Sunday, May 19, 2019

Dysphoria Dollars


thumbnail: Look magazine cover (1/27/1970), featuring article title "Transsexuals: Male or Female?"

You say dysphoria, I say disorder, let's call society off. Talking about transsexualism and profit with Holly and ecce lux.

Subscribe to my YouTube channel.

Saturday, May 18, 2019

Monetizing Madness

Incremental change means you have to stop sometimes and step back to appreciate just how insane things are. Ironically the one place you don't want to look is in the psychiatric profession.

The American Psychiatric Association's DSM still effectively lists transsexualism as a mental disorder--only now it's "transgenderism" and it's classified as "dysphoria". The distinction is politically motivated and narrative-crucial: as far as I can tell, if you have a disorder you're ill, nuts in old-speak, if you have dysphoria you're just unhappy. In fact, you're unhappy because society is ill, with its traditional gender roles. That's implied in the DSM and shouted through the Megaphone.

But there remains a contradiction here for an opposition to exploit, should one develop.

Nantional Review interviewed a Canadian academic and trans heretic who worked on the DSM and was temporarily booted from Twitter for giving a clinically correct, politically incorrect opinion
Madeleine Kearns: You believe transsexualism and gender dysphoria to be a mental disorder. Am I correct in saying that’s how it appears in the DSM-5 [the current edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is the bible of psychiatry]?

Ray Blanchard: Yes. The diagnostic entity is called gender dysphoria in DSM-5. It was first introduced in DSM-III under the name transsexualism, and it was still called transsexualism or gender-identity disorder, I forget which, in DSM-IV, but in DSM-5 the name of the entity got changed to gender dysphoria. But the diagnostic criteria are fairly similar.

Kearns: Why was there a name change then? Was that to avoid the word “disorder”?

Blanchard: Yes, it was primarily to make patients and also trans activists and transsexual-activist groups feel happy or that they had been listened to, but I would say that the name change probably owed more to — or owed as much to politics as it did to any change in the science.
There's more than keeping trannies happy here. As if pacifying the emotions of our growing class of drama queens on hormones isn't one impossible task too many already. The APA's adjustment means trans folk can have their cake and eat it too--specifically they can have their normal status and insurance coverage too
Kearns: Is it anything do with the fact that, obviously for insurance and medical providers, there would need to be a medical problem in order for it to justify treatment?

Blanchard: Absolutely. There has to be a diagnosis in order for third-party payment. Whether we are talking public or private insurance, there has to be a diagnosis of some disorder to pay for sex-reassignment surgeries or for people who have drug plans in order to pay for testosterone injections or estrogenic medications for biological males. So this is something that for the trans activists is a stumbling block. If there isn’t a disorder of some sort, then all individuals who wanted to have sex-reassignment surgery or exogenous hormones would be paying the whole cost themselves. 
Kearns: It seems to me that many activists hold two contradictory positions simultaneously. One is that transgenderism is not a mental disorder and the other is that gender dysphoria is a mental disorder. How does one make sense of that? 
Blanchard: I think it’s this kind of Talmudic reading of the DSM. It’s like, well, gender dysphoria is a mental disorder because that’s now listed in the DSM. But transsexualism isn’t a mental disorder because that’s no longer a word used in the DSM. It’s just this kind of weird, na├»ve outsiders’ literalist interpretation of how the DSM is written.
The battle next be over the extent to which we will be compelled to pay for the transsexual revolution. If we foot the bill we not only pay to perpetuate the problem we probably increase the ranks of the transsexual, already trending upward, encouraged by political propaganda romanticizing the individual transsexual as heroic and, of course, good old American commerce joining in.

If we could force everyone who wants such as gender reassignment surgery to pay for it, we'd probably get a lot less of it. If we can be forced to pay for it, we'll get a lot more of it. Disturbingly, a lot of people stand to profit from this market.

Friday, May 17, 2019

Summer Re-run

Summer. Nineteen eighty-something. We were parting the traffic on the 605 southbound for Huntington Beach; I was wearing nothing but shorts and sandals, one hand holding on to the motorcycle seat, the other cradling a six-pack of beer, football-style. We leaned headlong into the wind like a pair of ski-jumpers, as P. effortlessly weaved the stodgy Honda CB350 through the cars, rendering them still as haystacks. I peered into them as we passed, looking for girls. My head rocked with spontaneous energy, to some silent beat, the effect of the youth spending itself within me. The exquisite expiration of childhood. We shouted back and forth in the gale we carried along with us, laughing through mouths windswept into lunatic grins; we cheerfully harried the odd fellow who was momentarily abreast and sharing our direction. We turned with the road into a direct and endless path toward a sun that will never set...

Thursday, May 16, 2019

Quantum Mechanical Cherokee Midnight Moon Stream



Talking Comanches, God and women.

 Indian killer George "Comanche Bill" Porter interviewed by the Davenport Gazette in 1871:
There has been stopping in this city for a couple of days past one of those characters who have made for themselves a celebrant for their bravery and daring on the plains of the far West, among the Indians and the buffalo, in recounting whose deeds and hair-breadth escapes and peculiar lite the pages of romance are filled. The person to whom we refer is no less a character than "Comanche Bill," who is reputed to be the slayer of no less than 183 Indians.

He has been nine years on the plains, part of which time he has been in the employ of the Government as scout. He has hunted and killed Indians for the pleasure and sweets of revenge, and hunted and trapped of necessity. He us now on his return to his old life in the West, having been on a visit to his early home in Minnesota. He is about 28 years of age, of slender build, sandy complexioned, with a profusion of hair that he wears long on the neck. His dress is a pair of buckskin pants, ornamented from the outer seaius with a row of steel buttons, a coarse shirt, an old coat and a broad-brimmed hat. His eye is piercing keen, and he has a grip like a dozen blacksmiths. In response to our questions he said : 
"My name is George W. Porter. I have been on the plains since '62. I was in the Minnesota massacre, near New Ulm, the 18th of August of that year. All my folks were killed except me and my little sister three years old, whom they took prisoner." 
" Where were yon?"
"I was away at the military station on business; went the day before. " The first I knew of the massacre, I was coming along the road on my way home, when I saw a little way ahead of me a wagon filled with women and children, that the settlers had sent to the station for protection. Just then I saw the Indians pounce upon them, and I dodged into the woods. I could hear the hatchets crushing into their heads. They killed 'em all, every one." 
" What did you do ? "
"They scalped 'em, and when the coast was clear, I got out and pretty soon along came a company of cavalry, and we buried them." 
"Why didn't you follow after the Indians?"
"I had no horse, and the captain didn't want his men to go. You see that was in '62, and everything was topsy-turvy." 
" Did yon visit the scene of the massacre at New Ulm?"
"Yes. I went there the next day, and saw my father and mother all scalped and cut up, and my sister was gone. I swore by the eternal God that I would never rest until I had had revenge — a bloody revenge."  
"Did you get any traces of your sister?"
"Why, yes; they was the Yankton, Swanee and Sioux Indians, and I knowed them pretty well. I learned that they had her. I knowed what they'd do with her."  
"'You have not been successful in your efforts to secure her?"
"No; you see, single-handed and alone, a man don't stand much chance. That's what I had been doing all the time. Once, in Arizona, I was right in sight of her. The way I knowed it was her was, I had been on the trail of the band of Sioux that had her a long time, and she was the only white person they had. This was in '65, and then she looked just like mother. I waited, and watched, and picked an Indian off every little while, when he'd get a mile or two from camp, but 'twas no use. They kept too close watch over her."  
"Were you ever captured?"
"Yes. The Blackfeets captured me and Jim Braden in '64, when we were out hunting. They came on us with a rush, but they didn't get us, though, until I had killed one young buck." 
"What did they do with you you?"
"They marched about twenty-five miles to their camp, and there they stripped us of everything we had, and tied us up to a stake and let the women pound us with clubs. They did this every day tor eight days. We were tied with buckskin thongs, and one night it ruined and we slipped out of 'em when they got wet. Jim got away all right, but just as I 'was gettin' my things on, an old squaw woke up and gave the alarm. There was but four Indians in camp. The rest had gone on a hunt. I run, with only my knife. They came up to me, and I had a desperate fight. One shot hit me in the left arm (exhibiting scar. I cut and slashed the buck that got hold of me, and finally give him one under the ribs, so he wont tie any more thongs. And he cut me, too, here, and here, and here (showing the scars on his arm, neck and breast). The other buck never came near, for I'd got this buck's gun afore he'd reached us."
For a minute there I thought Porter must have been the inspiration for a favorite film of mine as a child, Jeremiah Johnson, but no, that story is about a man of that name who's claimed to have killed hundreds of Crow Indians to avenge their killing his wife--a squaw.

Guest Jennifer Scharf has a theory proving the existence of God through quantum physics. Claire Khaw passed along this communication she received:
"Hello Jennifer Scharf and Claire Khaw. I ran across your online dialogues a week ago, and despite having studied many extremes of human thought over the years, I found the two of you, both individually and together, to be a unique and arresting phenomenon: two women, alt-right-adjacent but with imperious and idiosyncratic intellectual agendas, fighting it out in an almost unnoticed corner of philosophy Youtube.

I've tuned into two or three streams by now, I made a few comments in the chat, but I wanted to get in touch in a more formal way. As well as hello, this email is a step towards goodbye, because I do need to return to my own intellectual universe. But I felt that it is more civilized to send a personal communication, rather than just slip away as an anon.

I feel that my most substantial remarks are for Jennifer. I hesitate to make them, since they are a criticism of her physics, which to a great extent seems to be the jewel in the crown of her intellectual pride, and it might be a net loss if she were to suspend her philosophical barnstorming, because of doubts about her personal theory of everything. Nonetheless...

I read "Quantum Chemistry Teaser" in an attempt to see what your point is, regarding the periodic table. What I see is that you have a kind of combinatorial scheme, which serves to generate a number of types of "atom", matching the the number of elements in the periodic table.

However, the variety of atoms in the world already has an explanation, in terms of possible electron wavefunctions, indexed by four quantum numbers; and there are specific reasons why those numbers can take the values that they do. I simply don't believe that your explanation is remotely compatible with that other explanation; and that other explanation is part of a larger framework which can, for example, explain the emission spectra of atoms, in terms of energy differences between orbitals.

What I believe you have done, is attempt to prematurely forge a connection between physics and metaphysics. Such a connection provides a qualitative and intuitive interpretation of physics that is missing from any purely calculational framework. But you're doing this in a way which negates large and verified parts of the calculational framework. Never mind skepticism about the standard model; despite your use of quantum notation, what you're doing appears to be something already inconsistent with the kind of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics that describes orbitals.

I never yet heard of someone who made a seriously deviant personal theory of physics, and then abandoned it for orthodoxy. At least, I can't think of any such person. I suppose one reason for it is the mathematical difficulty of advanced physics. If you really want to know the truth, but for whatever reason aren't willing to spend however long it takes to learn gauge field theory and similar formalisms, it must be tempting to just keep finetuning your own creation.

So, as a bridge between your efforts and the kind of physics that any actual university lab utilizes in order to understand Bose condensation and a hundred other phenomena, I would like to point out the work of Michael Atiyah on "complex geometry of nuclei and atoms" and "geometric models of helium". Atiyah was a very eminent mathematician who died earlier this year, and who in his final years, very sensibly decided to go for it, and began to speculate much more than in his previous works. Although physics contains a number of examples of surprising alternative descriptions of the same thing, I think it is very unlikely that this work of his actually connects to reality; but perhaps it will be stimulating for you to investigate.

And as for Claire... I regret that I have much less to say to you. As your interests are political and practical, they don't face the same kind of critique as a new theory of nature, and frankly my political thinking is not as evolved as my scientific thinking. I guess all I will say is that I think I understand your motives, and that secular Quranism is an ingenious attempt to use the material provided by humanity's historic civilizations and the current western situation, to restore patriarchy; but it probably has the most chance of being successful, in the places that need it the least.

One more thing, for you both. Are you aware of vixra.org? This is the free-for-all twin of arxiv.org, a site where academic physicists, computer scientists, and biologists post preprints of their papers. vixra was started by physicists who were being excluded from arxiv, but has since expanded to accommodate papers on all kinds of subject matter. Essentially anything can be posted, so long as it is not a work of libel or plagiarism. If either of you wishes to codify part of your thought in the form of a PDF, it could be another medium to use. 
Best wishes to you both, Mitchell Porter"

Tuesday, May 14, 2019

White Indians and Black Thoughts

I don't know how true this is
So there was a bit of traffic back and forth between America and Comancheria in the 19th century. White people being captured and raised by Comanches. The captives being recaptured years later and taken back into normal white society. Indians being defeated and settled on reservations and taught to adopt white lifestyles. And throughout the book's description of these events, there was one constant: 
All of the white people who joined Indian tribes loved it and refused to go back to white civilization. All the Indians who joined white civilization hated it and did everything they could to go back to their previous tribal lives.
The "last Comanche chief" Quanah Parker was born to a white mother, who was
unhappily repatriated
Parker was adopted [kidnapped--Wikipedia!] by the Comanche and lived with them for 24 years, completely forgetting her white ways. She married a Comanche chieftain, Peta Nocona, and had three children with him, including the last free Comanche chief, Quanah Parker. 
At approximately age 34, Parker was discovered and forcibly relocated by the Texas Rangers, but spent the remaining 10 years of her life refusing to adjust to life in white society. At least once, she escaped and tried to return to her Comanche family and children, but was again brought back to Texas. She found it difficult to understand her iconic status to the nation, which saw her as having been redeemed from the Comanches. Heartbroken over the loss of her family, she stopped eating and died of influenza in 1871.
As for Quanah Parker he seems to have thrived, even after finally surrendering to the US government and moving on to the reservation.

Herman Lehman was kidnapped by Apaches as a boy but ended up a Comanche
A few months after Lehman's capture, the Apaches lied and told Lehmann they had killed his entire family, depriving him of any incentive to attempt escape. The Apaches took Herman Lehmann to their village in eastern New Mexico. He was adopted by a man named Carnoviste and his wife, Laughing Eyes. A year after his capture, General William T. Sherman passed through Loyal Valley on an inspection tour. Augusta Lehmann Buchmeier was granted a private audience with Sherman to plead for his assistance in finding her son. 
The Apaches called Lehmann "En Da" (White Boy). He spent about six years with them and became assimilated into their culture, rising to the position of petty chief. As a young warrior, one of his most memorable battles was a running fight with the Texas Rangers on August 24, 1875, which took place near Fort Concho, about 65 miles west of the site of San Angelo, Texas. Ranger James Gillett nearly shot Lehmann before he realized he was a white captive. When the Rangers tried to find Lehmann later, he escaped by crawling through the grass... 
Around the spring of 1876, Herman Lehmann killed an Apache medicine man avenging his killing of Carnoviste, his chief and master. Fearing revenge, he fled from the Apaches and spent a year alone in hiding. He became lonely and decided to search for a Comanche tribe that he might join. He observed a tribe all day long then entered the camp just after dark. At first they were going to kill him, however, a young warrior approached him that spoke the Apache tongue. Lehmann then explained his situation—that he was born white adopted by the Indians and that he left the Apaches after killing the medicine man. Another brave came forward verifying his story and he was welcomed to stay. He joined the Comanches who gave him a new name, Montechema (meaning unknown). 
Lehman fought the Texas Rangers until he was brought on to the reservation by Quanah Parker after holding out longer. He never fully adjusted to civilization, eventually returning to his Apache friends, after spending some time as a celebrity
 Throughout his life, Herman Lehmann drifted between two very different cultures. Lehmann was a very popular figure in southwestern Oklahoma and the Texas Hill Country, appearing at county fairs and rodeos. To thrill audiences, such as he did in 1925 at the Old Settlers Reunion in Mason County, he would chase a calf around an arena, kill it with arrows, jump off his horse, cut out the calf’s liver, and eat it raw.
That the nomadic life might be preferable to the modern, all else being equal, is certainly believable.
And the phenomenon of whites preferring the Indian lifestyle wasn't just limited to the Comanches of the 19th century. A paper by the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture (I wonder if they're related to Steve) notes that: "By the close of the colonial period, very few if any Indians had been transformed into civilized Englishmen. Most of the Indians who were educated by the English - some contemporaries thought all of them - returned to Indian society at the first opportunity to resume their Indian identities. Ont he other hand, large numbers of Englishmen had chosen to become Indians - by running away from colonial society to join Indian society, by not trying to escape after being captured, or by electing to remain with their Indian captors when treaties of peace periodically afforded them the opportunity to return home." 
It then goes on to quote no less a figure than Benjamin Franklin, who had independently noticed the same phenomenon: 
"When an Indian Child has been brought up among us, taught our language, and habituated to our Customs, yet if he goes to see his relations and makes one Indian Ramble with them, there is no persuading him ever to return. But when white persons of either sex have been taken prisoner young by the Indians, and lived a while with them, tho' ransomed by their Friends, and treated with all imaginable tenderness to prevail with them to stay among the English, yet in a Short time they become disgusted with our manner of life, and the care and pains that are necessary to support it, and take the first good Opportunity of escaping again into the Woods, from whence there is no reclaiming them."
History must be full of instances of nomads coming up against settler cultures, but few must have been across such a chasm of difference as that between nomadic Indians and modern westerners. It must have been like stepping into a time machine for both sides. And of course the nomads were the chads
Whites who met Comanches would almost universally rave about how imposing and noble and healthy and self-collected and alive they seemed; there aren't too many records of what the Comanches thought of white people, but the few there are suggest they basically viewed us as pathetic and stunted and defective.
Like Nietzsche, the Comanche saw modern Christians as "botched" people. But then the Germans romanticized American Indians, so he may very well have known of and been influenced by the phenomenon mentioned above.

Do we pay for modern life with the vitality we saw in those Comanches?

Sunday, May 12, 2019

White Supremacy on Death Row

"Spare the white man, kill the nigger!"
--Confederate troops at the Battle of the Crater

Every assistant D.A. in the Bronx … shared Captain Ahab’s mania for the Great White Defendant. For a start, it was not pleasant to go through life telling yourself, “What I do for a living is, I pack blacks and Latins off to jail.” It wasn’t that it was morally wrong … It was that it was in bad taste. So it made the boys uneasy, this eternal prosecution of the blacks and Latins.
--Bonfire of the Vanities

"Kill the wabbit, kill the wabbit..."
--Elmer Fudd*

Seeing a quote in a New York Times article from a prosecutor opposed to California's moratorium on capital punishment--
“Of the 24 or so who are presently eligible for execution, half of them are white men,” she said. “So let’s execute them.”
--I assumed I'd find a minority voice behind it. Off I went to get, as the song says, my fair share of abuse. Alas, the prosecutor is a white girl. A Becky; as such contending with Straight White Male for object of greatest abuse by the burgeoning new order.

Some reward that for years of betrayal of white men. Heartbreaking the reaction of white women in public life to the "Becky" campaign seeking their relegation to second-class status: doubling down on their condemnation of straight white men.

Prosecutors naturally fall to the right on the issue of crime, despite the Soros-funded efforts of recent years to elect progressive district attorneys and lower black incarceration rates yielding such as Kim Foxx and Dallas' lawfighter DA.

As more of these emerge, it will be interesting to see if they find their own law-and-order conservatism in cases involving whites. They've already all but announced their bias in that regard--coming in with the declared mandate to "lower incarceration rates". Relaxing laws is the first, most obvious means. It allows a minority of white criminals to ride the "reform" out of jail (perhaps--I suspect bureaucratic discretion in reducing sentences is biased against them) despite the reform being intended entirely for the benefit of their black fellow convicts.

But such measures will produce more crime and quickly realize diminishing returns in equalizing incarceration rates before they come up against reality. Something more will have to be done.

I think the experience of school discipline "reform" suggests what that will be. Reportedly one means of equalizing student suspensions between aggressive blacks and placid whites--without the literal blood sacrifice of murdered teachers that would come from complete capitulation--is to stringently enforce even the smallest rules in the case of non-black students, thus "equalizing" the numbers. One white kid suspended for cracking wise equals one black kid suspended for trying to choke the same white boy out, at the level of that statistic.

Progressive prosecutors for whom equality in incarceration is a noble goal are probably already doing this. And they are virtually unopposed. The Megaphone remains on message regarding criminal reform, blaring out all dissent and seducing the callow Trump and leading to his ill-advised First Step Act.

In our perverse order whites have long been their own persecutors--and executioners, enthusing over and acquiescing to their own demise. The spectacle of the California prosecutor's woke enthusiasm only makes this explicit and direct. We are now literally killing ourselves off to appease them.

Think it'll work?

*

Saturday, May 11, 2019

Life is Curious


Boards of Canada, Buckie High

Some of the best bands produce some of the best fan videos.

Dysphoria Dollars

thumbnail: Look magazine cover (1/27/1970), featuring article title "Transsexuals: Male or Female?" You say dysphoria, I say di...