Featured

Sticky: New Policy: All Commenting Is Free for the Time Being and Foreseeable Future

At least for the time being and forseeable future, I am revoking my policy of charging $10 for lifetime commenting privileges for frequent commenters. It was instituted when I had 3,000 visitors a day. But at this new site, we are down to an average of ~200 visitors/day. It’s true that last month that went up to ~900 visitors/day, which was very, very nice. However, the eight month total is still averaging 200 visitors/day.

The old commenting system where frequent commenters had to pay will not be instituted again until I reach ~3,000 visitors a day, which could be quite some time, considering that we seem to be stuck ~200 visitors/day for some time now. So you all might be able to comment  here for free for some time now.

Anyone not commenting because they think it’s not free is more than welcome to come back.

But even though commenting is free probably for some time now, it would still be very nice to get donations to keep the site running. See the post below for an explanation on how to do that.

Featured

Sticky: Support Beyond Highbrow

I often do this work all day long. It’s what I do. I also have some other income. I have a very small trust fund, and I work a bit on the side. However, my health prevents me from working full-time at a regular job.

Perhaps you worry that you are making me rich. In that case, I will tell you how much money I make so you won’t have to worry about that anymore. I live on about $14,000/yr.

If you value this site and the work I put into it, for which I get very little reward, please consider a donation. Even a small amount would be nice. Donations motivate me to write more, and when they’re not coming in, I don’t want to write so much. So when you donate, you are keeping this great site going.

And you are also contributing to the research that powers this blog with so many brilliant and scintillating topics that it will make your head spin. I mean, it’s not just highbrow, it’s Beyond Hghbrow. And so are you.

How? Go to PayPal and navigate to my email:

Go to PayPal and navigate to my email address to donate to this awesome site!

Donate button coming soon!

Want to support this site and not send a donation?

Go here.

All proceeds help pay me for this interesting service, and on your end, you can host that free speech stuff a lot better than with having a mainstream host.

Game/PUA: Women Deal with Loneliness and Lack of Sex Better Than Men

Women can definitely deal with loneliness and lack of sex better than men can, and it’s all down to that unfathomable entity known as the female sex drive.

The thing is that while women have an extremely strong sex drive in a sense (provided someone turned it on in the first place – preferably Chad!), it differs from the male in that women can simply take sex or leave it if so desired. We are now starting to see some women say,

Damn, I need some cock!

You didn’t hear that so much in the past, but I had 18 year old girls telling me things along those lines back in 1975:

Damn I am getting so horny these days, I swear I’m going to have to shove a bottle up there.

But she had a very strong sex drive in addition to being an extreme slut, bless her whorish heart.

In men, sex is quite different. It’s like an itch that you can’t scratch when you do without it. Sure, we can always jerk off to deal with the physical problem, but that’s often not satisfactory, and it’s hard to do if you live with other people. Furthermore, masturbation doesn’t take care of the urge. Of course, in the Current Year, women masturbate like maniacs, while it seems like they didn’t use to so much back in the day – it seems we have created a society of female masturbating maniacs! God bless my depraved generation!

They do this but they need sex too. I had a female best friend who used to tell me things like,

Damn I am so horny these days, I’m just going to have to grab some guy and rape him!

And she masturbated all the time. I would be texting her and she would say:

Excuse me,  I’m going to go masturbate.

Can you imagine a woman saying such a thing?!

She’d come back in 45 minutes and say,

Damn, that was good!

On a sex subreddit called Stupid Sluts Club (highly recommended!) a young woman described how she was horny as Hell. She was masturbating all the time, but that wasn’t really cutting it, so she started having sex with her female roommate though she was basically straight.

So while things are changing somewhat, women are sadly not turning into men.

The sex drive is not so much physical in men, though the physical aspect is undeniable. For instance, a young man who does not ejaculate for a few days starts to experience actual pain in his testicles (blue balls). Women don’t seem to experience such a thing, though there have been reports of women feeling some sort of a “female blue balls” in their abdomen above the pubic area if they go without orgasm for too long.

But at least back in the day, many women were non-orgasmic or rarely orgasmic. Back then it was ~30% of women. I’d say it’s a lot less now, but there are probably still non-orgasmic women. That 30% of women at any time can be unable to reach orgasm while remaining that way for years on end implies that female blue balls is probably not a serious problem. Further, almost no males are non-orgasmic. There’s virtually no such thing.

Much more important than the physical aspect of sex is the psychological one. A man without sex has a huge hole in his life psychologically and perhaps even more importantly socially. If it goes on for years, a lot of men start to give up and become depressed, withdrawn, or rageful. We see the logical result of this in the incel phenomenon. The incels are not evil like the cucks and soyboys say. Incel behavior is simply the natural and normal consequence of what happens to large groups of men who are denied sex over a long period.

Many become depressed and withdrawn, quite a few become very angry in a seething sort of way, and a few of those become explosively violent, often resulting in serious massacres. To show it is not a unique Western problem, long-term incel Chinese men have been going on murderous rampages for a long time now, even massacring large numbers of kindergartners!

So, tl/dr: Women love sex but ultimately a lot can take it or leave it. Men have a much more insistent sex drive and cannot take or leave sex. They have to have it and if they don’t, serious psychopathology results.

Game/PUA: Just Because She’s Turned on by You Doesn’t Necessarily Mean She Wants to Have Sex with You

I get shut down pretty much all the time nowadays, especially by young women. I just got shut down a couple of times in the supermarket this evening. They don’t say no. Instead it’s nonverbal. I call it The Wall. It seems like I get the Wall all day every day sometimes. It’s really discouraging. The Wall is completely nonverbal and it says, “I am not interested in you that way, ok?” You can get a lot of different walls but they all mean the same thing.

There are places I go every day where some of the women are such cunts that they won’t even respond if I say hello and say their name. On the other hand, there are others who are pretty friendly, sometimes real friendly. But they’re all really young and I am 40 years older than they are, so I need a big green light to move on an age gap like that.

One acts flirtatious. She starts acting a lot more feminine when I start talking to her. That means either that she likes you or more probably that she’s attracted to you or turned on by you. But she is giving me The Wall as far as getting to know her in “that way.” And as I just learned the other day, at age 20, she already lives with her boyfriend.

I am sure that I turn on a fair number of women who nevertheless still don’t want to get involved with me, in this case due to age.

There was a woman in the bank who always gave me blank stares, the obvious blank stares you get from women who are turned on by you. I would come up to her window, and she would get pretty cold. I couldn’t make sense of it for the longest time. I finally decided she was fantasizing. I was 55 and she was 20 after all. She thought I looked good and she liked to look at me, but that’s as far as she wanted to take it.

It took me a while to figure out that she was just looking. I got that look in a few different ways from other young women too. Some of them actually thrust their bodies forward when they first interacted with me, obviously an involuntary purely physical turn-on. But then they would catch themselves a second or two later and correct it.

Think about it. A woman sees, what? Tens of thousands of hot men in her life. She’s going to fuck all of them? Women would fuck 100,000 men in a lifetime.

I met a 39 year old woman the other night. Literally picked her up in a corner market. I have no idea how the Hell I even did that. Got her in my car and drove to my place. Halfway there, she looks at me and says, “You know what? You’re fuckin HOT!” Well, that felt nice. I think I might have said, “Ok, let’s fuck then.” Then I got a Wall.

I got her to my place. A lot more flirtation.

I got her partly naked at different times because I’m often able to get women naked if I can at least get them in the door. I often use the “Don’t you think you need a shower?” ruse. I can’t believe how many women fall for that one or maybe they want to fall for it,if you catch my drift because it gives them an excuse: “I’m not getting naked in this guy’s house because I’m a slut. I’m getting naked in this man’s house because I need a shower!” But even then, they don’t necessarily want to fuck.

I even jump in the shower with them sometimes. I’m not sure how I do that either. They often protest in a meek way, but I just bulldoze in. They have to get  visibly angry to shut me down, otherwise “no means maybe” as far as I’m concerned.

I grabbed at her when she got part naked and she batted me away. “That’s going to cost you.” She was basically charging. Money or dope. So she was a whore.

But that’s not that unusual. An incredible number of women engage in “transactional sex.” It’s ubiquitous.

I had a naked woman wandering around my place for two hours a while back. I kept grabbing her. I figured if you don’t want me grabbing you, put some clothes on, baby! She batted me away for a couple of hours. So you can even have naked women wandering around your apartment for hours and refusing to fuck. Which is her right. But I’m also going to keep grabbing at her.

She can tell you flat to your face that you’re the hottest man alive, and she still might not want to fuck. See above. Just because you turn a woman on, doesn’t necessarily means she wants to have sex with you!

I finally figured out that sex is a pretty big deal for women, especially casual sex. So many things could go wrong and it is dangerous. Women only have a few sex partners in life. The GSS reports that the average American woman has three partners in her life. Sex is a heavy-duty decision for a woman, and it’s not taken lightly.

Unfortunately, I have to respect that. I’m no rapist.

Game/PUA: Some Very Creepy Truths about Adult-Minor Sex

I work in mental health and I specialize in people who have issues around thoughts about sex with children, etc. I’m an expert and I have people coming to me from all over the world.

First of all, no one is going to believe the facts I state are true. Trust me though: I’m right. All studies were done in the lab and have been repeatedly replicated. In fact, they’ve been replicated so many times that it seems stupid to do them again except morons keep demanding it. I guess we’ll be replicating them until the end of time then.

  1. Men are attracted to teenage girls. 100% of straight men react at very high levels, typically maximum, to females 13+. That should not be surprising to any sane person, except that in our Feminist Clown World, those men would be called pedophiles. We can call them any name we want, but we now have to call all straight men pedophiles. Are we comfortable with that?
  2. So much worse than that is the fact is that not only are straight men turned on by teenage girls who look like women, which is not surprising, but that 90-100% of straight men are even turned on by little girls under 13. More on that below.
  3. Yep, that’s right. Straight men are even turned on by little girls under 13. In general, most straight men are attracted to them at a fairly low level, less than they are to mature females, but a measurable attraction is definitely there.
  4. So much, much worse than that even is that 23% (in three studies – 21%, 23%, and 26%) of straight men test “pedophilic.” That means that 1/4 of straight men are pedophiles by our typical understanding of the term, which probably even includes DSM-5 Pedophilia, a garbage diagnosis if there ever was one. What this means is that 23% of all straight men are as attracted or more attracted to little girls under 13 as they are to mature females 13+. Crazy statistic, huh? The question arises why these men don’t run around molesting little girls. Penalties are very harsh if you get caught doing this, and almost all these men have very strong attractions to mature females, so I assume they focus on the prosocial urge and suppress or repress the antisocial pedophilic feelings. In the Current Year, tens of millions of Americans say they want to kill all the pedophiles. Well, that’s just fine. Are they prepared to execute 1/4 of the men in the US, or 25 million men? Let me know when they get those gas chambers running.
  5. Not sure if this is shocking, but .1-1% of straight men are actual, true pedophiles. They are strongly attracted to girl children and have little or no attraction to mature females, which is the only definition of pedophilia that makes sense. Nevertheless, this means there are 110,000-1.1 million full blown, real deal, scary pedophiles in the US. Once again, we say we are going to execute them. Fine. We are going to execute 100,000-1 million American men? Let me know how that goes.

Game/PUA: The 80/20 Rule: Anything to It?

There is a rule among Black Pillers called the 80-20 rule. Briefly, that 80% of the women are chasing the top 20% of the men. In the hard version of the rule, 20% of the men are having sex with 80% of the women.

There does seem to be something to the 80/20 rule. Let me say that I actually don’t mind the 80/20 rule because it has worked to my benefit all through my life.

First of all, the 80/20o rule, like most things in our social lives, is nothing new. It’s always been this way. When I was in high school, I decided that 10% of the guys were having sex with 90% of the girls. I didn’t do a study to confirm that. That was just my intuitive (female thinking) observation. Once again, it wasn’t true in the hard sense but it did seem to be true in some soft sense.

Later, on dating sites, studies repeatedly found that 80% of the women were chasing 20% of the men, whereas men were much less discriminate, with 100% of the men chasing 100% of the men. Typically men seemed to be chasing their looksmatches. However, 20% of the women were chasing the remaining 80% of the men. This means that women from 3-10 scale were all chasing 9-10 scale men and women from 1-2 on the scale were chasing the men from 1-8.

These studies also showed that women only found 20% of men attractive. The women in these studies said 80% of men were unattractive. Hypergamy, in other words.

I read an STD study done in a ghetto Black community. There they found that 80% of the women coming to the clinic had been infected by only 20% of the men. Most of the women were sleeping with only a small number of men, and that’s where all the STD’s were coming from. Even there, the women were monopolizing the best men.

As with the Sapir-Whorf theory, obviously there’s a lot of evidence against a hard 80-20 rule theory. On an incel site, an incel said that all of the men he knew were married. They were all 4-6 scale average looks men. I assume they got their looksmatches. So it’s not as if everyone but the Chads is screwed.

Once again pace Sapir-Whorf, a soft 80-20 rule theory makes a lot of sense if you plug it in as one more way, among so many others, to try to make sense of the Sexual Marketplace. In other words, in some odd, vague way, there is some certain degree of truth to the 80-20 rule at some level in Sexual Marketplace Theory. This theory is useful as a tool in conjunction with many other theories. If you plug them all in at once, the Sexual Marketplace will start making a lot more sense.

Game/PUA: Infatuation and Love Are the Same Thing

There’s no such thing as “just infatuation” and “real love” being two different things.  First of all, true love doesn’t exist or only exists in the exalted fantasies or delusions of women. “Real love” is nonsense, and of course it’s completely antiscientific, unfalsifiable, and even tautological.

Nevertheless it’s clear there is something called love that exists even in a scientific sense. But it’s on a continuum with something called like. Like is at one end and then as like gets stronger, eventually you get to full blown love at the other end.

The initial phase of love is something I call “wild love,” and it’s a wild ride indeed! The problem is it’s not really sustainable the same as a manic episode (which it resembles possibly in more ways than one) is not sustainable. It’s just too wild and crazy, and humans can’t sustain that sort of wild passion over the long term. If mania doesn’t end, the result is death.

Chronic mania used to exist as a psychiatric entity before the treatment era. It had its own set of rather unique symptomology. I have an old p psychiatric textbook from the 1950’s that talks about it. It apparently still occurs in some Bipolar patients and is notoriously resistant to treatment. There have been some recent case studies in the literature. They never really came down. Obviously, they died young. Death usually occurred in the mid-40’s and was typically a heart attack, natch.

No one knows what happens if wild love goes on forever because the nature of the human psyche is that wild love burns out after at most a couple of years. It’s hard to imagine someone dying of too much love, but if so, it wouldn’t be the first time. What else killed Romeo Juliet but “chronic wild love?”

Though wild love doesn’t last forever is perhaps a law of the human psyche if anything is, it can last a year or two. After that it transforms into what I call “mature love,” which is a calmer but in some ways deeper and more profound thing. Perhaps it’s all down to oxytocin and maybe high levels of oxytocin are only sustainable for a year or two. Who knows? At the end of the day,  most things human, even the most mystical and rarefied, probably boil down to simply human biology, chemicals, transmitters, and receptors, neurons, cells, atoms, and ultimately mundane molecules.

After studying the subject for several decades, it’s clear to me that infatuation is simply the early, “wild” phase of love that indeed looks like a manic episode, except that the parties are more or less sane (though wild love can be quite volatile with a lot of wild swings between love and hate). The initial phase of love, wild love, is a beautiful thing! It’s pretty crazy but it’s also one of the peak experiences one can have a human being. Be thankful if you were lucky enough to experience it. Many never do!

Game/PUA: Nice Guy Problems with Women, with an Aside about Nice Guy Chad

I was certainly raised to be a nice guy. My Dad was in on this crap. They both taught us that happy couples never fight, which is the biggest lie on Earth. Anyway, women love fighting in relationships and they will often deliberately start fights with their men for absolutely no good reason at all other than “to test them,” which is moronic, or simply because they want to liven or spice things up, which is actually a lot dumber than even that.

What does a woman want (paraphrasing Freud)? First of all, no one knows, least of all women themselves, who are remarkably self-blinded creatures. The woman at best is ultimately unfathomable, though we are starting to get some interesting reports from MTF transsexuals or transwomen who have been both men and women hormonally and hence can report from both sides of the war.

But the nature of the woman is nevertheless to be fiendishly complex for whatever reason. Just as the nature of the man is to be rather stupidly simple.

I mean give a man a six-pack, a couch, and a football game and he’s good for the night, right? Sure, but there are so simple formulas to satisfy to convoluted object known as the woman.

But a good analysis is: The woman lives for love. Another good analysis (somewhat similar) is: The woman lives for “peak emotional experiences.”

That sounds great in theory even if its terrifying to us stoic men. The problem is that those peak emotional experiences can include negative emotions. Exhilarating negative emotions such as wild fights are after all among the most emotionally peak experiences out there.

My mother and father often said, “Do you ever see us fighting?” Well, not really, but after age 9, they fought a lot, although of course they always lied and denied it. Anyway from this bullshit lie, I was taught that if you have a good relationship with a woman, you will never really fight. Every time a woman got angry at me, I felt it was my fault and that I had failed as a man somehow. Consequently, I never really fought back. I just sat there and took it like a huge pussy.

I started fighting back against women ~10 years ago, and since then, I’ve had some of the wildest, most passionate love affairs of my life. So apparently it works to stand up to women and fight back against their shit. But men don’t want to fight back to because most men are pussywhipped, that is, they are afraid that if they fight their woman, she will cut off the pussy supply, pussy being as good as oxygen for the male psyche or emotional body if not the actual physical body, in which its effects are more trivial than anybody realizes.

It’s generally agreed that being a nice guy, like a million other things, gets in the way of getting laid. Sure, nice guys can get laid and most eventually marry if only to beta bux, but being nice is a detraction when it comes to attracting women.

The exception, of course, is Chad, as Chad tends to be the exception to all of the rules of the Sexual Marketplace. Anytime you hear someone say, “Oh don’t do that. That’s deadly when it comes to getting laid. Women hate that thing like no other!” you always have to put an asterisk by that statement that says, “with the exception of Chad.” Chad breaks all the rules because Looks trumps all for women. And that’s the essence of Black Pill right there.

Nice Guy Chad still gets laid of course. I always did, if not sooner then later. Lots of women don’t care if Chad is a nice guy. Catfishing experiments made their Chads into huge pussies, and they still got bombarded by women. Nevertheless, Nice Guy Chad still suffers from the usual nice guy problems with women. One exception I would say though is that even in the midst of these typical nice guy issues which probably see a lot of men cut off from sex after being labeled huge pussies, women keep fucking Nice Guy Chad like a human dildo machine even after they call him a pussy to his face, scream at him that he’s a faggot, etc.

It’s all down to that damned pretty face. That trumps all else, at least temporarily. I would say that the pretty face is a necessary and sufficient attribute to get laid, but it’s not good enough to sustain a relationship. Chad’s pretty face is like a drug. After a while the high wears off, and this is where you need other things – personality, money, faithfulness, love attachment, Red Pill,  masculinity – whatever. So Nice Guy Chad gets his brains fucked out for a while and is then unceremoniously and often cruelly dumped. In other words, story of my life, boyos.

The nice thing about being Nice Guy Chad though is that a new woman will always come along. If not tomorrow than definitely at some point in the future. Which is more than the incels look forward to.

Alt Left: The Alt Left Position on Religion with an Emphasis on Christianity

One wonders why I put Alt Left in front of this post. I originally did not want to, as many of my posts have nothing to do with Alt Left ideology. In particular, I do not think the Alt Left should be religious or get involved in scriptural or doctrinal arguments. We are too secular at our core for that. What we are is believer-friendly!

However, as I thought about it, there’s a way to sneak this in. More on that below.

First of all, the Alt Left is probably the only section of the Left that is not objectively hostile to not just religion in general but Christianity in particular. The American Left has always been extremely hostile to Christianity, silent (to their discredit) about Judaism, one of the primitive forms of ethno-religious barbarism known to man, and lately, openly celebratory about Islam, probably the most backwards and reactionary religion on Earth. The US Left has been anti-White for a long time. The religion of the US Whites is Christianity, hence US Christianity is tainted by the sins of the fathers. Not to mention that American Christianity has never been anything close to a theology of liberation; instead it has been a backwards theology of reaction more akin to Judaism than Chrisitianity than Judaism from Day One. But that’s not why the Left hates it. The Left, frankly, hates America. America in its only proper sense means White America. Anything else is fraudulent in a historical if not sociopolitical sense. As America = Whites, the Left hates Whites. As Christianity is the religion of the of the American Whites, the Left hates Christianity, in particularly Protestantism. The Left is probably going to become more pro-Catholic as as a result of their valorization and reification of the recent Hispanic immigrants to the US.

If you are on the Left and religious, come join the Alt Left! I’d love to have a religious Alt Left faction. We have a particular fondness for Christianity because the Alt Left was founded in the US. But we don’t privelege Protestantism above Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox, especially as Protestantism in the Western Hemisphere has never been anything but reactionary.

Even more importantly, the Alt Left is the only faction on the Left that openly supports Whites, first of all, the Whites of the US but second of all, our White ancestors in the Old World. If you’re on the Left and you either love Whites or love being White, come join us in the Alt Left! We are the only Left faction that does not hate Whites!

The Alt Left supports (Eastern Orthodox) Replacement Theology because that is part of the essential doctrine of the Palestinian Christians, whom we support to hilt. We also support the Russian Eastern Orthodox doctrine of the Russian ethnic Leftist rebels in the Donbass, whatever that might be called.

The Alt Left also (Catholic) Liberation Theology, which can be boiled down to “Jesus as a leftwing revolutionary guerrilla with an AK-47.”

See especially the “Catholic Marxists” Camilo Torres, the rebel-priest and original “priest with an AK-47) founder of the ELN in Colombia, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua (particularly the rebel poet-priest Ernesto Calderon), the FMLN in El Salvador (particularly Archbishop Romero), an Irish priest who led Honduras largest guerrilla group in the 1980’s whose name eludes me, Jean-Paul Aristide of Haiti, and believe it or not, the Maoist NPA in the Philippines, which has a lot of support among local Catholic priests in the villages.

Liberation  Theology is pure “Jesusism” or Catholicism. It emphasizes “the preferential option for the poor,” in other words, it is completely in accord with Jesus’ socioeconomic message.

In addition to that we should support Eastern Orthodox Replacement Theology as the proper liberation theology for the people of Palestine to take back their country from the violent usurpation of the Jews.

As  you can see, the two main religious strains we support are Liberation Theology, a Catholic doctrine, and Replacement Theology, an Eastern Orthodox doctrine.

PUA/Game: Statistical Alphas, Behavioral Alphas, Chads, and Behavioral Alpha and Behavioral Beta Societies

First of all, some basic definitions:

Statistical Alpha: 15-20% of males, attractive to most women most of the time for whatever reason.Probably no more than 15-20% in any society, existing or conceivable.

Behavioral Alpha: Displays “Alpha behavior.” This may vary. In some societies like the Middle East, a majority of the men probably display Alpha behavior. Not limited to 15-20% the population.

Chad: An 8-10 on the 1-10 looks scale. Often does well with women but not necessarily, as certain other variables can mess him up. Mental Chads, Shy Chads, Odd Chads, Introverted Chads, etc. can definitely have problems with women. Sure some woman usually grabs them and rapes them sooner or later, but they can have long incel periods. A Chad could very well be a virgin or an incel. In fact, on incel forums, they discuss the phenomenon of the Chadcel.

Alpha behavior is probably learned, and Alpha behaviors are best acquired early in life, hopefully by high school or at least college age.

Chads are basically genetic. There’s no reason to brag about your Looks. They’re a gift from God. You didn’t do one thing to deserve them. You just lucked out in the genetic lottery is all.

However, I do think that men do better in societies where more men are Behavioral Alphas. They do better with women and male-female relationships are a lot better. There’s not much hypergamy, there aren’t many incels, and women don’t cuck men, monopolize Chads, or marry Beta Buxxers and then shut down the pussy, etc. The men are naturally masculine and the women are naturally feminine and both sexes seem to like each just fine that way. In addition, the men seem to love women (at least they are very sexually attracted to them), and the women seem to love men.

Societies Where Most Men are Behavioral Alphas (Male Rule Outside Northern and Western Europe and the Anglosphere)

On the other hand, these are typically patriarchies, and societies with many Behavioral Alphas are not great for women, face it. Some societies where most men are behavioral Alphas include Spain (though suffering from a wild feminist insurrection and the beginnings of a soyciety, though heavily resisted by the men), Portugal, Italy (feminism failed there, though that may be changing as new reports indicate the possibility of a soyciety arising there of all places), Greece, the Balkans, and frankly Eastern Europe and the Baltics.

Russia, the Caucasus, Turkey, Arabia, Mesopotamia, the Gulf, and the Levant. North Africa too. Of course we must include all of Black Africa. All of Latin America obviously. Micronesia, Melanesia, Polynesia. Central Asia and South Asia – Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and even India and Nepal. The Stans. I actually think SE Asian men are behaviorally Alpha. And traditional Korean, Japanese and Chinese societies were very behaviorally Alpha, and the older men still are.

Cucked Soycieties Where Most Men Are No Longer Behavioral Alphas (Behavioral Beta Soycieties under Female Rule in the West)

The soycieties where the men are no longer mostly behaviorally Alpha and have become behaviorally Beta are obviously most of the West as in Western Europe, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Asians in the West, especially in the US. These are really the only places where Female Rule (Feminist Rule) has been implemented, though the infection is spreading, not diminishing, and the target is the whole world, as it is with all totalizing ideologies.

The result of Female Rule is an extreme reduction in:

  • Behavioral Alphas.
  • Sex for young single men.
  • Patriarchy.

Obviously all three of these are related.

The latter is often replaced by the rise of an oppressive matriarchy in its place. Why? Because in society just as in the home, someone has to wear the pants. If the women take the pants off the men, they won’t throw them in the corner or burn them as they probably should. They put them on themselves, turn into men, and turn the men into women.

Basic heterosexual behavior always exists. If the norm is toppled, the inverse simply takes its place. Someone’s got to rule and someone’s got to be ruled. Pure equality among the sexes is obviously not possible. Even Gloria Steinem admitted that!

What’s true among the sexes is probably true for society too, as basic sexual behavior is probably mirrored in some odd way in our sociopolitical world. There’s no escaping sex. It never ends, even in your 80’s.

America’s (False) Honesty Fetish: A Product of Our Christian Heritage?

We’re all coping all the time. We cope our way through life, lying like fools the whole time, and not caring a whit. Success in life is based on deception, mostly to oneself but also to others.

I like the attitude of the Japanese towards this. If you tell a Japanese men, preferably one over 40, that you never lie, he will laugh right in your face, call you an idiot, and walk away. To the Japanese, nothing is dumber than pathological honestly.

I think America, or Gentile America anyway (not so sure about (((America)))) seems to have a huge honestly fetish. I tell this vignette to Americans all the time, and all I get is cope. I also tell Americans that you have to lie sometimes in life. After that, I get a load more of cope. Usually of the “I cannot tell a lie” bullshit, which is obviously itself a lie. To lie is human. To be pathologically honest, I think one might have to be an actual computer. Sure a computer could be programmed to never lie. The thing’s as dumb as a rock. It only knows whatever we told it. It can’t know anything else.

Of course we could discuss Kant’s Categorical Imperative, but that’s more of a thought exercise than an actual possibility in life.

I think America’s pathological honestly fetish, which probably isn’t even as real as it claims to be because most if not all who claim to be pathologically honest are lying right there, must be down to our Christian heritage. Not Judeo-Christian heritage.

Alt Left: The Notion of “Judeo-Christianity” Is Probably a Fraud

Who the Hell stuck that Judeo- in front of my great Christian religion anyway? Not trying to diss on Judaism here, but face it, it’s not much like Christianity even if one was birthed from the other, and Christianity at its absolutely core is nothing but Reform Judaism, sort of the ultimate in Reform Judaism, so reformed it’s barely even or not at all Jewish anymore.

People argue that Christianity is the Old Testament too, but that’s another feint because if you understand Christianity, you realize that when Jesus came, he replaced Judaism and the Old Testament at the same time. Jesus freed us from the Law. We no longer had to live under the Law. Hence, the Old Testament was essentially null and void, good as a historical document but for little else. Even the Old Testament and New Testament Gods are completely different. This is of course known as Replacement Theology.

(((Some people))) like to go on about how Replacement Theology is antisemitic doctrine, but the more you think about it, the more obvious it is that Christianity itself is Replacement Theology, so if the latter is antisemitic then the Christian religion itself is antisemitic. Which is what a lot of (((folks))) say anyway. Briefly, Jesus came, the Old Testament and the Law were replacement by the New Testament and what can only be called Mercy. At the same time, the Jewish birthright to Israel was cancelled, as the (Christian) Church was the new Israel.

The Catholics seem to understand this best of all. I attended Catholic Mass for a while when I lived in this new town. All of the lessons were about the New Testament. They never talked about anything else. If I had to describe Catholicism, I would call it “Jesusism” or “New Testamentism.” It’s the Protestants who regress to the Old Testament which doesn’t make much sense as they were supposed to be the reformers.

On the other hand, they were also back to the basics, and I suppose if you go back far enough, the Old Testament was important to the early Christians, especially since for the first 100 years, Christianity was little more than a very odd Jewish sect. In fact, one of the major religious debates of the time was whether a non-Jew could even be a Christian. For decades, one had to be a Jew in order to become a Christian in the first place. So in that sense perhaps Protestantism is like Sunnism, another back to the basics doctrine though not necessarily born of an Islamic reform movement against a staid and corrupt Islam.

On the other hand, Shia Islam always struck me as more like Catholicism, with the rule of the mullahs (the Pope and the Vatican) whose job it is to continuously reinterpret Islam to keep it updated to the current era. Which is exactly what Catholicism does and is also why the only true Christian fundamentalism is always Protestant as much as Catholic-hating Protestants love to holler that this is wrong. It’s hard to imagine what a Catholic fundamentalism would look like. Sure there are the orders and the pre-Vatican II (1964) Catholics, but even Vatican I was quite an advance. Show me any Catholics who want to go back to 60 AD. None do other than the Eastern Orthodox and they’re not so much fundamentalists as people who are practicing an ancient but rather progressive religion.

Christianity Seems to Proscribe Lying, but Judaism Seems to Permit It Guiltlessly

What I’m saying here is that Christian cultures seem to think that lying is a terrible sin and one should always or usually be honest.

In contrast, Hinduism says no such thing and in fact seems to venerate lying as a fine art or even a religious virtue.

The art of lying in Islam when there is a threat to the Muslims is well known.

Sects such as the Druze, the Yezidis, and the Alawi have long prescribed lying if doing so prevents harm to the believers. In general, those religions tend to pretend that they are Muslims. The Alawi actually are Muslims, but a lot of Sunnis don’t buy it. The Druze and Yezidis just say they’re Muslims so they don’t get killed. The Mandeans were much the same.

Of course if you read the Jewish books, this lying for self-preservation is endlessly repeated almost as if it were a ritual in its own right. Jews have always seemed to me to be much more prone to dishonestly than Christians. I’ve long thought that Judaism must allow them to lie with little guilt. If you read Jews Must Live!* (1936) about an Orthodox Jewish family, the entire family engages in such pervasive lying that it causes very serious problems to the point where they could hardly tell when someone was telling the truth or lying and the household is in chaos with much drama, hollering, arguing, fighting, and kvetching most of time.

The latter state simply describes the typical Jewish family. The pathological lying I’m not so sure about. In any case, when you are in a household where people lie so freely and loosely that you can hardly tell when someone is lying or telling the truth, you are truly in an Existential Hell, I would argue. But it’s not that different 2020 Late Capitalist USA, come to think of it, so maybe it’s more livable than I thought.

*Like most all books written by Jews that tell the truth about Jews, of course Jews really hate this book and insist that this man, who wrote a book in part about pathologically lying Jews, is, natch, a pathological liar himself! But you saw that one coming, didn’t you, dear readers?

Game/PUA: Fake It Til You Make It

The Red Pill and PUA sites deny this, but I think it is true nonetheless. They claim that women can tell if a man is faking it or not, and there is a difference between, say, faking confidence and actually being confident.

That strikes me mostly as an affectation, a defense, and of course ultimately a cope, as so many things in life are when you get right down to it. I think they may have a bit of a point, but I think the effect size is probably pretty small.

For instance, I think of myself as a confident guy, but when I examine myself when I am in that situation, it’s clear that a lot of the time, I really don’t believe it and I’m covering up for some pretty massive insecurity way back there somewhere. So I try to get my head into a place where I don’t feel like I’m faking it. I feel like I’m just doing it and believing all the crazy lies that I tell myself about myself. If I don’t fully believe it, it does feel a bit off, at least to me. I’m not sure if anyone can tell, but it bothers me on some level, so I try not to feel that way.

My view:

If you think you’re confident, you’re confident. This one is a bit up in the air but perhaps not as much as we think it is. No insecure person thinks they’re confident. Of course we may have different definitions of confident. A long time ago, I thought I was fairly confident, but then extroverts would make friends with me and tell me that I lacked confidence.

I think they were just commenting on my introversion. Introversion and lack of confidence are not necessarily the same thing but of course extroverts confuse the two horribly because, well, because they’re extroverts and that’s what extroverts do. Some introverts are fairly confident in their odd way, often surprisingly confident for their introversion.

If you think you’re masculine, you’re masculine. This one seems like it is absolutely true. If you put the idea in your head that you’re a masculine guy, you simply automatically start acting more masculine right then and there. There’s no way that an effeminate, faggoty man is going to tell anyone that he’s masculine. I don’t think even wimpy men think they are masculine.

There are straight men who are “soft” but not effeminate. I call these men feminine rather than effeminate (acting like a woman). I’ve known a number of men like this. Some were good friends. As a general rule, they freely admitted that they were not particularly masculine, often laughing softly when they said it. And of course it caused problems in their relationships with women. I remember one friend who told me that a girlfriend used to hit him in a rather playfully but nevertheless in a frustrated way, telling him to act more like a man. He always laughed nervously and told her, “I can’t.”

But getting down to brass tacks, if you’re trying to do it, you’re doing it. I’m not sure anyone cares if you are “really doing it for reals” or “just faking it lol.”

Fake it til you make it, that’s the motto of life.

Who the Hell says women can even tell the difference? Women like Alpha behavior. I doubt if they have the slightest clue about what’s “real” Alpha behavior and what’s “fake” Alpha behavior, and I doubt if they even give a damn. No one cares what you are “really” like deep down inside. All they care about is that shiny exterior with all those fancy bells and whistles.

Life is all about surface appearances, bullshit, and lies and not about inner truths, deeper structures, or the ugly truth.

Game/PUA: The Primary Goal of a Woman’s Life: To Achieve Love and to Be in Love

Women always talk about wanting “commitment.” But women are hardly honest about a single thing they say in the Gender Wars. There’s too much at stake.

Dated a lot of women and I’ve hardly met one who cared about commitment. Don’t think it was ever mentioned to me once. But one thing I noticed over and over was that the most important thing in the relationship to the woman was love – that she was in love with me.

Beyond that and interacting with many women over the years, it’s obvious that the primary female drive is for love. They often idealize this is preposterous ways that never make any sense:

Woman: “That’s not true love…that’s not real love…that’s not love, that’s infatuation, etc.”

Me: “What’s not true love?”

Woman: 100 million completely arbitrary, idiotic, unfalsifiable, often tautological, and completely unscientific notions, such as, “True love is for life,” and other nonsense.

There’s a good reason for most of women’s ridiculous and irrational behavior, and the good reason behind this is that women dislike the idea of love being trivialized.

Why? Because several decades of studying women have shown me that the primary female drive is for love. In a sense, this is what their whole life is wrapped up in. Sure, they have all these other things, career and whatnot, going on, but all of that pales compared to the primary drive or goal of a woman’s life: to achieve love and to be in love.

Even with women (18-28) who say they don’t know what love is or they’ve never experienced love, the primary drive for love is there. These often young women are confused because they think they have not experienced real love yet.

Having been involved with some young women like that recently who were obviously crazy in love with me for a while (but then of course denied it later), it was clear that they simply had not developed a schema of what love was that they could plug their feelings into.

Also, I think they were looking for the fireworks, sparks, and “Hollywood love affair of the century” notion of love, and most love isn’t really that intense. They fall in love, but it’s not the explosions and fireworks kind they expect, so they say it’s not love. They’re wrong of course, but women are wrong about a million things.

Some seek refuge in a ridiculous concept called Aromanticism. I had a female best friend who insisted she was aromantic. Studying the concept, I decided she could not possibly be one, plus the whole concept was a bit silly they way it was laid out.
Supposedly there are all these folks out there who desperately want love, but they have a genetic or biological inability to fall in love which prevents them from doing so. That’s nonsense. There are no such people.

Real aromantics are just cold fish who have chosen to not experience love because, well, because they’re cold fish! It’s a disorder of choice like so of these stupid new Millennial identities, most of which don’t even exist in any real way.

Madeline McCain Murder Mystery Solved!

The Germans nailed him. I wonder how they got him? And yes, this guy is definitely a pedophile. His sex drive is all wrapped up in sex with and torture of little girls. Looks like he killed Madeline for sure as her actual murder or dead body is probably on those tapes. And it looks like he killed another little girl in Germany. And who knows if he killed any more than that? What’s with the little girls’ swimsuits in his van?!

The fact that he brutally beat and raped a 72 year old woman doesn’t mean he’s not a pedophile. Most pedophiles are certainly capable of having sex with adults. It’s just not what they prefer.

Christian Bruckerman is what is known as a misophile. Misophiles are Sadistic Child Molesters, typically also pedophiles, and they make up 5% of the pedophile population. Obviously they are the most dangerous pedophiles of all and are particularly prone to the abduction of child strangers.

And they can absolutely commit homicide in addition to rape, beating, and torture, either as part of the general sadistic fantasy cumulating in death or as a way of getting rid of evidence by eliminating the victim of the crime. If they don’t kill the kid, the kid is obviously going to talk, and they don’t want that.

There are several different types of child molesters, 83% of whom are not pedophiles at all. Instead they’re just criminals. These men typically molest in the family and the molestation often goes along with verbal and physical abuse. These types are no more aroused by children than any of the rest of us are. They simply pick on their child female relatives as easy targets for their power and control games. I am not sure what the name for this type of child molester is or if they even have a name.

The true Pedophile or Pedophilic Child Molester with a strong attraction to children but little or none to mature persons is only one of four types of child molester and they are not the most common type at all. However, they do tend to rack up a high number of victims whereas with the type above, they are limited to female children in their families, and there are usually not many of those.

This type will never seek out strangers to molest while the pedophile prefers this method. Not all pedophiles molest children, but if you follow convicted pedophiles over a 25 year period, 50% of them will molest another child.

Some pedophiles, an unknown percentage, restrict themselves to porn and masturbation to meet their sexual needs. There are probably more pedophiles like this than we think. All pedophiles probably need to be under the care of an understanding therapist in order to keep themselves from offending and molesting kids.

The worse you treat pedophiles, the more you shower them with hatred, harassment, threats, and abuse, the more likely they are to regress and offend. Therefore, non-offending pedophiles should be treated with kindness, though you might want to keep them away from your kids.

Their homes are often decorated with children’s toys and games and they tend to have kids over at their house a lot due to all the fun things he provides for them to play with. They move around a lot and if you study their residence history, they often moved out under a cloud of suspicion of molesting local children. When the heat gets too hot, they simply leave town. They commonly move overseas, often because it is easy to molest children over there. Many seek out jobs where they will have contact with children.

5% of rapists are classed as Sadistic Rapists. These rapists, like the misophiles, are the most dangerous of all. Like the misophiles, they are absolutely capable of murder either as part of the general sadistic fantasy or to kill the victim in order to get rid of evidence (a victim). Probably most of the homicides are sadistic in nature. Most if not all rapist-murderer serial killers fit into this type.

The 95% are believe it or not not sadists, though they can certainly be violent.

This includes the Rage Rapist who has serious anger and hatred towards women as a motivation for rape. The Power Reassurance Rapist or “Gentleman Rapist” is another type. He is often nonviolent, may apologize to the woman afterwards and may even feel guilty in the period after the time. He rapes to reassure himself that he is a man as he has serious issues with his own masculinity and manhood.

The Power Reassurance Rapist is typically nonviolent and never kills. The Rage Rapist usually does not kill his victims but he may beat them due to his anger. Homicide does occur sometimes if the beating goes too far or more commonly if they victim fights back, stimulating his rage even further.

There is another Power-type Rapist whose name eludes me at the moment. Unlike the Power Reassurance Rapist, he does not suffer from issues with his manhood. Instead he is typically a hypermasculine or “macho” man. The motivation is power nonetheless.

Rapist type     Rape motivations 

Power-type      Power, Reassurance of Masculinity,
                Hypermasculinity/Machismo

Rage            Rage, Anger, and Hatred of Women

Sadistic        Erotic Sadism, Aroused by Sexual 
                Violence

The Confession of Russell Williams, Serial Killer

This guy was a pilot in the Canadian Air Force, a family man wit a wife and kids. But he had his kinks or his paraphilias. He liked to dress up in women’s clothes. He stole women’s panties. And he was a prolific voyeur who specialized in spying on women in their hotel rooms.

He was also a serial killer who murdered at least three women. Interesting video shows a superb interrogator who got this man to confess somehow.

Alt Left: Even Ghetto Blacks Are Not Doomed to Uniformly Bad Behavior

Polar Bear: Blacks on the other hand will steal your cheap plastic lawn chair. Blacks are always up to no good on my block.

I have a feeling this is more universal than we think. I was talking to a Brazilian woman I knew well. I told her,

“You don’t want to be racist against Blacks, but it’s hard.”

Meaning it’s hard for obvious reasons. She immediately commiserated and said,

Yes, it’s hard. Here in Brazil, we have a saying about Blacks. “If they don’t steal from you when they’re coming, they steal from you when they’re going.” (obviously in Portuguese).

In other words, “If they don’t steal from you when they come in, they steal from you when they leave.”

They don’t really act all that bad around here in my city except that they are ghetto as Hell. I made friends with one older Black man though. He hated Whites but I was able to get through to him. Later he saw me with a hot 23 year old part-Black woman, so now he probably likes me even more.

We just don’t have many Blacks in this town, period. Hence they cause few problems, and they tend to keep their heads down because they don’t have any numbers, which is what they ought to do anyway. When you only have a small % of Blacks in a city, they tend to act pretty good, mostly because they simply don’t have any numbers. They still cause problems. Blacks like that always cause problems. But they don’t cause mayhem like they do when they have larger numbers, and the difference between problems and mayhem is all the difference in the world.

Further, they are surrounded by Whites and Hispanics who almost always act better than they do. To their credit, these typically ghetto Blacks imitate the Whites and Hispanics around them and act a lot better.

A lot of them still act like shit but still act a lot less shitty than they ordinarily would. They’re still antisocial but they are antisocial in petty, neighborly ways and not in serious criminal ways. Like always asking to borrow money and then you never see the money again. They see you with an expensive object and they “request” that you give it to them. Just typical ghetto nig shit, but they won’t menace you if you don’t fork over your property, and you can always quit loaning them money.

All the young women in their 20’s have at least one kid, obviously with no man in sight. However, these basically ghetto women are quite well behaved.

Also around here the better behaved Blacks dislike the more ghetto ones like I just described. So there are varying degrees of morality even among a hardcore Black population.

In addition, the Whites and Hispanics simply will not put up with any shit at all from these ghetto Blacks. They call these Blacks on their tiniest antisocial bullshit, so that tends to nip the usually mandatory escalation in the bud. I have often thought that if these ghetto Blacks around here were living in a Black ghetto, they would act a lot worse.

It’s so obvious to me that even ghetto Blacks are not doomed to any particular behavior level. It’s also painfully clear to me that their own kind not only serve as horrific role models but also don’t call these Blacks on much of any of their antisocial bullshit. They don’t call them on the little stuff, and they probably don’t call them on the bigger stuff.

Humans aren’t stupid. They’ll get away with just about whatever the Hell you let them get away with. White people act quite good, but we aren’t angels, and every White community has its scumfucks. We are only human after all. Living in White communities my whole life, I was told and learned the hard way that (White) people will get away with just about whatever you let them get away with. So this isn’t a ghetto Black thing. It’s a human thing.

The behavior of even ghetto Blacks can be markedly improved.

First of all, they need to be a minority, preferably under 25%. 25% Black seems to be a tipping point in many cities, after which things start to go seriously to Hell in a handbasket. Below 25% Black, you can look at the statistics of various pathologies, and they don’t rise that much from 5 – 10 – 15 – 20% Black. The city remains more or less livable.

But somewhere between 20-30%, most cities tip over. What follows is probably White flight, usually slow rather than fast, and worse than that is that the decently behaved Blacks (of which there are many – many millions!) start taking off too. Well-behaved Blacks aren’t stupid. They’re not going to sit around in some ghettoizing shithole due to racial solidarity. Sanity and safety trumps racial consciousness any day of the week.

This does not apply to wealthy Black areas like Ladera Heights in Los Angeles, and it probably doesn’t apply to small Black towns in the South where a remarkably decent authentic Black culture is often present.

Second of all, the small population of Blacks needs to be a part of a better behaved larger population, preferably White, Hispanic, or Asian. Ghetto Blacks act remarkably better even in majority-Hispanic cities because Hispanic pathologies are much exaggerated and they act better than most people think.

Third, the larger population needs to call these ghetto Blacks on their antisocial shit, starting with the most petty neighborly BS. Just shut it down before it even starts. Either due to this or due to the general environment, the better behaved Blacks start shutting down the bad actors too. People, even supposedly irredeemable ghetto Blacks, do respond to harsh correction at the societal level.

Why Are Serial Killers So Mean?

It’s because they’ve pushed the mean element present in everyone who isn’t trying to be holy to the max. Plenty of people are not goody two shoes, but they aren’t serial killers. But that’s only because they haven’t peered into their “bad self” enough. But the scary thing is, Who knows when somebody will go deeper into their “bad self?”

Being mean to the max involves domination and self-worship among other things – basic Cluster B personality stuff. However, who’s to say we don’t all have some Cluster B in us? Why should we toss all these behaviors onto, say, White Supremacists for instance, when we all have some of it?

Christian Moral Puritanism

Sex is fine, even polygamy, but you can’t hurt your partner. Yet so much porn is about calling women sluts, choking them, BDSM – you name it. It’s sinfully fun to be bad, but it’s still, well, a sin.

I think many get the wrong idea that being morally pure is square when it’s not that but instead that someone good simply doesn’t want to hurt their partner.

The society of evil is obsessed with domination and being mean. It’s just natural and the dedicated like those into satanic ritual sacrifices are getting the biggest high from it.

Much of society associates religion with virginity, but that’s great propaganda for keeping people out of churches. Also, the true nature of sex is probably not going to be discussed in church because it’s weird, and it makes the pastor uncomfortable, and maybe they haven’t thought that deeply about it to begin with. But no doubt sexual addiction is a real problem, even among the religious.

Making a Mockery of Sex

So much sex in our society is about doing that, and that would be a “no-no” also. That means public displays of sexuality, but if someone wants a private strip club in their basement with only their married harem, I suppose that’s not wrong.

Reforming Inner City Schools

Honestly, public schools aren’t so great in rural counties either, minus the fact there are no gangs, etc..

The leftwing argument is no money has been spent on education, while the rightwing claims money has simply not spent wisely. That’s why they’re advocating for school vouchers, which are basically saying, “Public schools aren’t worth the time – here’s public money to go to a private one.” However, if public schools aren’t worth the time, then why build them to begin with?

If People Don’t Want to Learn, Let Them Leave

Some are cynical about the public school system because so many slackers and un-reformable bad boys are in it.

This idea is applied to our cities now. If they don’t want police, then let the place rot just as long no problems reach outside the zone. The US has already practiced this somewhat with inner-city ghettos, surprisingly, for many decades before any of this rioting. There are a lot of cops there, but what else has really been done to improve the place? The schools are garbage; there’s no opportunity.

The Black Race and Impulsiveness and Ability to Delay Gratification

RL: “Poor impulse control. It’s been documented and it’s genetic.. 6 year old children. Pure genetics.”

TJF: At age 6, environment could very easily guide one’s behavior. In reference to Alpha’s comment I’d like to see a study with children who have an engaged paternal figure versus those who do not. I’ve seen people dismiss the out of wedlock birthrates among Black Americans comparing the similar out of wedlock birth rates in Iceland and Sweden, but those societies are substantially different (markedly more socialist), and the birth fathers may be heavily engaged, but the parents are not married.

With that said I get the impression that clear consistent guidance is probably even more required / beneficial in Black Americans than Whites (albeit any child would benefit).

It’s been replicated over and over. The first tests were done in the South. They were worried it was environmental, so they took it to the Caribbean. Same result. They didn’t believe the results, so they kept doing the tests over and over. Eventually they had done the tests so many times that they got sick of trying to replicate them and they quit doing them.

You now have to argue that Caribbean Black and US Southern Black culture are the same in producing this odd effect. If it’s cultural, that means they have the same culture. But is that true? Caribbean Black culture is the same as US Black culture? Why would that be? And why doesn’t that play into the “niggers are the same everywhere” argument used by the racists? Also and more importantly, if they’re the same everywhere due to biology or due to culture, what difference does it make? Who cares! You still have a group of people who have problems with delaying gratification, and that’s a problem in a modern society.

Also let us look at this from another POV. One idea is the tests are simply wrong. Does the Black race on average seem to have a harder time delaying gratification than other races? Just look around you at how Black children and adults act. I taught Black kids for years. Of course it’s true, but by the time they are 16-18, most of that behavior is gone because the ones who could not delay gratification are all dropped out, on the streets, in jail or juvey, or probation or parole, or dead.

Look at the behavior of ghetto type Blacks. So much of the pathology seems to be so directly related to this inability to delay gratification. It’s as clear as air.

I’m not some racist out to hate Blacks and write them off as some failed race. At this point in history, I’m not sure how much it matters how they act. We are now in the era of genetic splicing and CRISPr technology. Genetically designed humans may not be too far away. Do we really need to be so concerned about what various races bring to the table genetically?

How about something else? How about a pill? I don’t like the idea of mandating meds for people who are not mentally ill and most pathological Blacks are not disordered at all. They’re not crazy. They’re just bad. We obviously don’t have a morality pill yet (but one can dream!) but suppose we found a pill that let you delay gratification? That enabled you to be less impulsive, which in my opinion is another terrible problem with the Black race.

I don’t see how we can force people to take it, but we could always offer it on a voluntary basis. A lot of Blacks are probably sick and tired of their impulsiveness and inability to delay gratification screwing up their lives. This might be especially true in Black men over 30-35. Maybe they’re angry because they can’t seem to control themselves, and this keeps ruining their lives. Suppose we say, “Here’s a pill to help you be less impulsive so you don’t get into trouble so much.” I think there would be some Blacks, especially Black men, who would gladly take it.

This goes beyond race. Obviously impulsiveness and inability to display gratification are human qualities, not Black qualities. Blacks simply display these all too human qualities in greater percentages. Speaking of pills, we could offer such a pill to anyone of any race who had problems with delayed gratification and impulsiveness. I’m  quite sure there are Whites who  have these problems. And I know there are Hispanics with these problems. IQ does seem to be an attenuating factor. As IQ rises, impulsiveness and inability to delay gratification seem to go down and vice versa.

I had a neighbor Hispanic, a young man who was gang affiliated, who used to hang out over here all the time. Mostly we just smoked pot. He literally could not think beyond one or two days in the future. He would get some money and it would melt in his hands in a day or two, no matter how much. Then he would be standing there dumbfounded, acting like,”Whoa! Where did all the money go? Duhhhh.”

I kept talking to him but he literally could not think beyond 24-48 hours into the future, so it was worthless. I had no idea what his IQ was. Surely in the 80’s.

He sure could rap though. I heard him rap a few times and  the guy was a flat out genius. With an IQ of 85. I’m not sure you need a real high IQ to master verbal memory, which is the skill being utilized in rap.

So these sort of interventions would go beyond being “Black things” into being “human things.”

How Straight Men Use the Words Fag and Faggot

Any of you snowflakes out there who might get triggered by this post and need another three months of therapy and hugs, please bail out right now. I don’t want your trauma on my conscience.

Faggot. This is a mean word. It’s said with this savage bite. You could almost feel the hate. Faggot is still used that way, but you don’t hear it much because it’s seen as a slur.  But now it has a new meaning. Faggots are just (male) idiots, fucktards, dumbasses, dumbshits, fools, morons, and other pinheads. It has nothing to do with gay men!

Fag. Often simply a descriptive tern for gay men. It could be negative, neutral, or positive depending on tone. People want one word for gay men, and “gay men” is two words. Fag is not used this way so much anymore because now it’s now a slur. Fag is mostly used by straight men towards other straight men! Fag means pussy, wussy, girlyman, cuck, soyboy, etc. It’s used towards male feminists, men who have declared war on the men. We call them those names to insult them to get them back on our side. Because calling a straight man unmasculine is the ultimate insult. We ain’t talking about you!

Alt Left: An Analysis of the Armenian and Greek Genocides in Anatolia in 1915-1923: The Truth of the Events and Number of Victims

From 1915-1923, a few massacres were committed against the Christians of Anatolia. There were three genocides: an Armenian genocide, an Assyrian genocide, and a Greek genocide.

I just did a significant amount of research on the events and numbers around these events. I did it because Turks on the Internet were claiming that Armenians started the fighting by slaughtering Turks.

There were also posts from Turks talking how if things got bad in Turkey, Armenians and Greeks would start slaughtering Turks. I work in mental health, and this is clear and naked projection. They’re accusing Armenians and Greeks of doing to Turks everything the Turks did to the Armenians and Greeks. Most Turks on the Net absolutely hate Armenians and use the word “Armenian” to mean something like “the worst enemies of the Turkish people ever.”

So I did some basic research on the events. I was especially confused by the Turkish claims that these events started when  Armenians in Anatolia started massacring Turks, and Turks were just fighting back. Were they right? Of course I had always believed the Armenian side of the story, but what if they were wrong and the Turks were right? As I am extremely open-minded person (far more open-minded than most people), I had to find out.

First, the numbers. They’re wrong. Way off, all of them. The official figures run from 700,000 to 1.8 million. Simply by adding up all of the totals listed on Wikipedia, I got 2.5 million Armenian victims of the Turks in this period.

Now, I did include some massacres that occurred before the actual genocide because I felt that they were all part of some larger event, a slo-mo Armenian genocide that lasted from 1880-1923. I believe there was a slaughter of 300,000 in the 1880’s amidst similar Turkish recriminations as I outlined above: “The Armenians were killing our people, so we had to fight back.” And possibly another with 25,000 number of victims around 1908. And the killings absolutely extended to into the 1920’s until 1923.

I had previously thought that there were 40,000 Turkish civilians killed by Armenians in retaliation, but now I cannot find that data. What I did find what that Russian Cossaks killed 45,000 Turkish civilians in a Turkish river valley in 1916.

2.5 million Armenian civilians killed by Turks (as aggression).

0? Turkish civilians killed by Armenians (as retaliation).

I also checked on the Turkish claim that Armenians started it. No, they didn’t. Incidentally, it seems like most of the genocide occurred in maybe a couple of years – 1915-1916. The rest of the years were more like window dressing.

The Turks claimed that Armenians killed Turkish soldiers when Russia invaded Turkey in the east in 1914. This is correct. There were quite a few Armenians in that force. These were Armenian volunteer battalions that also included Assyrians and Greeks. They numbered 40,000.

They had been treated terribly by the Ottomans over centuries of land, food, and business theft, beatings, jailings, tortures, murders, pogroms, and massacres. So these were Christians living in Russia who were out for some paybacks due to Ottoman crimes. I had previously thought that Turkish civilians were killed in this battle, but now I can’t find any data.

This was during a battle in late 1914 in which the Turks were beaten badly by a Russian invading force in the East. The Turks blamed the Armenians for their loss in the battle, but the real cause was that the Turks fought the battle very poorly, and the Russians fought it in a much smarter way. It was a fair fight.

The loss of this battle was humiliating for the Turks, and they quickly accused Armenians in Anatolia of stabbing them in the back and causing their defeat.

This is exactly  what Hitler said about Jews that set off the Holocaust – that German Jews had stabbed Germany in the back, causing it to lose the war. It wasn’t true and neither was the Turkish claim, but it worked. Turks quickly demonized Armenians and other Christians in Turkey and scapegoated them. Which is once again exactly what the Nazis did to Jews.

The Turks used the paranoia set off by this event to set off the genocide of the Armenians (and Assyrians and Greeks) in Anatolia on the grounds that they were some sort of infidel 5th Column in wartime and hence were dangerous traitors. There’s not a lot of evidence that this was true.

These massacres were committed by the Russian Army, not the Armenians of Turkey, and neither is there evidence that the Armenians sympathized with the invaders. Interestingly, around this time, many Turkish Armenians became patriots and either joined or tried to join the Turkish Army to fight the invaders. This is left out of many accounts.

I also looked into the Greek genocide and got a figure of 715,000, larger than most estimates. Greek retaliation killings were only 15,000, and all occurred years after the initial slaughter of the Greeks.

715,000 Greeks killed by Turks (as aggression).

15,000 Turkish civilians killed by Greeks (in retaliation).

Which number is bigger? Which represents the much larger crime?

I haven’t gotten to the Assyrian genocide yet, figures of which seem to be between the Greek and Armenian numbers.

Maybe in an upcoming post

Under Siege Politics

Whatever is done in the short-term, no matter how seemingly terrible, is justified to prevent long-term evil. Who’s to say which group using this philosophy is correct? It would depend on your political orientation.

Well, in Latin America, as @Robert Lindsay has mentioned, there’s pretty much no middle ground between fascists and communists. We see the “under-siege” mentality. It’s obvious that right-wing freedom in Cuba would lead to a government overthrow. It’s obvious that left-wing freedom would lead to the current Brazilian government being overthrown. Maybe Brazil has less of the “under-siege” thing going on, but it’s still there.

Of Course, SJWism is Women Picking on So-Called Weak/Ugly Men, But Never Players

Look at how society is gamed. There’s no push for marriage because our society frowns on it until you’re about 40 – LOL.  Also, there’s no polygamy. It never even occurs to people! So you’d get a bunch of players looking at porn and banging chicks and a lot of nerds banging porn.

It’s simply anti-sexual world we live in. In other words, there’s not any morally acceptable way for a man to express his real sexuality. However, that’s not reality but rather some type of corruption of the actual truth.

There is such a thing as morally weak men, as in sexually so. Of course, there are taboos in sex that are justified. However, Western society demonizes all sex outside of monogamous marriage, and it also wants people to wait along time for monogamous marriage.

Then are we surprised that nerds gawk at SJW women, who then call the cops? Is it surprising that nerds get unjustified rape accusations?

Who Are the players?

These are bad boys practicing illegal polygamy. They’re happy in a sense because at least they’re expressing their true male nature.

Game/PUA: SJWism Is Based on Female Thinking

Really all SJWism is based on female thinking. I believe I read this somewhere else but I’m not sure how well it clicked with me at the time. But now that I understand women so much better, I finally get it. Of course SJWism is female thinking. Of course Identity Politics is female thinking.

Hence, all IP and of course all SJWism is pussy, and real men should not indulge in this pussy crap. That goes for Men’s Rights too. Men’s Rights is often based on female thinking, so it’s a pussy movement. The best Men’s Rights Movement would employ cold, hard logic and scientific thinking to promote the cause of men. This is no problem because logic is in our favor.

We are just too afraid to use it because once you go logical, you don’t get to play black and white, good and bad, good versus evil, the same splitting game that all IP movements play. In other words you have to play fair.

Ever tried to argue fairly with a typical fucktard human?

It’s based on emotional logic and it has the contempt for science and logic as tools the strong use against the weak, which is precisely how women see science and logic, neither of which they have much use for. SJW’s see themselves are completely weak and their enemies as completely strong. This is just the way female thinking works. According to female thinking, women are weak and men are strong and therefore, women get to break all the rules or follow no rules at all simply on account of being weak.

They are correct that the only way a weak party has a chance in a fight is if they fight dirty. Only the strong can afford to fight by the rules, which is why they always insist on rule-based fights. In a rule-based fight, the strong party always wins. Weak parties are smart enough to realize that if they play by the rules, they lose, so they all tend to fight dirty.

Women are weak and men are strong. Women realize that on a fair playing field, we will kick their asses in no time. So women don’t fall for the “let’s play by the rules” game that men set up for fights. And women believe that since they are weak, they have a right to fight dirty because all parties to a fight must appear to be on equal grounds. In  fact, according to women, men demanding rules for fighting is profoundly unfair itself because it will result in men always winning and women always losing.

Being Dumb Isn’t the Problem; Being Dangerous Dumb or Dangerously Ignorant Is

I don’t hate lower IQ people. A lot of the people I hate have high IQ’s too. I hate stupid people. Stupid people who don’t think properly. It’s more like ignorance and what I call a “dangerously stupid” attitude. By ignorant I mean it is completely opposed to science and driven more my mass hysteria and emotional societal panics.

Being stupid is one thing. If you are just stupid but you are not dangerously stupid so you might harm me, I don’t hate you 1%. You could have an 85 IQ but if you are smart enough to not get taken in by societal bullshit and intelligent enough to think for yourself and come up with your own answers instead of being a sheep, I love you to death.

An 85 IQ  person need not be an ignorant moron with repulsive and dangerous views. He’s a lot more likely to but that’s not guaranteed. On the other hand, it’s perfectly possible for someone to be high or very high IQ and be dangerously ignorant to where they have attitudes that are dangerous to me and others. A lot of these types are wrapped up in fanatical movements like feminism and SJWism that tend towards wild irrationality or no rationality at all, and contempt for science and logic in favor of emotional reasoning.

It might be hard to connect with you, but IQ’s no reason to hate a man. I guess I should say that what I hate is dangerous ignorance, but ignorance and dangerous, emotion-driven ignorance does tend to be more common as you go down the IQ scale. As you go up the scale, people can shut off their emotions more and see issues in the clear light of pure logic, in which case, they usually arrive at an answer that’s compatible with science and reasonable policy-wise.

Most People Are Simply Incapable of Arguing Fairly or Using Logic in Argumentation

Let me tell you something. Most people don’t believe in fair argumentation. It’s just too male, and humans are too insecure to engage in pure male thinking. Nietzsche was onto this. In fact his strong man was not a fascist but someone strong enough use cold hard logic and live with the results without dissolving in emotional insecurity like a little bitch. In other words, an ubermensch.

So most people argue in a very dirty way. Everyone I argue with takes the black and white position. My guys/my side 100% good, 0% evil. They won’t admit to one bad thing about their side. The other side 100% evil, 0% good. You can say anything good about the other side. If you say 99 bad things about them and one good thing, you have gone over to the enemy.

Sometimes I will praise Trump. Of course I hate him as much as any Trump hater, but now and then, he does the right thing, especially on foreign policy, where he is actually halfway different from the usual bloodthirsty imperialist maniac US president. But whenever I point out that I support some one thing Trump did, my idiot Democrat friends smile and say, “You going to vote for him?” Other times they will positively scream at me, “Don’t praise him! Don’t say anything good about him!”

Well, I hate Trump 98%. A few times he’s right. Because I think he’s right 2% of the  time, that means I’m going to vote for him! Because if you don’t oppose someone 100% (99% is never good enough) that means you support them!

Nice Guys Can’t Get Sex

Yeah, they can’t but they could if they married and better yet married many women. But now we have a society where polygamy is illegal, so the most horny guys who can attract fortification simply have illegal polygamy. However, imagine a society where all men can simply find many wives. Look at all the problems that would solve.

Again, our society hates polygamy because much of its morality flows from Judeo-Christian teaching which is corrupted, not true to its roots. There’s nothing in the Bible saying polygamy is wrong, which implies that Western civilization shouldn’t hold it in contempt.

Where can nice guys find wives? Maybe these types can’t get so-called laid, but they might find it easier to get a wife/wives and if they can’t even do that, beautiful Filipinas, etc. would gladly marry them for money.

Sex in Heaven, Bible Permitted Polygamy?

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/scotty-smith/article-is-there-sex-in-heaven/

Much of Christianity has an anti-sex obsession just like it has an obsession with torturing people in Hell eternally. However, have people really examined the Bible to see what it really says?

Everything on earth is analogous to something in Heaven. Heaven neither simply removes nor simply continues earthly things. If we apply this principle to sexual intercourse, we get the conclusion that intercourse on earth is a shadow or symbol of intercourse in Heaven. Could we speculate about what that could be?

It could certainly be spiritual intercourse–and, remember, that includes sexual intercourse because sex is spiritual. This spiritual intercourse would mean something more specific than universal charity. It would be special communion with the sexually complementary; something a man can have only with a woman and a woman only with a man. We are made complete by such union: “It is not good that the man should be alone.”[25] And God does not simply rip up His design for human fulfillment.

The relationship need not be confined to one in Heaven. Monogamy is for Earth. On Earth, our bodies are private.[26] In Heaven, we share each other’s secrets without shame, and voluntarily.[27] In the Communion of Saints, promiscuity of spirit is a virtue.

The relationship may not extend to all persons of the opposite sex, at least not in the same way or degree. If it did extend to all, it would treat each differently simply because each is different-sexually as well as in other ways. I think there must be some special “kindred souls” in Heaven that we are designed to feel a special sexual love for. That would be the Heavenly solution to the earthly riddle of why in the world John falls for Mary, of all people, and not for Jane, and why romantic lovers feel their love is fated, “in the stars”, “made in Heaven”.[28]

http://www.isawthelightministries.com/polygamy.html

The Bible is full of God-approved polygamy. Why might it be a good thing:

Men are Naturally Polygamous

We know that when men are stuck in a traditional western marriage of only one woman, that many times he will cheat behind his wife’s back. To be realistic, most men would cheat on their wife if given the opportunity, if he felt very confident that his wife would never find out. God created men with very intense, natural sexual desires that are very difficult to control, especially with all of these women walking around in very short skirts/shorts and showing much of their breasts.

74% of men say they would have an affair if they knew they would never get caught. Source: Associated Press, Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. Date research was conducted: September 7, 2016. The same study said 57% of men admit to have already committed infidelity in a relationship. But the truth is, the same study said that 74% of men would cheat if they knew they would never be caught, therefore the other 17% are lying. This is confirmed by a study conducted in India, which says that 75% of all men cheat on their wife. Source

Of course, just because 75% of men are having sex with multiple women doesn’t prove that it’s the will of God. But nevertheless, it does prove the natural instinct of men. Most men desire to be with more than one woman. That’s not because of the devil but rather because God created men to have a very powerful sex drive. But most women want to be with only one man. These natural differences were created by God.