and we’ll be able to have peace in our lives without a wife.

Make no mistake: Joe Blow is Dr. Peterson’s target audience. We’re not ever going to listen to his “man up” calls, and he knows that.

As for the arguments about “trans” shit and the “pay gap”, he knows his material well but he’s not the best debater. He doesn’t seem to know to cut her off a the knees with her sophistry and bullshit. He fought a good defensive fight, but he stayed on defense and she came out without a scratch, in the eyes of someone who doesn’t watch a video, made by and MRA, explaining to them that she lost and why. Not that this is saying much, but for someone who spat out nothing but sophistry, she did a much better job at it than, say, Piers Morgan.

You’re missing the larger point in this debate. This surprises me, given the quality of your contributions.

You can be sure that Mizz Newman did not miss the point. Manginas and male-feminists are born out of a sense of purposelessness and anomie.

Feminism is largely motivated, in men, by a sense of powerlessness. Such men fill their psychic vacuum with “edgy” feminist politics (which has, as a side-attraction, the illusory promise of some third-rate poon with a bluehair.) By telling kids to grow up and assume responsibility, Peterson is denying Newman, and those like her, the male footsoldiers who enforce her mandates.

I think that the reason he is getting so many accolades for this is because its the first time that many people have seen someone even TRY to argue against the gynocracy. It’s better than nothing, but it’s still not worthy of a ringing endorsement, from me anyway.

I can’t really disagree with this. On the upside, he seems to be the only “alt-lite” figurehead who isn’t a total charlatan.

So over on Dalrock, people are agog at the attention paid to the Jordan Peterson interview. Same as here, I suppose. This is a fair example.

I have the impression that BDMG and Novaseeker are very different people; though, they’re both people I respect. They agree on at least one thing, which is their lack of a favorable impression of Peterson’s performance. They join a great number of other people, throughout the sphere, in expressing these opinions.

There are two points I ought to make here.

1. Peterson’s Revelations Aren’t Revelatory

They aren’t revelatory to us, because we’re grown men with developed psychic lives, goals and jobs. In short, they aren’t revelatory to us because they aren’t meant to be.

The people Peterson is trying to reach are young brothers, and he reaches them by symbolically occupying the psychic space that a father or grandfather would occupy in the development of a normal adolescent. People like BDMG and Novaseeker spend a lot of time in the ‘sphere, so I don’t know exactly why they don’t understand the inherent problem. We all seem to talk about young men growing up without fathers. Peterson is applying a solution, with the help of youtube.

If you’re an 18-year old man, whose life consists of internet pr0n, World of Warcraft, and pizza-flavored microwaveable meals, then Peterson’s act is revelatory. Peterson is probably the first person who has consistently told these young brothers to get up off their ass, go out and enjoy living in the world, and make something of themselves. That is a novel position, for a young man who has grown up in a single-mom house, with female public school teachers. The numbers suggest that our younger brothers have a definite need, and he’s filling it.

As Novaseeker cynically points out: He’s making a few bucks while doling out the sort of advice fathers and grandfathers used to give for free. So, what? Sue him.

2. Peterson is Adept at Pushing the Overton Window

He’s doing it at least as well as Donald Trump, in a country with no Trump equivalent.

The Ontario Provincial Government didn’t declare itself the Feminist Republic forty years ago, because it couldn’t. It has been a very long, slow slide into degeneracy, which has been accomplished over a period of decades, through a coordinated action which included both political figures, academia, and the mass-media. Our feminist overlords were very clever and careful to ease Canadians into the national gay bath house slowly, so as not to stir up any uncontrolled or organized opposition.

Peterson is singlehandedly pushing the narrative back toward sanity, and he’s doing it without the screeching or caterwauling that feminists have traditionally used. No normal person, who gives him a fair listen, is able to question his reason or motives. In this regard, he’s changing the way that Canadians, even the most pozzed out feminists among them, think about society and their place in it.

There is little doubt that I am one of the most progressive people in the ‘sphere when it comes to the abortion topic. I have absolutely no problem with a woman choosing to abort her pregnancy, in the first trimester, in a number of different scenarios. For example:

• In the case where carrying the child to term would kill her.
• In the case where carrying the child to term would disable her.
• In the case where carrying the child to term would make her sick for a year or more (e.g. Lupus).
• In the case where the child will not survive outside the womb (e.g. Anencephaly).
• In the case where the child will be born disabled (Down’s Syndrome).
• In the case where conception was due to rape (i.e. violent forcible rape, not “I regret having sex after the fact”).
• In the case where it is reasonably likely the mother will pass a communicable disease to the child in labor, which is incurable or hard to treat (AIDS).

Had you asked me about this topic, only a couple of years ago, I’d have strongly asserted the mother’s right to abort in any circumstance. After all, I naïvely assumed that such a terrible decision would never have been made without a grave reason, after a lot of introspection. How wrong I was! Over at Johnston Archive, the data has been laid out. Here are the reasons that American women actually get abortions:

Summary: This report reviews available statistics regarding reasons given for obtaining abortions in the United States, including surveys by the Alan Guttmacher Institute and data from seven state health/statistics agencies that report relevant statistics (Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Utah). The official data imply that AGI claims regarding “hard case” abortions are inflated by roughly a factor of three. Actual percentage of U.S. abortions in “hard cases” are estimated as follows: in cases of rape, 0.3%; in cases of incest, 0.03%; in cases of risk to maternal life, 0.1%; in cases of risk to maternal health, 0.8%; and in cases of fetal health issues, 0.5%. About 98.3% of abortions in the United States are elective, including socio-economic reasons or for birth control. This includes perhaps 30% for primarily economic reasons and possibly 0.1% each for sex selection and selective reduction of multifetal pregnancies.

In other words, abortions which are justifiable (at least by my standards) are well beneath 5% of the total, and that’s being generous. Over 95% of all abortions in the U.S. are sought by wimminz who had one too many appletinis, and subsequently conceived after unprotected sex with Chad in the nightclub’s public toilet.

Atheists and agnostics need to get their minds right. These are not people who deserve sympathy, and this is not a “women’s health” issue. These are the most irresponsible and reprehensible people imaginable, and they’re all around us, right now.