Cuties (Editorial)

I have never seen Save the Last Dance or even Dirty Dancing. I don’t tend to like musicals and I absolutely hate dance movies. So this movie wouldn’t have ever of had a review from me to begin with. I see a lot of non-troversty when it comes to this movie though and it isn’t dissimilar from other movies of the 90’s that featured young actress dancing in sexual ways.

I know that the ages of the girls in a lot of those movies are near in or close to 20, and in Cuties, they’re the actual ages they’re supposed to be, but is a fake 15 year old that much different, when there is only a 5 difference between the actress and the character? I don’t think fake child exploitation is much different from real childhood exploration. If we’re to believe that these films embolden pedophiles, that even simulated situations are bad.

I’m not saying that you cannot strongly disagree with this movie, but lets look at Hollywood and a list of things that have happened in Hollywood that are beloved and never got much critics or got too little.

American Beauty has 17 year old nudity.(00s)

Blue Lagoon, 14 year old nudity. (70s)

Playboy, 11 year old nudity.(70s)

Every talk show with “My daughter is a teenage nymptho” (90s)

Wiki on album art here.

it’s literally a keyword on IMDB by clicking here and there is also a wiki dedicated to this here.

That isn’t even the tip of the iceberg in regards to this Hollywood or modeling in general.

There is a lot to be upset about in regards to exposition of minors in movies, TV and internet, but I don’t think this movie is one of those. I see it as a movie about children, who are dancing to a popular dance in their time frame, waring clothes that are no different that girls I went to school with in the 90s and in many cases more age appropriate, I mean, girls in my middle school wore thongs and playboy shirts for fuck sakes. I personally see this as a harmless film, whose best attribute was to get people talking about these things more than they have in the past.

Horror, Romance from a Male Perspective.

“Just because it’s a love story doesn’t mean it can’t have a decapitation or two.”

Robert Englund, Wes Cravens’ New Nightmare

Horror movies. Love them or hate them you most likely have a hardline opinion on them. Few have apathy for the genre. Some love gore, some love to be scared and some find those things to be damning to the soul and would much rather see these movies never be made again. Can we find a universal redeeming quality for one of my favorite genres? Maybe and that is what we’re going to look at. I believe Horror movies are really romances at heart, from the male point of view.

Obviously, what we’re seeing onscreen is “real” in terms of the world these characters are living in, So we’re dealing with this from the point of subtext and not a literal interpretation.

The typical killer in these movies are normally male and pretty masculine. They’re representative of the id and all the primitive instincts that make it up. Sexuality, Aggression and instincts. There is no ego or super ego to keep them in check, they couldn’t care less. Their driving force is satiety.

The typical survivor girl is almost always female, hence the term, and more akin of the ego and superego. They’re the ones struggling to keep control against the ID. This is why they’re often virtuous and innocent in the beginning.

Now that we set the tone for what I’m arguing, we can start to examine the micro aspects of the genre, like the weapon almost always being subtext for a phallus. Normally it is a blade of some sort, be it a sword, knife or machete. Why? Because at some point the survivor girl is going to be penetrated by the knife or cut somehow and this is subtext for sexual penetration. Masculinity and femininity combined as one, occasionally resulting in the monster themselves being impaled later on by their own weapon, in role reversal. I’ll elude more to this below.  

The friends or other victims are almost always shallow and that’s because the ID isn’t friendly to what it wants. I know a lot of us critics will point out that these characters need development and while I stand by that, the killer’s perspective couldn’t care less. When they’re men, they represent competition for what the ID wants and need to be dispatched and when they’re woman, they’re just “sexual” fodder, due to not satiating the unbridled carnality.

The endings usually see the survival girl “kill” off the monster, which is subtext for the lust being quenched by the object of desire and as stated above, the monster being penetrated, normally in the heart area, as subtext of falling in love, which juxtaposes with the females often being stabbed in the uterus area, as if being impregnated.

So why monsters as analogy, vs aggressive men? Men are often vilified for their desires and what they would do to achieve those ends. This is the enteral plight of the individuals fight with the ego, albeit not exhibited onscreen, but rather in how the villain is perceiving themselves and showing us who they feel as if they are.

Horror and romances even have similar plot points within the story structure. Meetcutes for instance, when the future couple meets for the first time. Halloween where Michael is standing behind the bush is an example of this.

While not exhaustive, when you examine these main points, all of this makes the horror-slasher genre really a love story from the point of the male libido.

Cancel CULTure and You: An overview of an undying trend.

Introduction
Cancel culture has been a buzz word for near a decade now and it hasn’t shown any signs of slowing. As of this writing, the newest member of the cancel wars is Bryan Adams. Why? Getting upset that he couldn’t have any concerts and saying this,

“….thanks to some f—ing bat eating, wet market animal selling, virus making greedy bastards, the whole world is now on hold….”

This type of tweet falls under the category of “Racism” by the people who jumped on the hashtag for canceling the Bruce of the north.

Why though, does all this stuff happen? It comes down to perspective for the most part. You see, humans are social. We work on cost/benefit ratio if you have ever read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. Within, you learn about monkeys, of which we share a majority of our DNA with. The animal groupings have at least two types. Reciprocal and Cheats. Reciprocal animals are prosocial, which is to say, they do things that benefit the tribe and are considered what would constitute a normal functioning human. Cheats are psychopathic animals, which get a net benefit from a fellow animal and do not reciprocate. Within the book Dawkins points out grooming, literal and not pedophilic, to remove tics and fleas from a fellow monkey to keep them healthy from disease, in turn, that monkey would do it for another. There are penalties for this antisocial behavior. In the US, for instance, we have prisons and rule of law to deal with this type of behavior. Everything follows from this and all is stepped in the primitive side of the brain. Cancel Culture is also an extension of this. So, the short answer is that yes, you’re a fuckin’ Nazi, but not for the reasons you think you’re a fuckin Nazi.

Perspective

I spoke about how people Tribalize within Pre-Crime, I mentioned the MBTI and how it functions. Beyond that, humans have two types of perspective. Global and local. Bill Hicks, legendary comedian, sums up the global perspective in this quote, excellently.

“Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Heres Tom with the Weather.”

Notice the quote does not leave out anyone, it, to borrow again from Bill, sees us all as one. Humanism is globalism and liberal perspective is also globalism. Local perspective is tribal and limited to only people like you. Hence, you’re genuinely a fuckin’ Nazi, since the Nazi were concerned with helping only Germanic whites. Other whites were not white and considered tainted by the Jew. Hitler was basically a cheat. When it came down to it, Nazi Germany flourished and all other white majority nations suffered during the depression an absolute catalyst for the Second World War. His lack of global perspective cost him, otherwise Nazi Germany might still exist had he form alliances with the United States and the United Kingdom whilst sharing his resources with them as both had done with Germany, as Hitler was ascending towards prominence, before everything went kaput.

Given those two perspectives, cancel culture comes more into focus as to why it happens and how to predict when, where, why and how it will strike next.

Internet Tribes

It’s no secret that humans are hyper-tribalized more than ever. Back in the 1940’s, you had states and nation. When local cities competed, it was school football and not relevant, most cities did not try to destroy one another. Now, that is all gone, instead we have generational cohorts, we have personality types, we have genetics, we have superficial visuals, we have music, movies, television and more that has turned human tribes into the equivalent an reductio ad absurdum argument. Internet tribes are no different from outside peer groupings in most cases, albeit, some slight differences. You can be both a winner and a loser. Online you can have 100k Instagram followers, but most of those losers still work at McDonald’s as not everyone is making enough to live on. Us writers know the value of a day job, whereas the internet porn star can make enough to not have a day job. We’re just going to focus on the internet version of you, not the real world version of you. Now to be fair, a person’s perspective can be influenced by a lot of things, you have to keep their perspective in mind. It’s no secret that I use social media for experimenting and have kept track of how people engage me on social media and I will be using myself as an example and go between perspective and reality.

Reality when it comes to me:
I’m from Salem, Mass.

I was born in 1986.

Technically, I fall into the category of neither Gen-X nor Millennial, but possess a tad bit of traits from each, now referred to as Xennial.
I MBTI type as INTJ often, but I have a J mother and a P father, so I possess traits of both of them as well, so the occasional person whom thinks I’m a INTP is perfectly reasonable.

Both my parents are young boomers, aka Generation Jones or the early 60’s boomers.

Straight

Cis

White

Atheist

Liberal upbringing

I consider myself fiscally conservative and socially liberal. By that, I mean, I like Gays, but like saving money.

I’m a writer, among other things, but this is one thing I’m currently doing, so we’re using this, regardless of other projects.

Now here is some perspective of me:

Most people think I’m purely a Gen-X kid, most of these people. Often people tell me I “Feel older”. Now a days, I am occasionally confused for a Gen Z kid, which is overly generous of most people.

Normally they consider me an INTJ or a very queer P type. I’m a consummate outsider, which is fine by me, because it allows for objective perspective. The phrase “You’re not like me” is said to me quite often and they mean it. I don’t disagree with these people that do not see me as being like them, because we’re often, very dissimilar.

Due to my perceived age, I don’t think people truly believe I am an atheist.
I’m considered Liberal

So, now that we have some traits out of the way, but it is in no way an exhaustive list, we can look at some of my past experiences on Twitter.
Recently, for the first time in years, I had a trigger fest. Not enough to cancel me, but what I refer to as WWE Heel Heat. I said, The Beetles suck. Yes, I went there and they triggered and it was pretty funny. How is this not “Pro-social” behavior? It isn’t, which is why I wasn’t cancelled, but considered queer by my perceived generational discrepancy. The problem here is more excessive fandom in one angle and immaturity on the other. Also, in some cases, that is pro-social behavior, such as slut shaming, which I mention in my essay “An Aside on the Ménage Et Toi” I see this more violently in Millennials than older generations, since when one becomes a full adult, one is supposed to have a more lax attitude towards differences like these, since connecting on more intricate levels is adulthood and something stupid like music is often how children engage each other.

Other things in this category include a Youtube video attacking religion, which got WWE heel heat about a decade ago.

Still, I have not been canceled, except from where I currently live, but that’s because the town is filled with idiots.

Plenty of my prosocial tweets get likes.

CONCLUSION
Now this brings me here, which is that the things people cancel each other over are clearly anti-social behavior, or psychopathy. One need look no further than to the homosexual man who is anti-gay marriage that is essentially cheating out his fellow homosexuals from what they desire. Cancel culture doesn’t look at intellectual arguments, it looks at behavior. If you do not believe that, in is one more way to tell, and that is Twitter doesn’t allow you to tattle on your own team mates. Why? It would be anti-social in their mind, when the reality is different. Now, I do not have a team, I am on no one’s side in the political spectrum. I’m a registered Libertarian only in that it encompasses my desire for maximum freedom. All sides are the same bull-shitters in my view and I don’t want anything to do with them. I independently hit both sides of the spectrum with thoughts and evidence. Neither side has a corner stone on thinking, yet they wouldn’t bother to register the reports. I can only report people not on my perceived team. I can see why Dorsey was never liked by his generation, he is very psychopathic. We’ll eventually get to him and one other famous social media figure, in regards to this similar topic, but in closing Thanks for choosing my team for me, Dorsey, when I never did. May you choke to death the next time you eat Chic’Fliet.

Communism for the USA: One for all and all for Comrade

A lot of people in entertainment seem to be obsessed with the concept that we’re slowly becoming a communist society and that that is ultimately a bad thing. I submit to you that we’re already living in Communist America and have been for nearly a century. You see it everywhere with Alt-Right vs Antifa, or Democrat vs Republican. We always seem to be at war with the communist. At one point in time, during WW2, communist were our allies in the fight against Hitler and the rest of the axis. Capitalism and Communism joining forces, though? Seems weird, since they’re like cats and dogs, right? Yet it happened and shortly after the fact America, clearly trying to wash the stink of pinko off their consciousness, profusely attacked anyone and everything it thought was a commie. McCarthy started it off in the 50’s and then the 60’s and 70’s saw Cuba and Vietnam as battlegrounds for anti-commie ideologues and least we forget the cold war, which lasted decades. So for something so inherently evil, we must surely need to teach our children about this horror, correct? Apparently not, as no one on either side, even neuvo communist, seem to understand what the fuck communist is and one side likes to keep purporting it hasn’t really been tried yet and the other sounding like the Ghost of Joseph McCarthy himself and all of it rings as hallow as the stereotype of your typical comrade. So what exactly is communism and what are its goals? Well, we’re going to define communism as Marxism and nothing past that. You see, anyone can highjack an ideology and use its name to push their negative agendas, history is full of this. Nazi’s originally started as a working class party before Hitler highjacked it. The Alt-Right has stolen conservatism for far right perversions as Antifa has perverted liberalism with far left insanity. As such, I have picked Marx for the fact it was a unique concept for the time, he did invent it technically and anything else riding his coats would not have been supported by the Herr Comrade himself, Marxist Clause.

So Marx defined communist as a proletariat run society, where the class struggle between them and the bourgeois would end and the workers would no longer be exploited. He had a list of 10 things that were the ultimate goals for communist to move to make for a better society and that is what we’re going to look at right now and see how bad Marxism really is as opposed to US Capitalism and give it a break down.

At first thought, a proletariat society doesn’t sounds too bad, I mean, it really wasn’t and original concept and goes back to ancient Rome with similar aspects, like the pata familiars. So it isn’t out of line to have been tried in the past that is until we get up to 1776, where our society also tried a government system by plebeian or as they put it “Government of the People, by the people for the people”. Marx would write the Communist Manifesto in the 1800’s. I know you’re thinking, that is irrelevant linking and surely there was a difference between rhetoric to arouse patriotic passion in early Americans and evil communism? Well, sure there is. America and Communism are vastly different systems with different goals, here I’ll show you by posting the list.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

The first desire to get rid of land rights and abolish the taxes on property that isn’t public land. How novel of him. Seems pretty conservative of him to want an end to property tax. He also didn’t want people to own land privately. Except no one really owns the land, the banks and governments do, so we’re already one step closer to apparently living in a Marxist world.

Now you’re saying, hey, that is just one thing that is similar and that doesn’t mean we’re living in a communist world. Look at all the non-commie world stuff. Ok, there are plenty of non-governmental examples of capitalism, but allow me to continue.
The second aspect he wants is a progressive tax or graduated tax. To those who do not know what that is, that would be where poor people pay no income tax and rich people pay more. Which obviously, isn’t an American concept at all! (Please note authors sarcasm)

Ok, you say, that is two similar things and there is a finite number of things in the world, so the odd thing or two is bound to be similar. Let us look at the next part which is the abolition of inheritance. In America, you have no right to inheritance. It is all based on legal documents that need to be drawn up that name you a benefactor of the individual’s possession in question. Why? A person could have innumerable wives, children and other family all whom could, technically speaking, lay a claim to any and all of it. Who would be more deserving or the family heirlooms, the son or a sibling? Who are we to decide which is more important than the other? Objectively speaking, this doesn’t exist. We even have a death tax, which to their credit, conservatives are against, so the only party that feels entitled to your stuff is government.

Ok, so that is three things out of 10, how many more could possibly be similar, well, glad you asked. 4 wants to take property from immigrants and rebels. I would presume there were different connotations to rebels in his time, but it seems to have pretty much the same as we already do this and both the left and right think it is kosher. FDR threw Japanese Americans into the gulags in the 40s and seized their property. Sure, Regan would rectify this in the 1980s, but it still happened. Our country is founded on taking other people’s stuff, like the Native Americans. If we extend rebels to include criminals, then in the 1970s, Biden introduced legislation to take property from criminals before they had even been indicted. This is very much in line with communism and their list of 10 things. 5 is the government having total control over credit by means of a national bank with state having a monopoly over money. Which sound a lot like the Federal Reserve bank, that pesky little thing libertarians hate but is loved by the GOP and Dems.

You’re probably banging your head on the table now being like, well there cannot be much more, ah but there is. Marx calls for Amtrak and other similar things being run by the state. 7 is excessive regulation, which pretty much means the government owns you by the balls and calls for forced working or as the GOP likes to cry about excessive “I have to work and so does everyone else”. 9 is government subsidies to farms and 10 calls for free education, of which, while not free, is state run and paid for by your tax dollars. He also wanted to end child labor and teach practical skill with other education, or what school has always universally had for a curriculum.

This is undoubtedly, beyond a shadow of a doubt, absolute smoking gun proof we live in a Marxist society. How have we fared? Well, the class struggle still exist, doesn’t it? The middle class is eroding and the divide is furthering, but yet we’re still calling for more of the same. Oh sure, I’ll admit that communist works in part, I mean, it has since 1776, but that more we add on to that, the worst society seems to get. I cannot seem to understand why people seem that Communism hasn’t been tried yet and yet also purport it to be evil and a failure.

Furthermore, it seems like both teams have their heads up their asses more than usual when it comes to the anti-commie rhetoric. Ironically, the left is the right and the right is the left. If conservatives want to keep America traditional, then they’re truly Marxist at heart as we would be keeping it that way. The left who want to further try communism, because we don’t live in that type of society, must have no concept of what Marx was truly all about and maybe they should read the book, it is a very short read, because I would hate to see what their version of Marxism is. In fact, for years our country considered changing itself as unpatriotic and commie, which is clearly the complete opposite of what it was. Wanting to change it is truly the least Marxist thing one could do. Regardless of current viewpoint, you have to admit the evidence is damming. I personally think we should look to cultivate a new system and have my own ideas of what that would look like, but at the end of the day, we’re all comrades in our Marxist world and I think we can finally put an end to the rift or one of the rifts that is driving a divide in our country. No longer should we be fighting each other over our ignorance. Let us, to paraphrase Marx at the end of the Communist Manifesto, UNITE!

To Deplatform or not to Deplatform, that is the question.

Deplatforming seems to be all the rage these days. Way back in the 1960’s, we needed to pass a piece of legistition called the Civil Rights act, due to blacks being keep out of work and being unable to patron establishments due to the color of their skin.

Today, we seem to be at a similar crossroads where, instead of skin color, it is because of ideology that people are being attacked. In other words, we’re doing the same thing to people who caused a need for the civil rights in the first place. Now, two wrongs do not make a right as the platitude goes and I happen to agree. That said, vitriolic hate speech is also something that could be disposed of. So what can be made of all this chaos? Well, we have multiple different viewpoints to choose from, let me take the first one, which is libertarian and use that as a jumping off point to get into deeper thoughts.

Freedom of association is one of the corner stones of libertarian thinking. We are all allowed to be free to fraternize with whom we wish and shop where we would like to shop, with very little to stand in our way and life works well. Everyone has always created little sub-tribes these ways, even in school, where you had jocks with jocks, or goths with goths, nerds with nerds. It is no wonder these things carry over into our adulthood, but often times with age, we should and in past have, sought out disputation or figured out ways to be friends with people whom we disagree with. I’ve had friends all over the political spectrum and we have disagreed a lot but you can never say we disrespected each other’s thinking, even if it differed. No one will ever concur with you a million percent, this is just a pipe dream. People cannot seem to get over very petty and minor things now a days and it shows up on Twitter and people see them happen in a vacuum and think this is the real world. Mass murders taking place do not help the situation. Can someone who is a white supremacist use twitter and coexist with someone whom disagrees? The answer is no! Twitter is not like having your own newsletter was 20, 30 or even 40 years ago. Twitter is more akin to yelling outside where everyone can know what you plan on doing. It is announcing your plans to coordinate and rally people in order to express a view point that people may or may not agree with or potentially harm people. White supremacy does not need a parade and never has. They were bad enough when they were just localized, but now they are far more global and bigger scale.

A long time ago, these bubbles were often referred to as terrorist cells. Even the benign ones were often monitored by the FBI in order to curb potential massive riots over peaceful protest. They would have dossiers and infiltration of each group in order to ensure the safety of the American people, or you know, make sure they kept their power. Organizations were taken down if they were deemed a threat and rightfully so. These organizations were not part of the free speech movement, nor did they given way to being free speech at any point in time. As a writer, I am obviously very anal about free speech and think people should be able to air ideas and work through them. Some people need to think aloud, no matter now stupid their point of view sounds, because it is helpful. To force them to suppress it, could exacerbate the hate of the person in question or cause massive feelings of repression and cause bubble dwelling, leading to these terrorist organizations. Both the left and right are complicit in these types of things and no matter your point of view, both sides are widening the divide between all citizens of the United States.

Actions are always louder than words and if these things were simply the ramblings of the feeble minded to attack racist, I would 100% support it, but the left has a seedy history of calling everything they disagree with racist, and using it to silence dissent. Look no further than to 1988 campaign trail with George H.W. Bush when he was attacked for his pro egalitarianism views as being racist. Christopher Hitchens has pointed out that the left tends to abuse the word and that abusing the term dilutes its power and makes it less effective. In other words, if you cry wolf one too many times, when the wolf does come for them, it will be far too late for anyone to believe you.

The left as also been very strong in silencing people they just do not like, whom are simply just conservative, which is bullshit. Ban the alt-right justly and then you can get away with a figurative beheading of people whom do not fit your agenda. Which brings us back to the top of this essay, which is, is this simply the right to not associate with someone or it is more nefarious? It depends on the platform and each case needs to be taken on an individual basis, much like each case of “censorship” needs to be taken on an individual basis. There is a far cry from saying something not-pc or that which will rub people the wrong way or maybe even saying something a tad insensitive as opposed to using Twitter or Facebook to coordinate like a terrorist cell to cause a Charlottesville and it is hard for a lot of folks to know the difference. If someone skews what, say, Mario Lopez says for personal gain and the triggered brigade attacks him, they are setting the stage for actual racist to look like victims and will allow the worst of the worst to have a chance to infect dozen of people with cancerous thought. The left needs to pick its battle wisely going into the future, because there are bad actors out there and deplatforming those with malignant intent is no different than thwarting a terrorist cell, but maybe let people say things are not politically correct or allow for the odd bit of ignorance from someone who has not been relevant in nearly 30 years go by without a lynch mob. It was only 11 years ago that we elected a black president in the same time Robert Downey Jr was making a movie where he was in black face and everything still got along ok.

Ultimately there is no real clear answers to dealing with all the negative things out there and bad people will always find a way do bad things. That does not mean we cannot stop people in their tracks and end a terrorist cell like 8chan, abusing free speech as a means to protect terrorist. We can also deplatform the daily stomer and that is not a bad idea, along with destroying the obviously racist and insane alt-right. That said, the tangled web should not tear down minor celebrites whom are a bit uncouth;the random idiots who think a video of a dog reacting to Nazi propaganda is a devious plot created by a mastermind when the reality is the guy looks like he can barely find his local 7-11 while he is stoned, let alone coordinate people to a neuvo holocaust, are just that, idiots. When you let the small fish go, you are going to end up with a much better haul and will only strengthen your side in the long run.

————————————————————-
minor corrections to the text 26th of August 2019 at 5:33

Social Justice Warriors are Autistic

     I’ve worked with Autistics when I was in High School. I was good at academics and asked if I would mind helping people with their work. I said I had no problem with it and did the best I could. Dealing with autism is no easy feat, especially when they’re not considered “high functioning” autistics. While I am no expert on autism, I do have the ability to analyze better than most other non-educated people and know what I am looking for when I am out and about in the world at large. It also is painfully obvious from the internet that the average social justice warrior is indeed, autistic.

     If you, like myself, have wondered why the world has all of a sudden become a major cesspool of bullshit, one need look no further than the average SJW. They’re what is called, when it relates to autism, monotropic. This, in years past, has been referred to as tunnel vision, informally speaking. Monotropism is defined as:

Monotropism is a cognitive strategy posited to be the central underlying feature of autism. A monotropic mind is one that focuses its attention on a small number of interests at any time, tending to miss things outside of this attention tunnel

     This seems very much like your average SJW, I would say. At current, it seems to mostly plague only the left as legitimate monotropism. The alt-right obsession with Jews and the Zionist conspiracy, coupled with “white genocide” does not fit this bill as being monotropism. It is my belief that they are following basic and archaic laws of power in order to create an us vs them mentality, that still seems to have sway. I also think the white power aspect stems from an inferiority complex, that is a byproduct of little to no success within the real world. When you feel inferior to people, you’ll look at anything to build yourself esteem and when it comes to skin color, it is the easiest way to prove to yourself that you are as superior as you claim, when the reality is, superiority comes from higher standards set for oneself and achieving them. Skin color can therefore never be benchmark for supremacy, as it allows anyone to claim it with little to no proof of such and such shallow criteria is none at all. When everyone is “superior” no one is.

So what are the traits associated with monotropism?

1. Strong focus on few things
2. They miss things outside of their tunnel vision
3. Attention deficit
4. Hyper focus
5. Difficulty doing more than one thing at a time
6. Inability to read faces

Since the amount of attention available to a person is limited, cognitive processes are forced to compete. In the monotropic mind, interests that are active at any given time tend to consume most of the available attention, causing difficulty with tasks that demand a broad attention span, including conventional social interaction. Language development can be affected, both through the broad attention required and the psychological impact of language providing a tool for others to manipulate a child’s interest system. As Murray et al argue: ‘Disruption of the attention tunnel is a painful experience. Language may suddenly become unattractive for a deeply monotropic infant.’-WIKI

In the monotropism account, theory of mind difficulties seen in autistic people are not a ‘core deficit’ central to autism, but rather follow from the attentional demands of social interaction. As the autistic sociologist Damian Milton puts it, ‘recognition of others may only occur if connected to the fulfilling of interests that the autistic individual has, otherwise the existence of others may not be registered at all.-WIKI

     Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? Everything from the inability to deal with others and diffrences, right down to the words are violence aspect, which is a key phrase heard from the common SJW. Their platitudes are as banal as their thinking, but unlike the racist alt-right, they might have a legitimate excuse for their insane behavior and might actually be legitimately triggering, given that social interactions would be far harder for the brain to process, which is probably why these things always seem to happen in large groups. It is difficult for one to understand the mind of these people, even if you would like to. No matter how good you are at understanding from others perspectives, it is hard for anyone not suffering from monotropism to identify or have sympathy for the SJW.

     One way to combat this is to help the individuals in question to go back to other realms of interest that may alleviate the problem of monotropism as seen in the quote above. This is something that colleges should start looking towards as the ever increasing snowflake brigade tends to hijack and otherwise impede the desires of students, whom are there to learn and have thoughtful dialogues with teachers, in order to make themselves better people as opposed to a group of triggering, ineffectual, SJWs that get nowhere but on the news. SJWS make up a small amount of the overall electorate anyways and this would also tend to go hand in hand with autism levels in general.

     So what could be the cause for this? Some studies suggest that having older parents when they are born could result in higher levels of autism and that would be why this is a new phenomenon with the Millennial. A lot of Millennials tend to have parents that had them older, with the average age seeming to have been 40-50ish. The studies suggest this causes an increase in the likelihood that the progeny will exhibit autism as opposed to younger parents which is a far rarer occurrence. While others Millennials exhibit more signs of sociopathy, the typical SJW show signs of autism and monotropism, which is why they differ, not just in perspective, but engaging the world. Most of them seem to have higher levels of neuroticism and agreeableness as well, which may be why the numbers seem higher than they are, which brings me to the fact that I would not be shocked if entire groups of SJW have been led by and or have been high jacked by sociopaths, as may be the case with well-planned internet attacks on individuals and groups outside the realm of the SJWs interest. Being highly agreeable brings less bullying and more herd conformity along with it. This may be why SJWs have a tendency to use violence. Although Antifa doesn’t fit the bill of the average social justice warrior, as they’re just mearely the left version of the alt-right and it comes from a place of inferiority.

     While I don’t have all the answers and I cannot say for sure how to deal with this problem, there is a list of ways to deal with the average SJW and if we want to stop the insanity that is happening in the US, we might be wise to try these out for ourselves. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain, so why not?

To help autistic individuals in understanding and navigating the world, Murray et al propose that certain steps could be helpful. These include:

Increase connections with other people through the child’s interests: ‘start where the child is’.
Allow them to pursue their own interests, and build understanding that way.
Improve understanding in order to correct false or partial connections.
Make tasks more attainable by decreasing the number and complexity of them.
Make tasks and connections more meaningful.[1]

———————
minor revisions to the text for typos. 30th July 2019 6:42 Am