More voluntary provocations

 Kindness without rationality is not only stupidity but also insanity

The essence of kindness is still not being polite, as many seem to think, but being fair

Still, the kindest is the one who is the most altruistic and, at the same time, most fair. A rarity...

The rotten essence of capitalism is that anything goes for money

Conservatives love to blame the lack of religion in the Western world today for what they call "moral degeneration." But many of these cultural changes are the fault of capitalist ideological influence, particularly the greed to profit from any opportunity, including those considered the most "immoral"

Moral degeneration is not exclusive to the “left”. Centuries of traditionalist or conservative cultural hegemony, poverty, social inequalities, unfair prejudices, insane dominant ideologies and many wars do not let us lie

Are conservatives, on average, false collectivists?

If it is easy to say you are in favor of a society when its culture mirrors its way of thinking and living

The problem with living with people with low cognitive abilities is that they also tend to have low emotional intelligence.

And the problem with living with more intelligent people is that they also tend to have lower emotional intelligence compared to their cognitive abilities, but they are more implicit in this expression of disability than those with lower abilities, or more concealed.

Who defends an evildoer (objectively determined):

- Do you think you could be in the same situation as him, that you would act the same way (pure speculation)

- Thinks that we are all literally or absolutely equal and that he deserves to have the same rights (even after proving otherwise)

- And/or is equal to him

Much of the current policies of the so-called Western left are based on cheap emotional blackmail

Typically, the leftist looks for complex explanations for what is simpler, while the rightist looks for simple explanations for what is more complex.

Around every tyrant leader, there is a crowd of mercenaries and idiots

A typical way of relativizing basic concepts, such as truth and knowledge, is to produce unrealistic or extreme examples, such as "Sophie's Choice" situations.

Many understand emotional intelligence with empathy, control and charisma. But, emotional intelligence is also feeling sadness, anger or shyness at appropriate times or circumstances, sometimes long term or indefinitely.

Emotional intelligence can also be the option of distance

The most irrational tends to become more "nice" when they realize they are oppressed and the opposite when they realize they are more "empowered"

The most rational tends to become more fierce when they realize that they are objectively oppressed, but more moderate when they are in power (which, in adaptive terms, seems to be less logical)

Parents do not tend to like a child more because he appears to be more 'problematic' than the others, but just because they like him more, without having an explanation beyond that.

Parents who do not set adequate limits on their children are just as problematic as those who set too many limits.

Parents who do not notice conflicts between their children, especially conflicts that generate unfair treatment from one party to the other, are also not demonstrating excellence in this role.

In relation to knowledge about the most basic, true philosophy is sufficient, as it does not need science and its specialization of logic, its generalization is enough. For example, regarding religious belief, a legitimate philosopher does not need the scientific method to doubt its veracity.

The difference between the wisest and the most intelligent is such that it is comparable to the difference between two different species.

It is almost certain to say that the majority of self-declared philosophers are a combination of a failed artist (writer or poet) and a failed scientist, that is, they fail to be one or the other, in a genuine way, and end up becoming neither of the two. the two, rather than seeking to be exactly like a philosopher, a balanced combination between the emotional artist or the existentialist and the analytical scientist or the realist

When you write very well, you are capable, but also very likely to fill a large part of your writing with your disguised ego.

The belief that France is a great philosophical center is a likely symptom of pseudo-intellectualism

Cultural relativism and egalitarianism attract the most naive to the most perverse. But, generally, the most common type is a combination between the two, because every true fanatic is like this

As despicable as fanatics are false moderates

Self-declared left-wing or social justice individuals want to end all privileges, supposedly... But the only way to do so would be through the establishment of a fully meritocratic society, or an intellectocracy.

(my ideal way of society, the government of the wisest)

An exemplary profile of extreme irrationality is that of an individual who believes in God, Marx and Lamarck at the same time.

Believing that capitalism is an ideal model of meritocracy is another symptom

Ideological indoctrination (as opposed to education/philosophy) is a systematization of the fallacy of suppressed evidence

If collectivism is the sacrifice of the individual for the "good of society", is individualism the sacrifice of society for the "good of the individual"?

I have already said in other texts or thoughts that religion, like ideology, is a more intuitive form of self-therapy. However, I can also say that this self-therapy is a type of masking of the disorder that should be correctly treated. Such as, instead of telling a person with a psychotic disorder that their delusional thoughts are delusional, to agree with reality or part of reality that they have decided to distort to accommodate their personal issues divorced from the facts

About the perversity of lying to avoid offending and its consequences

What does it mean to be really good??

There's a film, "Florence: Who's That Woman?", from 2016, that I've never seen and it looks very interesting. Starring the legendary actress Meryl Streep, it tells the real story of an American granddaughter named Florence Foster Jenkins who, despite having no talent for operatic singing, believed in the opposite and, precisely for that reason, came to invest in an artistic career and present themselves publicly. She was even "successful" in her presentations or... gratuitous humiliations, as there were many people willing to pay to see her playing out of tune live. For this story can give us a lesson about kindness and truth, if it is about a woman who had a great delusion about herself and whose belief was further reinforced by others, not just those who wanted to see her humiliate herself and, perhaps, without any awareness of the role she was playing, but also by those who, feeling sorry for her apparent innocence, supported her dream (and without forgetting to talk about the possibility that she may have "wet the hand" of some to help her in your endeavor).

Realize that even this modern and popular idea that "empathy", as a synonym for kindness, is expressed particularly through the act of lying to avoid offending or to please, has its limits. Take the case of Florence, where those who lied to her, supporting her career, were no better or kinder than those who took pleasure in seeing her humiliating herself, if the right thing to do is to tell the truth, especially if necessary, because there are situations in which frankness may be optional. But, when it comes to intelligence, talent or competence, it is best to always tell the truth, no matter how harsh it may be. Here, it is still necessary to differentiate between subjective truth or what one thinks and feels and objective truth or what one perceives objectively.

To make matters worse, this habit of always lying to avoid offending is definitely no longer limited to the personal sphere, entering the world of politics, as it has been adopted by so-called "progressive" or "left-wing" parties and in relation to their "politically protected" groups " or, "relevant" to their power projects: historically or socially 'marginalized' groups. So, from the dictatorship of political correctness in the main institutions of most Western countries, based on an alignment of related ideologies: from egalitarianism to cultural relativism, it began to condemn any idea or thought that confirms potentially innate differences in cognitive performance and behavior between individuals and groups, even more so if it is about these "protected" groups. As a result, we have been living in a scenario similar to of Florence's story, in which most people have been emotionally coerced into believing that, for example, cognitive differences between men and women or between racial groups are due exclusively to cultural and social factors, and not because, perhaps, they are reflections of the intrinsic differences between them: lying so as not to "offend", it seems nicer to "blame" the environment than to endorse a more deterministic thought that justifies rather than problematizes certain differences in representation, for example, the disproportion of men working in the world of science and technology. And, in addition to discursive imposition, these groups or political parties have also created laws based on these beliefs, such as establishing quota systems for their "politically relevant" groups. But, if their differences are deeper, if they are not just products of privileges of one group over another, then individuals below the required competence are being hired, mainly because they are of the race or ethnicity covered (or another category). Therefore, we have a definitely anti-meritocratic or unfair situation that can still have serious consequences in the medium and long term, precisely because we are assigning important functions to people who are less capable or ideal for the position...

Empathy, the act of putting yourself in someone else's shoes, is an indisputable quality. However, it either seems to have been excessively valued and/or superficially understood, as I commented in this other text: "Pathological altruism or underdeveloped empathy?". Because, even if it is respectful to avoid saying certain truths or to avoid sincerity, not every situation will be the most correct habit, as seems to be the case with capacity or intelligence, since a complex society depends on these competence filters to function in a minimally adequate manner.

Another list of necessary provocations

 . Another [absolute] "left" contradiction

Left: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It is relative and subjective. It has nothing to do with race or ethnicity"

Also on the left: "Study (carried out by professional ideologues disguised as scientists) 'proves' that racial miscegenation makes people more beautiful"

Is beauty just subjective and relative or is it objective???

2. The typical activist is an idealist and an excessive pragmatist, because he dreams and idealizes too much, always searching for an unrealistic "perfection", based on attempts at ideological and practical purification. And if it weren't enough to dream too much, he still has a desire to put everything he imagines and dreams, without logical-rational rigor, into practice.

3. For the most rational, living with the most irrational is a kind of torture, not only because of their chronic inability to think in a thoughtful, impartial and objective manner, but also to act in the same way

3.1 Other factors responsible for the great difficulty in coexistence between the more and the less rational are: the more peaceful nature of the former, a result of their tendency to avoid conflicts, and the opposite pattern for the latter; and a tendency to approach social interactions based on the principle of reciprocity, while the less rational tend to do so indifferently to this principle, in a more convenient and selfish way

3.2 The most rational is the natural enemy of any "political correctness" or censorship of thought, especially if it concerns the most considered thought

4. About the "normie"

Pejorative term for those who consider themselves or are objectively identified as "normal"

One of the main differences between them and others, or "us", is that they tend to interpret reality only based on their personal contexts, instead of also seeking to do so from a more impartial or panoramic perspective. This is why the "normie" has difficulty perceiving what happens beyond the narratives that predominate in their social cycle.

5. The most literal expression of kindness is the practice of rational justice, which is often not in line with the most popular conception of kindness, since fairness/justice, in its most ideal sense, based on evidence, does not always result in compassion

6. A person can be naive about some issues and smart about others

7. Irrational stupidity of course irritates the most rational. But cruelty irritates him much more

8. There are atheists and agnostics who believe in the social rather than intrinsic nature of both religious belief and unbelief, and in the durability and depth of the recent secularization observed especially in the younger generations in Western countries. However, it is not enough that it is not true that all self-declared irreligious people are atheists and that atheistic and theistic susceptibilities are just products of imposed socialization, the persistence of fertility differences between the least and most religious is likely to increase the demographic representation of the second group. in the coming decades

9. About segregation and free association

Not all segregation is bad, in the sense of irrational. For example, free association, which is a type of self-segregation

10. Brazil is a country full of muscles and scarce of brains

11. Living with ideological fanatics, especially those on the left, forces us to "pretend dementia", that is, to agree with (almost) everything they say, when we are interacting with them in a friendly manner. Also because we need to agree with or repeat their dogmatic narratives and become vigilant about any spontaneous flash of reasoning that challenges them, even more so if it is intelligent or factually accurate.

12. Humanists ask us to nurture an unconditional love for human beings, that is, the most cruel and destructive species of all

13. Every bourgeois leftist who claims to have great affection for the poorest should be forced to live with them for at least two years

14. In 1984, war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength...

Because in our totalitarian societies, currently under the political correctness of the bourgeois "left", moderation is extremism, just like being against mass immigration policies or in favor of countries remaining, ethnically speaking, the way they have been for many centuries, also because of the long and problematic history of multiculturalism

15. There is a considerable amount of despicable people in all social classes, differentiating themselves according to the stereotypes of their group

16. About the arrogance of academics and any type of identitarians

Academics do not have a total monopoly on knowledge, as many think they do, because they can produce works of dubious intellectual quality and present opinions devoid of scientific and philosophical rigor (I must say, this happens with infamous frequency) and because individuals of outside universities can also know more than "experts with degrees" and can even, in fact, contributing positively to a certain area of human knowledge, even if they are not recognized or if they are not "officially accredited"

Identitarians do not have a monopoly or absolute control over the identity by which they most identify, even if they think so and believe they have the competence to analyze and judge others' level of correspondence through self-identification. Therefore, for example, a person who says they are "progressive" may not have enough competence to judge the level of "progressiveness" of the colleague next to them (a reality that seems to be very common/in this case, the majority of those who declare themselves as such tend to deviate from the most basic principles of the ideologies they adopt as discourse and/or identity), because self-identification does not necessarily mean that there is a significant correspondence with the pet identity, with characteristics or values, and with their most consistent practices. And no, it's not a case of the "true Scotsman fallacy", because there are defined criteria for most political, ideological and/or cultural identities, although, depending on the identity, these criteria may be less specific or more vague.

17. "It's your fault for being alone"

In fact, the "fault" may not lie solely with the individual, because people with unusual personality characteristics or in potentially permanent non-ideal contexts may be more likely to be rejected by others. For example, it is not uncommon for more rational individuals to end up with fewer friends or even being lonely throughout their lives. Because, with the exception of wealth and beauty, exceptionalities tend to alienate rather than attract. Another example is autistic individuals, more specifically those with "mild autism", more capable of typical social interaction and, therefore, also more exposed to its friction.

18. "Non-adaptation" can also be a type of adaptation

If not every environment is adaptable to a given profile, then not adapting to it, seeking to minimize the negative impacts of this non-adaptation, when it is not possible to move to another environment, may be more appropriate than trying to adapt. Sometimes it's not worth the effort

19. Only humanitarian eugenics... by coercion and financial compensation for birth control of individuals from specific groups and/or encouragement from other groups, to turn the vast majority of underdeveloped countries into developed ones, since the most important factor that prevents is precisely the qualitative and average difference in cognitive abilities between its populations

20. If you want an example of the evolution of the human species, don't come to Brazil, as progressive degeneration predominates here

21. It's hard to know who is worse, the insensitive right-winger or the disingenuous left-winger

22. A person who is terrible to another and without rational justification, that is, who acts in a very unfair way, but is good to several others, is as bad as a person who is bad to several others and good to one (or with a few)

23. It is common for an ideology to express itself like a human individual who, instead of prioritizing his strengths, does so with his weaknesses. Because, from this perspective, the practically causal relationship between deficiency in self-knowledge and irrationality becomes "visible".

A great example is the egalitarian ideology, which has been the basis for "Western progressism", and which, instead of acting as its main strength, weakens it excessively through its pseudoscientific denial of the intrinsic differences of individuals and groups. humans

24. The new and old tactic of those who believe in deities is to assert that nature or "creation" is definitive proof of divine existence...

25. There are many types of insane people, but the craziest of all is the one who puts himself and others in danger, guided by unrealistic expectations or foolish thoughts. This is why the "left", particularly its 'religious' belief in human equality, from this perspective, makes it more insane than the "right".

26. Without the ton of "good" pseudosciences and pseudo-philosophy, human sciences, as they are basic knowledge, serve perfectly as a survival guide, even as a complement to first aid

27. There is no behavior more disgusting and revolting than brutal and sadistic violence or violence without just cause. Because one of the groups that practice it most, that is, in disproportionate terms, are black and brown men. So this is why this supposedly anti-racist activism, increasingly dominant in Western media, "education" and government, is so unfair.