Regarding the Directors Guild of America feature film nominees, the NY Times Watching blog says today: “Female Directors Were Conspicuously Absent”
I noticed in the last night’s NCAA championship football game, female players were absent. Big deal. Men are better than women at certain things such as football, hunting big game, composing classical music, parallel parking, running large corporations, and directing feature films.
Comments to and from anthropologist Peter Frost:
* To a non-white person, the 20th century “anti-racism” was first and last a struggle for dignity, a struggle to gain the right not to be judged as deficient in mental abilities, character, and agency, purely on the basis of physical appearance. It was (emphatically) not meant to be a pet project for idle left-wing activists, as you seem to describe it.
* The problem with the anti-racism movement is that they assumes only White people are capable of being racists. They should just blatantly re-name themselves the anti-White movement and not beat around the bush about it. I prefer when my enemies are just straight up blunt about their cruel intentions.
* As an anthropologist, my job is to give voice to those who are voiceless, either because they are socially marginal or because they have been deliberately silenced. This was the case with black slaves and colonial peoples, and it’s still the case with the native peoples of the Americas and Australia. Increasingly, it’s now the case with Europeans and European-descended peoples.
I detect indignation when you say that antiracism “was (emphatically) not meant to be a pet project for idle left-wing activists.” Well, it — emphatically — was. Take the NAACP. Its leadership was WASP and then Jewish for the first half-century of its existence. Read the Wiki page:
“In fact, at its founding, the NAACP had only one African American on its executive board, Du Bois himself. It did not elect a black president until 1975, although executive directors had been African-American.”
The same was true for the earlier abolitionist movement. It was overwhelmingly WASP, with a few token blacks. It couldn’t have been otherwise.
I don’t see things from a “white” perspective, let alone a “rich white” perspective. The dominant view among white people is that we should all be autonomy-maximizing individuals in a global marketplace. This view is as dominant on the right as it is on the left. And it’s very dominant among rich whites.
A libertarian society cannot exist in a vacuum. It requires a certain behavioral foundation. Otherwise, it will liquidate itself; it will revert to a kind of society where kinship and physical force are the main organizing principles.
No human society has ever been fully libertarian, but Northwest Europeans have come the closest to that ideal. They have a long history of weaker kinship and, conversely, greater individualism that goes back to at least the 12th century and probably earlier. As a result, they have been able to create larger, freer, and more open societies, which in turn have made possible the market economy. Markets, in themselves, are nothing new. People have known them since prehistory, but the market mechanism could produce its benefits only within small points of space and time, i.e., marketplaces. It was only with the creation of freer, more open societies that markets could expand beyond the confines of the marketplace and eventually encompass most economic transactions.
But freer, more open societies cannot exist in a vacuum. They require certain behavioral adaptions. For one thing, kin-based morality is no longer sufficient to enforce social rules, since the threat of kin retaliation is no longer sufficient. There has thus been a shift from kin-based morality to universal morality, and this shift has been accompanied by a greater willingness to identify and enforce the rules of universal morality. A related adaptation is a greater capacity for feelings of guilt and empathy. Finally, there is a greater willingness to exclude, punish, and even kill people who break social rules and are judged to be morally worthless….
But now things are trending in the opposite direction. I saw this when I was a student in Russia. There, libertarianism meant that much of the population was free to engage in self-destructive behavior: alcoholism, sexual amorality, and a disastrously low fertility rate. Today, Russians are moving away from the libertarian model. They have no choice. It’s either that or collective suicide. The same trend is starting to happen elsewhere. Our model of extreme libertarianism, which doesn’t work very well for ourselves, is proving to be disastrous for most societies on this planet.
Europe lost one third of its population during the Black Death. It’s possible to recover from population decline, but population replacement is something else entirely. The central issue is population replacement. No other issue comes close in terms of importance.
* Q: Why is “diversity” and “multiculturalism” demanded in All white populations & Only white populations?
A: Diversity means Chasing Down the Last White Person.
Anti-whites demand No-White-Anything-Anywhere. Racial/cultural elimination is the white “privilege”.
Q: Why don’t Self-Proclaimed “anti-racists” attack the “racist” immigration and social policies of, say, Japan? Korea? Mexico?
A: Anti-racist is a Codeword for Anti-White
* In 2001, Greg Dyke, Director General of the BBC, made the following statement:
‘I think the BBC is hideously white. I think the BBC is a predominantly white organisation. The figures we have at the moment suggest that quite a lot of people from different ethnic backgrounds that we do attract to the BBC leave. Maybe they don’t feel at home, maybe they don’t feel welcome.’
He added that by 2003, 10 per cent of the BBC’s UK workforce and 4 per cent of management would be from ethnic minority backgrounds.
“Hideously white” – well, since then there have been enormous changes. In its reporting the BBC now tries to maintain a massive African content – so much so that almost every program on World Service Radio MUST contain an African perspective: whether it is about arts, sciences, history, industry, economics, healthcare – you name it, sure as eggs, an African slant will get worked in. Also, a considerable number of African presenters has been hired – one of them in particular with an accent so strong that he is barely intelligible (though very fluent!).
* Who is it that demands massive non-white immigration into the US & Europe while preventing any non-Jew immigration into Israel?
* White males were the first group to see slower job growth and lower labor force participation in the early 1980s, right at the beginning of the shift away from an egalitarian society. This is because affirmative action started to be implemented in a meaningful way right at that time.
Pushing women into the workplace was also a result of affirmative action, and that had a negative effect on marital stability for non-elite whites. Affirmative action has been a net negative for whites, and liberals often gloat over our reduced status, saying things like “white men are enraged because they are no longer ‘privileged’” (as though the white working class ever was).
Affirmative action has had real, negative effects on non-elite white males, and that was by design. You may deny this, but it is universally unpopular with these non-elite whites. Is this because they are all stupid, ignorant, inbred rednecks as the anti-racist left would have us believe? Are they suffering from mass delusion? Were they fooled by aliens? Or the Republicans (who simply exploited white resentment of Democrats who sold them out)? No, they aren’t really that stupid. They know that affirmative action is against their interests.
Sure, elite whites supported it from the beginning. Republicans wanted women in the workforce during the Eisenhower administration. Democrats fought that hard for a while, and women mainly voted Republican until the 1970s (today’s gender gap is a reversal from those times). Saturating the labor market has always been capitalists’ goal, and women and minorities were seen as convenient tools for that.
Sure, it sucks for minorities that white men opposed immigration and didn’t want their jobs opened to others circa 1960, but they were looking after their and their families’ interests, and they comprised about 90% of the population. Maybe you think that’s evil. I think it’s pragmatic, just as Cesar Chavez thought it was pragmatic to keep immigrants from taking farm workers’ jobs in California back in the day.
And frankly speaking, blacks as a group are incapable of creating the kind of society that can support the industry and lifestyle whites built in the US, and that was and continues to be a widely known (although seldom admitted) fact. Contemporary Detroit is a sad testament to this inadequacy. So white workers felt that they deserved to share in the wealth created by a white society without the threat of replacement by cheaper labor, and rightly so. Is it fair that blacks should benefit from the society that made white industry possible while the whites who formed its bedrock are cast aside and forced to pay the bills for the problems created by black failure to conform to it? Maybe you think so, but for the white working class it was an enormous betrayal, yet a triumph for thieving elites. Remember: white industry was stifled in the slave society of the American South, and that’s what motivated most people to vote for Abe Lincoln — not Harriet Beecher Stowe and her quaint little fantasy.
As long as the white majority was steadily accumulating wealth this situation could be tolerated, but all that has changed, so white priorities will change as well. It’s as sure as the sun setting in the west. Maybe there’s nothing we can do about it, and we’re destined to live a lifestyle approximating that in Jalisco or – heaven forbid – Port au Prince, but that isn’t what we want, and we have every right to try to prevent it.
* All politics is tribal. “Right” and “left” have no meaning beyond their effect on various tribes’ fortunes. Communism, libertarianism, liberalism, democratism claim to be universalist, but self-professed universalists are often the biggest tribalists of all.
* The Left / Right dichotomy is useless. While plenty of her policies are right wing, if anything, on the whole, Marine Le Pen is more left wing. For example:
• She is against free trade.
• She is for a larger welfare state.
• She is against paying interest on state loans and wants the Bank of France to “loan” to the state at 0% interest (this is a fancy way of calling to print money).
• She is strongly Keynesian and only calls for using gold as part of a plan to try to establish dollar-free international trade (Keynes’ Bancor).
• She is strongly anti-American.
• She is against America’s military crusades in the Middle East.
• She wants to impose border tariffs and use the money to raise the minimum wage.
• She detests multi-nationals and instead supports the petit-bourgeois small shop owners.
• She hates Wall Street and big banks. She wants to nationalize French banks.
• She is against immigration (Cesar Chavez, Walter Mondale, Ralph Abernathy leftism).
In short she wants to take an increasingly global and feral capitalism and harness it to the yoke of national sovereignty in order to re-domesticate it.
The real split is between globalists and nationalists. In this case Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, David Cameron, Nigel Farage, Ed Koch, Adolf Hitler and Richard Nixon are/were all globalists (Farage may change his globalist ways but hasn’t so far). Hitler for example brought in slave immigrants to work in German factories. He tried to set up a globalist system with himself in charge of it.
Examples of recent nationalists that are similar to Le Pen (nationalist, socialist, and secular) would be Saddam Hussein, Mouammar Kadhafi, and Bachar el-Assad. See a trend there?
Since American sees herself as now ruling the globe; elite America’s “nationalism” is now globalism.
* I have had these thoughts about assimilation of an immigrant group into the original residents. It is entirely sexual. The speed of absorption is a function of the sexual attractiveness of both genders of the immigrant group, but the female is more important than the male. If the female of the immigrant group is unattractive to the males of the original group, or if the immigrant group can constrain its females over generations from selecting and mating with the males of the original group, then the immigrant will remain as a racially distinct group.
When I was a boy in the late 60s and early 70s and I watched college football, the Big 10 teams all had large numbers of players named Wojohowitsz or Obramowitz. Less than 50 years later, these names have practically disappeared from public note. Much the same could even be said for Italian names. You almost never see classic Italian names in the public record. The Poles were absorbed very quickly as the blond, attractive, eastern European Polish girls were quickly snatched up by white American men. Texas is another example of this. Central Texas was first settled by Germans and Bohemians. When I was a boy there were still Kocureks and many other “Bohunk” names. Not so much any more, even the Schultzs and Schmidts, and now getting sucked into the melting pot that is Texas.
Take the opposite. African Americans. It has been noted that Whites are pretty much about 99 point something percent European and blacks run something from 40 to 90 something percent African. And much of the “whiteness” in blacks has really been something more recent as more interracial relationships, largely between white women and black men, have occurred. Black women remain of no interest to white males. Thus with each generation, at least 50% of blacks born in the US have no sexual value, at least no reproductive value, to others outside of that racial group.
Consider American Indians. Immediately, given the completely male dominated nature of “settlement”, female American Indians “hooked up” with European males. And across each generation, the most attractive females, packed up, hooked up, with some European stock male. When you close your eyes, and think of “reservation” life, it is predominately male, those lower, less attractive, less intelligent, less capable males, that comprise the bulk of the indigenous population. The women leave those males behind.
American females, are nothing, if they are not hypergamistic. It is the screech of the Manosphere about how “conditional”, how “mercenary”, how entitled, how “rent seeking”, that American females truly are. But frankly, I think they are far less than there counterparts found in other parts of the globe. Try Colombian women if you want to encounter “rent seeking”. They are quite up front with there demand for “cash and prizes” from the men they allow to have access to them.
And those men “left behind” can end up quite radical, quite angry about their exclusion. If the most attractive women of their group are bailing on them for other males, and the females of the “original” group rebuke and reject immigrant males, they will be quite angry. The manosphere exists exactly because the “sex ratio” due to declining birthrate has created so few reproductive age women relative to the far greater number of “competitive” males. Those males are spread out across a far greater range of ages, each year with more males born than the previous. It is nothing to see 4 to 1 ratios, or greater, when you consider obesity, race, and the “pecking order” of female racial desirability: White, Asian, Latina, Black. And the rest of femcentric American society looks at these man as “loserterians”, bitter as they are left behind.
Inevitably, Europe will have issues with Muslim males. It was noted above that “Immigration was not the issue in the Charlie attacks because the attackers were born in France.” It has been noted that many of these “lone wolf” sorts of attacks are males that are “delinquents”, that the jailyard is the schoolyard of Jahidis. These men are from the bottom of “pecking order” of the sexual totem. European women reject them for their race, their religion, and mostly, their poverty. And it pisses them off. The essence of Islam, more than any other aspect of the religion, and really any of the three monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is constraint of the “feral” nature of female sexuality, “the civilization of love”. Islam seeks in its customs and laws, the lessen the hypergamy of females, and to constrain them in marriage.
Those “moderate” Muslims, the ones that may get sucked into the “melting pot” of western cultures, that ones that might accede to European rule of law, are those that have “skin in the game”: Those males that have “fortunate” enough to have a wife, kids. But even into the second generation, the pull on the females of that group, especially in a western environment of declining birthrate, is for the “girls” to run if they have to, and get selected if possible by the racially more favorable, and definitely the socially and economically more profitable European males, if they can. And in this sexual environment today, merely being “thinnish”, not particularly ugly, and having a Vagina, is all that is necessary for Asian women to “get in the game”. French boys will mate with those girls and the very hard nature of today’s sexual market, combined with the “beta” producing factory that is modern culture, will cause French white beta males to jump at the chance for sexual access and will marry to ensure that access is hopefully permanent. There a multitudes of stories about the horrors of “honor killings” or Muslim families repressing daughters in order to keep the girl in the fold and restricting her hypergamy.
And this will leave behind, an embittered, angry, excluded group of males in a lower racial caste, a lower economic caste, men who revert back to core Islamic values that designed to keep Islamic females in check, lessen their hypergamy, early family assigned marriage, early childbirth, low education, fewer options.
These attacks have more to do with sexual access than religion.
The earthquake and tsunami that walloped Japan left much of its coastline ravaged, but left one thing intact: the Japanese reputation for honesty.
In the five months since the disaster struck, people have turned in thousands of wallets found in the debris, containing $48 million in cash.
More than 5,700 safes that washed ashore along Japan’s tsunami-ravaged coast have also been hauled to police centers by volunteers and search and rescue crews. Inside those safes officials found $30 million in cash. One safe alone, contained the equivalent of $1 million.
The National Police Agency says nearly all the valuables found in the three hardest hit prefectures, have been returned to their owners.
“Heritability for the “big five” core personality traits as: Extraversion 0.86, Openness 0.92, Neuroticism 0.59, Agreeableness 0.85, Conscientiousness 0.81.”
* Steve, I just discovered the Dalhousie University Dental School Facebook “scandal.” I heard about it last night on the CBC. As far as I can tell, 13 male fourth-year dental students at Dalhousie formed a Facebook group in which they shared comments about which female students they’d like to “date” (so to speak) and that women were better off in the kitchen, etc. Somehow the CBC discovered this, and it has resulted in a MAJOR freakout such that the 13 students are being forced into separate classes to complete their last semester of dental school. Of course, the University has now commissioned an independent panel to look at the “larger issues.”
The important subtext I discovered only in the comments on a few sites is that the 13 were complaining about the preferential treatment that some of their female classmates had received.
* Being a thug pays off in romantic prospects. Showing up on time, respect for authority, doing a job you hate … that’s incompatible with the current model of romantic success. Keeping it real gets one laid in the ghetto. And barrio. So it repeats.
* Private schools can and do kick out students with bad characters. They remove the badly-behaved and the stupid from their sample. Shape up or ship out is the rule, at least where I am familiar with things.
Inevitably then, private schools score much better than public on any measure of student performance. I think someone like Steve would have a name for this, like skewing the sample or something. (I’m not a statistician or market researcher, but I can tell when two things are being unfairly compared.)
We here know that personality is heavily genetic, and we also know that some aspects of character vary by race.
What we also know is that good character is reinforced by consequences. Guidelines, expectations and consequences. These things are kept out of public schools, by law even.
* Here’s a group of people ill-suited to teach character:
– Government employees who can’t be fired, work short hours and get long vacations
– People whose bachelor’s degrees are the easiest to obtain of any bachelor’s degree
– People whose job it is to teach from approved textbooks in an approved way and who are not rewarded in any way for creativity or originality
– People who in most cases cannot compete successfully in the private sector
– People who get their jobs without having to pass an aptitude test
– Leftists, socialists.
Public school teachers are at the intersection of all six of those Venn diagram circles. If kids are going to get character education, they will have to get it from their parents. Too bad mom and dad both have to work all the time.
* This problem began when black community agitators in the 1960s fought teachers’ unions for control of the classroom. Black students couldn’t buck up to the unions’ white ideas of what good character was. So standards had to be dropped to the lowest level, where they remain today.
* I send my kid to the local corner elementary school here in Japan. I’ve been pretty impressed with this. First, they stick to the the three R’s for the most part.
Second, they teach character/personality quite unapologetically. For instance, report card includes getting graded on things like “listening to others”. Gaman/ganbaru (self-control/extreme effort) are also big topics. It is pretty pervasive in almost everything they do, things like the big kids mentoring littler kids, being truly sorry when you screw up, etc.
I’ve been extremely pleased with the school system here in Japan. The facilities are, for the most part, extremely simple/aged/rundown by U.S. standards – e.g. they don’t have central heating at my kid’s school and it is not out in the country or anything – but that just proves that the U.S. is throwing money away on that stuff.
* If you taught your children the warrior code, they would go happily and courageously into a hail of gunfire to shield the unworthy and the contemptible. That might seem like a useless death to those concerned with “getting ahead,” but those of noble spirit are not concerned with what the lesser men think of them. “To thine own self be true.”
A great book for young men and women I would recommend on this score is “Once an Eagle” by Anton Myrer. Myrer himself was no slouch: Boston Latin, Exeter, Harvard, and the Marine Corps in the Pacific.
A friend gives me a hard time for my inability to care for the Los Angeles Lakers the past two years now that they’re losers with no relief in sight. “Either you’re fan or you’re not,” he says.
Another friend: “Luke doesn’t know the meaning of loyalty. Luke was born a Christian, now he’s a Jew. It’s like he starts the game as a Laker, and then if they’re trailing at half-time, he puts on a Knicks uniform.”
“What’s the name of your team, Luke? The Sydney Turncoats? The Ford Advantageous?”
Chaim Amalek: “The future does not belong to the Godless, muscle-less cartoonist of the increasingly geriatric left, but to the virile men and women of Islam, who see what they want and then dare to take it. Once, we were such men as they, but not for many years now. Fratricidal, pointless war in 1914 plus its denouement (Bolshevism, Nazism, WW2, decolonization, open borders/open rectums etc.) have left the white man a pale shadow of what his forebears were. To dare to be a man these days the White Man of the West has but two choices: Vladimir Putin and Islam. The choice is obvious: ALLAHU AKBAR!”
“I urge you to face your destiny: to lead a haj of Jew and Christian men over to the one place where our anally-receptive elites cannot go to deny a man the right to be a man: Islam. Begin with the residue women of porn, then use them as a lure for the men. What homo or feminist would dare oppose you in your jihad against them? Islam is the last refuge of the White Man.”
“I swear to you this is the truth: If Islam attracted more hot women and white people in general, I’d give it some serious consideration. Consider its opposite, Ethical Culture and (as it is practiced in Manhattan) Unitarianism. No contest.”
“Luke, just think how different your life would be today if instead of tuning in to Dennis Prager on that fateful day, you had caught a broadcast from some defiant Muslim preacher. You would have become a warrior for Islam, of that I am certain. But what would your Muslim name have been? Lahi’ah al-Austraylia perhaps. Or Levi ibn Abrahim.”
“Also, I shall venture the opinion that Muslim Men do not vex themselves with talk of sex addiction or other such inventions of 19th century apostate Jews or their followers. Want to think of a world without Marx, without Freud, without Friedan? Then think of Islam. Islam offers the purity of existence that so many of the lost white men of the Judaized Christian West seek. Islam – the chance to be a man without having to apologize for it.”
Sam Vaknin says: The narcissist often strikes people as laid back, parasitic, spoiled, and self-indulgent. Appearances can deceive. Narcissists are either compulsively driven over-achievers or chronic under-achieving wastrels. Most of them fail to make productive use of their capacities. Many narcissists avoid the now standard path of academic degree, a career, a family life. The disparity between the accomplishments of the narcissist and his grandiose fantasies and inflated self-image is the grandiosity gap. It is a staggering abyss and in the long run it is insupportable. It imposes onerous exigencies on the narcissist’s grasp on reality and his social skills. It pushes the narcissist either to seclusion or to a frenzy of acquisition — cars, women, wealth, power. Anything to sustain his self-image. No matter how successful the narcissist, the grandiosity gap can never be breached. The narcissist’s false self is so unrealistic, his expectations of himself are so way out there, his super-ego is so sadistic, his inner voices that criticize him, there is nothing the narcissist can do to extricate himself from the Kafka-esque trial that is his life.
The narcissist is a slave to his own inertia. Narcissist’s are one-state machines programmed to extract narcissistic supply from other people. They develop routines and this inability to change confines the narcissist and limits his horizons. Add to this toxic mixture the narcissist’s sense of entitlement, his visceral fear of failure, his need to be perceived as unique, one often ends up with a recipe for inaction.
The under-achieving narcissist dodges challenges, shirks tests, avoids competition and responsibility, sidesteps expectations, ducks duties, evades authority. The narcissist is afraid to fail. Doing something that everyone else does endangers my sense of uniqueness. Hence the narcissist’s apparent laziness, parasitism, and sense of entitlement with no commensurate accomplishment aggravates his milieu. People tend to regard such narcissists are spoiled brats.
The over-achiever narcissist’s hyper-activity is merely the flip side of the under-achiever’s inactivity. It is as fallacious, all smoke and mirrors. Narcissists often act outside the law. These narcissists whistle in the dark.
Chaim Amalek: “My sense is that orthodox Hasidic Jews are more hostile to mainstream WASPS than mainstream WASPS are towards orthodox Hasidic Jews.”
Luke Ford: “Yes, but only because Hasidic Jews have more in-group solidarity. Not because of anything else.”
Chaim Amalek: “Mormons have plenty of in-group solidarity. But when I am around Mormons, I never get the sense that they hate Jews. There are distinctions to be made between in-group solidarity per se, and defining the group in terms of kinship and tribalism. Rabbinical Judaism is very heavily tribal/genetic/familial. It does not seek converts because simply put, it does not want their blood to taint theirs. By and large Mormons, although keen on in-group solidarity, are happy to welcome converts to their group (at least those that are not black, who only recently were admitted to their priesthood). Also, the Hasidic rabbinate has a stake in keeping at least the flame of antisemitism burning, as it helps them control their flocks by spooking them with warnings about the bad goyim on the outside of the Torah Corral.”
Sports plays no role in Judaism (while the Greek-influenced New Testament is filled with references to athletics).
My rav poseks that the only Jew allowed to watch a game is an owner or someone who takes bets. Let the goyim worry about this nareshkeit.
As friends of mine argue: Jews should rescind all support for institutions that seek to make Hate Speech a crime of any sort. That would mean sacking leaders of most mainstream Jewish defense organizations, and their dinner guest speakers such as Elie Wiesel.
Law professor Jonathan Turley writes:
The greatest threat to liberty in France has come not from the terrorists who committed such horrific acts this past week but from the French themselves, who have been leading the Western world in a crackdown on free speech.
Indeed, if the French want to memorialize those killed at Charlie Hebdo, they could start by rescinding their laws criminalizing speech that insults, defames or incites hatred, discrimination or violence on the basis of religion, race, ethnicity, nationality, disability, sex or sexual orientation. These laws have been used to harass the satirical newspaper and threaten its staff for years. Speech has been conditioned on being used “responsibly” in France, suggesting that it is more of a privilege than a right for those who hold controversial views…
The cases have been wide-ranging and bizarre. In 2008, for example, Brigitte Bardot was convicted for writing a letter to then-Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy about how she thought Muslims and homosexuals were ruining France. In 2011, fashion designer John Galliano was found guilty of making anti-Semitic comments against at least three people in a Paris cafe. In 2012, the government criminalized denial of the Armenian genocide (a law later overturned by the courts, but Holocaust denial remains a crime). In 2013, a French mother was sentenced for “glorifying a crime” after she allowed her son, named Jihad, to go to school wearing a shirt that said “I am a bomb.” Last year, Interior Minister Manuel Valls moved to ban performances by comedian Dieudonné M’Bala M’Bala, declaring that he was “no longer a comedian” but was rather an “anti-Semite and racist.” It is easy to silence speakers who spew hate or obnoxious words, but censorship rarely ends with those on the margins of our society.
Notably, among the demonstrators this past week at the Place de la Republique was Sasha Reingewirtz, president of the Union of Jewish Students, who told NBC News, “We are here to remind [the terrorists] that religion can be freely criticized.” The Union of Jewish Students apparently didn’t feel as magnanimous in 2013, when it successfully sued Twitter over posts deemed anti-Semitic. The student president at the time dismissed objections from civil libertarians, saying the social networking site was “making itself an accomplice and offering a highway for racists and anti-Semites.” The government declared the tweets illegal, and a French court ordered Twitter to reveal the identities of anti-Semitic posters.
Recently, speech regulation in France has expanded into non-hate speech, with courts routinely intervening in matters of opinion. For example, last year, a French court fined blogger Caroline Doudet and ordered her to change a headline to reduce its prominence on Google — for her negative review of a restaurant.
Sam Vaknin talks about how a narcissist experiences holidays: “In the narcissist, holidays provoke a particularly virulent strain of pathological envy. The narcissist is jealous of others for having a family or for being able to celebrate lavishly and being in the right festive mood. The narcissist’s cognitive dissonance crumbles. He keeps telling himself, look at those inferior imitation of humans, how they are wasting their time pretending to be happy yet deep inside the narcissist knows he is the defective one. He realizes that his inability to rejoice is a punishment meted out to him by his self.”
“The narcissist is sad on special occasions and wants to spoil it for those who can enjoy. He wants them to share his misery, to reduce them to his level of emotional absence. The narcissist hates humans because he is unable to be one.”
“Holidays remind the narcissist of a loving supportive family he never had and what could have been and never was, and as he grows older, he knows never will be. He feels deprived, cheated and persecuted. He rails against the injustice of the cold world.”
“Holidays are a conspiracy of the emotional haves vs the emotional have-nots.”
“Birthdays are a narcissistic injury. They are an imposition, a reminder of vulnerability. The narcissist destroys the happiness of others to equalize the misery. He rages to induce rage in others. Holidays produce nihilistic emotions in the narcissist. On holidays and on his birthday, the narcissist makes it a point to carry on with his routine. He does not celebrate. He works till the wee hours of the night. This is his rejection of social norms, his in-your-face statement of withdrawal. This feeds his scorn. The narcissist wants to be drawn out of his sulking and pouting, yet he declines any such offer. He hurts those who try to make him smile. On holidays, the narcissist is reminded that this grudge is all he has. Those people who threaten to take his grudge away from him with their love and cars are the mortal enemies of the narcissist.”
