Monday, 25 May 2015

Without Conscience

Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us
English language…
236 pages
Review Format:
United States…
Predominant Genre:
Robert D Hare…
Outstanding Performances:
Psychopaths are fully aware of the consequences of their actions and know the difference between right and wrong, yet they are terrifyingly self-centered, remorseless, and unable to care about the feelings of others.
Emotional repression
Political Correctness
Role modeling
Social class
The State
White culture
White guilt
White supremacy
Similar to:
America’s Most Wanted

Psychology is the disease for which it pretends to be the cure

WHITE MAN’s CURSE: Self-Absorbed Gratification and a Sense of Omnipotence & Entitlement

Summary: Caucasian Psychopathy Laid Bare in an Attempt to Use Soviet Psychiatry to Imprison Those Whites Do Not Like.


ascinating look at the psychopathy inherent in Whites (most psychopaths are White) but which refuses to admit this simple fact. This book tries to scare readers to make a buck for its author by evading the issue that the problem with psychopaths is predominantly a White problem - that only Whites, therefore, can fix. Extensive use of the words our & us, does not effectively-conceal that these adjectives and pronouns do not include People of Color (POC).

Science is here being used to label people that Whites simply do not like because they remind them of the personality traits they keep locked-up inside, themselves. As well as to force people to like each other or be placed in prison for not being warm or empathic enough toward Whites; thereby legislating for love. The claim is even made that psychopaths are baffling and complex (since they are not clinically-insane) when it is obvious that people who believe they can do as they please in their desire for attention, often become perverse adults. Do we really need PhDs to tell us this?

Black people, for example, have experienced the deleterious effects of White psychopathy for centuries - so find it easy to spot the variable mixture of sweet-talk and intimidation of the typical psychopath. It is only when Whites turn on each other that Whites claim to be baffled, since the murders committed by, say, the KKK are still not considered psychopathic by Whites, but as racial self-preservation and, therefore, rational.

Trying hard to distance themselves from psychopaths, Whites mis-describe the condition and pretend psychopaths are somehow different from other people in some fundamental way; that is, a lack of empathy that is really nothing more than the desire for a lack of empathy - to facilitate the exploitation of others. Here, Whites confuse the goal, itself, with the achievement of the goal, through subjective inference cloaked in the respectability of scientific discourse - all this allied with the refusal to face-up to alternative explanations for observed behavior.

Perhaps psychopaths are a different species of human or, par for the course with White supremacy, a sub-species? This is supported by no empirical data and is nothing more than a political game to make Whites feel superior to those they so label; making it obvious psychiatry is little more than a soft-science: The militant wing of psychology.

After all this hypothesizing, this book provides only meager help for protecting oneself against psychopaths, since Whites are in denial about the fact that it is White culture that produces such apparently-physiological defects. This leads to absurd advice like being less gullible (& more cynical), rather than being more aware of the nature of objective reality. As with White supremacy, Whites claim to know what racism is, but never to help Blacks distinguish between the good and the bad Whites (if such a distinction is even valid) - since all Whites benefit from no-one knowing, as then racism is harder to detect and defeat. This is because Whites do not see a difference themselves - as this book clearly proves - and they would not want anyone to know just how sick their culture truly is.

Normal people are perfectly able to protect themselves from psychopaths only insofar as they are normal. Psychopaths prey on the very weaknesses that Whites so commonly manifest: Financial greed, attention-seeking, sexual lust, etc; making the Whites the most likely psychopaths and the most likely victims.

Psychopaths are common in White media precisely because they are common in White culture. Like Whites, they know the difference between right and wrong and are fully aware of the consequences of their actions yet, like Whites, they are self-centered, remorseless and choose not to care about the feelings of others; while appearing completely normal (ie, usual) to other Whites because they share the same worldview; the blind always leading the blind.

This appearance of normality does not fool everyone else, who clearly see that this White description of the psychopath closely-matches and is an eidetic description of typical White people, as such (compare with, Bobby Wright). And while establishing a range of idiosyncrasies in linguistic and affective processing under certain conditions, Dr HARE has not confirmed a common pathology of psychopathy. His contention that the pathology is likely due in large part to an inherited deficit in cerebral brain function is speculative but persuasive.

Despite the title of this book, there is no evidence that psychopaths lack a conscience - only the subjective claim that because they do not do what normal people do then they cannot have a conscience. But this is anthropomorphism, not science. The expressed White fear of such people, that such a view reveals, is really a the fear of ones own reflection. Of con-artists, hustlers and rapists who charm, lie and manipulate their way through life to get others to do the responsible work of individuation that they, themselves, should be doing.

The anger directed at psychopaths by this author attempts to hide the usual White resentment at anyone’s apparent ability to be free of guilt while doing as they please. Whites also envy the emotional emptiness of the psychopath who seems so easily to avoid being weighed-down with regret for anything they do.

Hardly surprising then that since Whites looted, raped and mass-murdered their way around the world for 500 years, that the vast majority of psychopaths should be White since they are taught to believe that such behavior is OK. This makes psychopaths hard to detect among Whites because one is not looking for a needle in a haystack, but something common because so numerous. That the White definition of psychopathy describes rather well the White culture that spawned it is lost on Dr HARE. And given that this book possesses a self-congratulatory political tone, throughout, amid absurd and angry claims (angry since psychopaths reveal what POC suspect of all Whites) that White society views psychopathic personality traits as pejorative, despite Whites commonly manifesting them - it is to be wondered if Dr HARE is not, himself, something of a psychopath.

Perhaps this White author will one day write an honest book about White culture and its endemic problems - serial-killing, various addictions, child-molestation, etc - and end the whitewashing that such a culture regularly receives from dishonest authors eager to pretend the problems of the world - and their solutions - have nothing to do with them. Or, perhaps, collaborate with a Black psychiatrist who can see Whites more clearly than Whites see themselves.

The most disturbing aspect of this book is, in fact, the extent to which Whites evade the truth about themselves in hiding behind scientific-sounding babble. As the psychopath must evade reality for his schemes to have any chance of success in the reality so evaded, so must this author’s in claiming to have created a reliable means of spotting and predicting psychopathic behavior; while then implying he finds it easy to function in a White society which creates and tolerates them.

This book sees human nature simplistically as the source of problems to be checked rather than as the source of human happiness; it is obsessed with regulating behavior that Whites fear rather than freeing it. It is dedicated to turning Whites into robots - as opposed to psychopaths - because the author sees humans as animals to be trained, as in A Clockwork Orange. The ultimate goal is to create a dictatorship of psychiatrists.

Angry, insincere and repetitive, as if author does not believe his own thesis and thinks whining on about terrible criminal psychopaths are (we already know how bad they are, so why keep going on about this?) will make his not-very-scientific mantra more believable. Opinion takes the place of hard facts too frequently to not be a deliberate attempt to make money out of people’s fear of psychopathy. Worse, there is no definition of normal against which to judge people you might think are psychopaths.

Either Whites are genetically-vulnerable to being psychopaths (since most psychopaths are White) or psychopaths are hard to spot in White culture because there they are so common, this being what Whites mean when they exclaim: He was such a nice boy! Who’d’ve thought he’d rape and mutilate those kids.

The lack of understanding of psychopathy is replaced with sneering and unscientific contempt - as if the author knows the right buttons to press in his readers, but lacks sufficient insight to help with the fears he attempts to exploit. This is little more than an unscientific puff for PCL-R that contains no references to other, similar metrics that just may be better in their predictive intent and result. Dr HARE describes psychopaths as social predators, while pointing out that most do not commit murder. His work possesses a high moral-tone (sensationalist & self-righteous attempt to substitute for an insightful-enough intellect) yet tends toward sensationalism and graphic anecdotes; providing a useful summary of the assessment of psychopathy while, ultimately, avoiding the difficult questions regarding the internal contradictions in his concept or how it should be classified.

Although a shallow book, it does contain some useful information that will be of use to POC in dealing with the psychopathic nature of White culture and of how to avoid being hurt by Whites by explaining their most likely behavior and the fact that psychopaths can pass for fully-human in White culture since they are so similar to all Whites - and, so, harder to pick out. And yet, if Whites spent as much time looking for sexists, White supremacists and social snobs as they do looking for other psychopaths, there would be a lot less of all of these social problems. But the lives of women, Black people and the poor do not matter to Whites: Fortunately for POC, most victims of psychopaths are White. And the peculiarity of this book is that a White scientist does not ask the victims of sexism, classism & White supremacy for their survival strategies - which would be far superior to those enumerated here. With Whites, potential victims face a simple choice: Adapt to a hopeless situation by a) giving in; b) accepting others treatment of you as an inferior; c) losing their self-identity; or d) fight back.

A curious characteristic of Whites is their desire to be seen as cool; that is, to drain away what little humanity they have in favor of aping psychopaths - which they do rather well compared to other ethnic groups who favor emotionally-expressivity. This explains why Whites are like their tv: Psychopathic in destroying the value in all it touches and treating everything as both equally-banal and equally-interesting.

See also:
  1. Problems with psychopathy checklist
  2. Psychopathy as a General Theory of Crime
  3. Review - Without Conscience

Copyright © 2015 Frank TALKER.
Permission granted to reproduce & distribute this posting in any way, shape or form; provided you mention this Blog.
All other rights reserved.

Sunday, 24 May 2015

Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women


Less Attractive to Whom - White Supremacists?

Black Beauty?

Scientific Proof White Supremacists Find Black Women Unattractive!

Feeble attempt to re-introduce physiognomy through the circular arguments of pseudo-science and scientism; creating the self-fulfilling prophecies used to vainly justify White supremacy. Darwin’s theories are being politically-exploited to explain both alleged White genetic superiority and, its necessary corollary, the claimed genetic inferiority of People Of Color (POC) - but all this really explains is White amorality. A more suitable forum for such political-ideology-masquerading-as-science (lack of empirical evidence, flawed premises & unexamined presuppositions) would be Stormfront.

The question is actually a race-baiting statement (Black women are ugly) that pretends it is true simply by being stated as a rhetorical question. Its only function is to get attention by causing offense; thereby generating the anger that will help obscure its rather obvious falsity.

The main reason psychology (& Evolutionary Psychology (EP)’s deterministic claims about Evolution) is not a hard science (like Physics & Chemistry) is because Whites - and their fellow-travelers - have always used it to justify White supremacy; thereby trying to elevate White personal preferences into the realm of objective facts - with Whites reigning supreme. EP never says anything disparaging about Whites since it is designed to flatter them by claiming there is scientific evidence for their genetic superiority over others. This is a way for Whites to evade White guilt for White supremacy by pretending the latter is natural and normal - the former created by Blacks seeking equality that is genetically-impossible for them to achieve.

Dr Kanazawa is careful-enough to not say that Black women are actually ugly, only that they are less attractive (to him, obviously). Rather than say less attractive to he says less attractive than; suggesting Blacks are objectively unattractive - not that Whites are objectively racist (a truth EP regularly evades). He clearly implies - since he claims to be an objective scientist - that Black women are, in fact, ugly. One might just as well ask Why are Whites more racist than other people? rather than the more scientific Are Whites more racist than other people?

Attractiveness, like intelligence, beauty and humor, are human qualities which are, like all personal qualities, not amenable to scientific and objective measurement - unlike physical quantities such as length, height & width. The scientistic belief that they are, is the simplistic reductionism that attempts to obliterate the many mysteries of life by pretending that anything can be measured - even how much you love your children, your wife & your car.

It is strange that if Black women really are less attractive than Others (racist code for White women), why there should be so few White people in the world and so many Black. Perhaps it is because the men who find Black women sexually-attractive are misguided and foolishly-unscientific in their amorous choices? Or, perhaps, it is because they are not White supremacists and/or do not live in White supremacist environments? Dr Kanazawa acts as though White supremacy simply does not exist - and yet that is the only context within which his comments make any sense, whatsoever. He lacks the intellectual rigor to understand that he does not actually tell an inconvenient truth about Black women, but one about the moral sewer that is White culture.

The problem with correlations and predictors is that they are not causations - they are intellectually-lightweight substitutes for them. They allow one to say anything about anything - at the most trivial level of self-indulgence. For example, White skin is the best predictor of White supremacism; physical beauty is closely-correlated with male erections; loneliness is strongly-correlated with ugliness; resentment at White supremacy is a predictor of ethnicity; anger at rape is a predictor of gender; being successful under Apartheid is correlated with skin-color; Why Do Whites Need Institutionalized Racism to be Successful?; Why is it the white man’s burden to bang all the hot chicks of other ethnic groups to produce beautiful mulatto babies?; Why Do Unattractive People Write Articles About Attractiveness?; the list is endless. The difficulty in finding causative agents when dealing with complex human phenomena has constantly hampered White attempts to prove simplistic and behavioristic relationships between - and within - people and objects. Oddly, he even admits he can think of no other explanation for the data he pretends to interpret; revealing a decidedly-lackluster imagination, in the process, and a lazy unwillingness to engage in a basic literature review of his own discipline.

As White culture declines, Whites will do anything to justify their having more of what remains to be exploited of the world’s physical resources. Whites will also do all they can to mock and deride those they dread most in order to soothe their fears of eventual irrelevance and disappearance, just because of the presence of those others. Yet, Dr Kanazawa is so desperate to be accepted by Whites, that he mirrors their racism - even to the extent of claiming that he, himself, is a member of one of the physically-unattractive ethnic groups he claims to observe. One only has to read Why we are losing this war to see that he is angrily-resentful about the fact that no matter his absurdly-overstated racism, Whites will never accept him as fully-human.

Dr Satoshi Kanazawa tries to hide his ignorance and poorly-suppressed anger behind claims his critics are politically-correct and wish to suppress any scientific discussion of Ethnicity. He refuses to accept that science must be socially-responsible, since good science is designed to be socially-profitable (otherwise, what’s the point?) and that the search for truth is not the only reason for scientific activity. Otherwise, Josef Mengele’s experiments on Jewish children would suddenly become scientifically-acceptable - so long as they produced the truth of what happens to people when you abuse them. Moreover, Whites would never accept being quarantined from others simply because it is a fact that all their cultures are institutionally-racist, nor would any White allow research into the effects of pornography on very young children - so there are clear ethical limits to seeking scientific truth, no matter those White scientists who claim to be engaged in a disinterested search for the true nature of objective reality. Science only has value if it is constructive, otherwise it can only be destructive - there is no third option.

The peculiar awfulness of Whites is that they only research topics that help them maintain their political status quo. They never, for example, search for any IQ or sexual attractiveness differences between people with different colored eyes or different shoe or breast sizes. This is because such research might find that women with small breasts are the most intelligent; justifying the denial of higher-educational opportunities to the superbly well-endowed. The whole point of science that is to be fed into political policy is to discriminate against someone - anyone - so that scarce resources can be monopolized by the powerful.

Attacking his detractors for being politically-correct is a politically-correct attempt to conceal the flaws in Dr Kanazawa’s own work: The racist agenda underpinning it & that of offering opinions not based on objective data instead of scientific analysis. The author believes politics is the slave of science, such that politics can never criticize its master. He wants nothing more than to openly-express his fear of not being accepted by Whites because it is all he has to offer the Caucasians who pretend to love him for agreeing with their xenophobia.

Therefore, Dr Kanazawa will not be required by Whites to apologize to Black women for his White supremacy, so won’t do so; revealing that Whites will continue to cleave to their racist political agenda through the use of pseudo-science and, particularly, the absurd claim that there are meaningful differences between people based on skin pigmentation.

More detailed debunkings here: What are the scientific / methodological objections to the Psychology Today article “Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?” being removed from the publication?
Copyright © 2015 Frank TALKER.
Permission granted to reproduce & distribute this posting in any way, shape or form; provided you mention this Blog.
All other rights reserved.

Thursday, 14 May 2015

Caucasian Psychopathy

How to Spot a White Supremacist

Also Useful for Spotting Sexists, Snobs, homophobes, etc

Because most psychopaths are White - and there has been much public uproar among Whites about psychopaths being released from prison to re-offend - Whites had to give the game away about their own psychological conditioning by creating a complex twenty-point list to facilitate White psychiatrists labeling other Whites who let the side down by revealing their inferiority publicly.

Psychopathy Checklist-Revised:
Factors, Facets & Other Items
Factor 1 Factor 2 Other items
Facet 1: Interpersonal
  1. Glib & superficially charming;
  2. Grandiose sense of self-worth;
  3. Pathological lying;
  4. Cunning & manipulative.
Facet 2: Affective
  1. Lacking remorse or guilt;
  2. Emotionally shallow;
  3. Callous & lacking empathy;
  4. Failing to accept responsibility for own actions.
Facet 3: Lifestyle
  1. Needing stimulation since prone to boredom;
  2. Parasitic lifestyle;
  3. Lacking realistic, long-term goals;
  4. Impulsive;
  5. Irresponsible.
Facet 4: Antisocial
  1. Poor self-discipline;
  2. Behavioral problems in youth;
  3. Juvenile delinquency;
  4. Recidivism;
  5. Criminally versatile.
  1. Many short-term marriages;
  2. Sexually promiscuous.

The PCL-R is only weakly-applicable to real-world settings and tends toward tautology. It is vulnerable to “labeling effects”; to be over-simplistic; reductionistic; to embody the fundamental attribution error; and to not pay enough attention to context and the dynamic nature of human behavior.

Ratings made using the PCL system depend on the personality of the person doing the rating; including how empathic they themselves are. The class background, race and philosophical beliefs of raters are enacting biased judgments of people whose section of society or individual lives they have no understanding of or empathy for.

Copyright © 2015 Frank TALKER.
Permission granted to reproduce & distribute this posting in any way, shape or form; provided you mention this Blog.
All other rights reserved.

Saturday, 4 April 2015

“Andreas Lubitz planned spectacular gesture”


Such a White Thing To Do

Only Whites could ever pretend to be stunned by the revelation that one of their own has committed suicide: Fortunately, none of the victims seem to be People of Color (POC).

Whites act surprised, yet benefit from White supremacy. Thus, Whites should have no real reason to die and - in fact - every reason to live, since their lives are made somewhat easier than those who have to actually work for a living.

Whites have the highest suicide rates in the world and often take others with them in the process of self-destruction (eg, Adolf Hitler). This explains the White penchant for apparently-randomized school spree-killings and mass murders on public thoroughfares, rather than doing the decent thing: Running a bath and opening a vein - like civilized death-obsessed people (eg, the Japanese).

However, Whites will try to pretend this deliberate plane crash was an act of murder or manslaughter to evade the issue of why Whites usually behave in such self-absorbed and suicidal ways. Because POC actually have a substantive culture and Whites do not, Whites are induced to create their sense of identity via infamous acts as their only outlet for achieving any kind of recognition - no matter how negative.

Whites spend so much of their time (more than 80%) with each other, that they come to view depressive people as normal because it is their norm - despite the fact that it is actually, among Whites, merely usual. This is why Whites are so poor at judging other Whites (& human character, in general) and find bad White behavior inexplicable, since depression is so common for Whites to display on a daily basis that it just seems natural and, therefore, not at all as threatening as it is for POC.

HAMLET: Ay, marry, why was he sent into England?
GRAVE-DIGGER: Why, because he was mad. He shall recover his wits there; or, if he do not, it’s no great matter there.
GRAVE-DIGGER: ‘Twill not he seen in him there. There the men are as mad as he.

William Shakespeare (1564-1616), English dramatist, poet. Hamlet, Act 5, Scene 1.

White mono-culturalism also illustrates why Whites cannot explain the behavior of POC - except in negative terms. The positive behavior Blacks display (eg, Notting Hill Carnival) is unusual for a White; Whites are simply not used to seeing so many happy people. On the other hand, POC find it easy to spot someone with ongoing personal problems, because such a person is both unusual to them and a political threat to POC lives (eg, Jean-Marie Le Pen).

This incident also reveals a desperate White attempt to show the White perpetrator, here, in the best possible light (as in the photograph above) when, if he had been a POC, his entire ethnic group would have been besmirched and any sordid details of his private life either dredged-up or invented - or both.

Andreas Lubitz did not, primarily, trash his airplane because he was depressed, but because he was White. Therefore, more POC civil pilots are now needed in Western airlines to provide greater assurance that this sort of depressive episode happens far less often - if at all.

Copyright © 2015 Frank TALKER.
Permission granted to reproduce & distribute this posting in any way, shape or form; provided you mention this Blog.
All other rights reserved.