Double Standards for Men and Women?

Beatrix asks:

Robert,
I am curious, you’ve openly bragged on this blog about having had sex with over a hundred women, yet when women choose a similar lifestyle you refer to them as ‘cavewomen’? What’s up with that?

I haven’t openly bragged about that. I’ve been rather discreet about it. I only bring it up when idiots suggest that I am a virgin.
There are always a few men who don’t marry or are players and whatnot. There have always been those types. But society won’t work if most guys act like I do or did. Most men need to become betas, settle down, marry and lead somewhat stable lives not like my own.
I don’t particularly care how women choose to live their lives, and anyway, I am not complaining; after all, I have had it pretty good under this system.
I could care less about whores and sluts. After all, I have had some of my most fun with them. That said, men seem to screw around a lot better than women do. Promiscuity in women so many times seems to damage the woman at some base core. It seems to almost damage their souls. I don’t know why that is, but maybe women were just not meant to live that way.
I am just sitting back and looking at what’s going on in society. The MRA and PUA sites are noting that there is a situation where female hypergamy exists to an extreme degree (guys like me benefited from this in the old days, but it was not as extreme), a few “Alphas” are monopolizing most of the best women, there mass shaming and shunning of beta males, and omegas are simply left out of the equation altogether.
There are millions of guys complaining that they are not getting any. Some are picking up guns and shooting people. After women have their fun with bad boys all through their 20’s, they try to settle down with a beta whom they secretly despise. The marriage or relationship is often not very happy.
Women don’t seem to be particularly happy. There is a tidal wave of very amoral female behavior vis a vis men that I have described. Tens of millions of women are “acting crazy,” acting out in ways my Mom’s generation would describe as “being a crazy woman.” There seems to be an epidemic of borderline personality disorder.
Women assault men, often physically, threaten them, threaten to kill them. Attacks on men’s masculinity seem to be so routine they are taken for granted. The “creeper” epidemic seems to be driven by the notion that female society feels that there are millions of men who simply should not have sex or even attempt to have sex at all. Men are attacked in public for so much as looking at women, not to mention asking them out.
Women are frankly completely out of control, and I don’t see what good has come of all this shit.
It strikes me that there is something wrong with this picture. I am just sitting back and commenting on the state of affairs. I am echoing Roissy and others that I don’t think this state of affairs is sustainable in the long run.
 

Anatoly Karlin on Female Hypergamy, Game, Betas and Alphas, Etc.

Anatoly Karlin writes:

Betas are the builders of civilization. You just can’t do without them. If their interests aren’t catered for society devolves into a tribalistic jungle.
Due to various factors, betas are now taken for granted by women. Omegas need not apply. This is what happens when traditional mores, i.e. the masculine rules that underpin civilization, collapse, and female hypergamy is unleashed, leading to soft polygamy.
Becoming a player, or PUA, is a natural adaptation of the rational beta to his environment. To remain in the sexual market he is going to mimic alpha traits, which is really what “game” is all about. The reason self-proclaimed alpha women (not that they actually exist LOL) like Beatrix consider players to be “creeps” is because game is a form of reproductive cheating.
This is completely natural and to be expected. Of course one should not blame or resent women for following their misplaced instincts. It’s not something they have any control over and doing so would just be omega. The alpha response would be to just learn game and go a-banging.
Arguably, the very survival of civilization depends on more betas doing that, to avoid the dystopian outcomes that a surfeit of alphas and “independent women” inevitably leads to.

Everything he says here is correct.

AK: This is what happens when traditional mores, i.e. the masculine rules that underpin civilization, collapse, and female hypergamy is unleashed, leading to soft polygamy.

This is precisely what has occurred. We can argue about why this has happened and who is to blame. Many blame feminism, but this is uncertain. At any rate, what we see now is not occurring in traditional patriarchal societies. When traditional patriarchal society breaks down, you end up with this jungle like scenario that Karlin refers to.
I refer to modern women as “cavewomen” and I say that feminism created a nation full of cavewomen. This was not what I signed up for when I enlisted in the Women’s Liberation movement. There’s nothing liberating about a nation full of cavewomen living in a concrete jungle. It’s a Darwinian, Hobbesian Hell any way you cut it.

AK: Becoming a player, or PUA, is a natural adaptation of the rational beta to his environment. To remain in the sexual market he is going to mimic alpha traits, which is really what “game” is all about.

Exactly. Game is simply a male adaptation to a nation of cavewomen living in a concrete and glass jungle. What else is a guy to do? Life gives you lemons, you make lemonade.

AK: This is completely natural and to be expected. Of course one should not blame or resent women for following their misplaced instincts.

Precisely. We have simply unleashed women to follow their genetic and evolutionary instincts, which is to act like a cavewoman. On the other hand, I’m not sure that blindly following their cavewoman nature is best for either women or society.

AK: Arguably, the very survival of civilization depends on more betas doing that, to avoid the dystopian outcomes that a surfeit of alphas and “independent women” inevitably leads to.

The Alphas and independent women scenario is precisely what the folks in the Manosphere are either discussing or complaining about. And it really is a dystopia for anyone who cares about living in an advanced modern civilization.
Betas are the civilization builders, as Karlin argues. And society shuns them at its peril.
Another commenter pointed to the Black Ghetto as an example of what happens when all of the civilizational controls go off of a sector of society. Whether or not this is a good example is uncertain, but possibly it is.

South Indians Are Basically Caucasians

A commenter writes:

It seems you are trying to force a connection between “South Indians” and Caucasians because many people especially from Kerala have very European features.
Kerala has witnessed a lot of migration from Syria and other places, because of the ancient civilization of peaceful people there who welcomed migrants that were probably ostracized from their previous communities because they adopted certain beliefs and practices that were exported by Dravidian spiritualists.
Whatever the reason for their migration, it is known that the western part of South India has seen a lot of migration of Caucasians since antiquity. But purebred Dravidians have no Caucasian connection except that they are a most ancient race closely linked with Negrito/Aboriginal peoples, therefore many of the races that were birthed later naturally carry that connection.
The branch gives birth to the fruit but the fruit doesn’t have much of the branch in it, if you know what I mean.
Tamils, who are often considered to be synonymous with the term “South Indians” have little or no Caucasian in them (in terms of later mixing through Caucasian/Aryan migration), likewise most Keralites have little or no Caucasian in them, except for those families who at some point mixed with Caucasian merchants or explorers that journeyed to South India for its spices and various other specialties.
The pictures you see of South Indian women with European-looking features are usually of models or actresses – those who are in professions where fair skin and European features are preferred whether due to bias or its more global appeal. But if you actually visit South India you will see how little resemblance there is to Caucasians and how much greater is their similarity to Negrito/Aboriginal people.
Yet, you resist the strongly evidenced connection between South Indians and Negroid peoples, while trying to force a connection between South Indians (Dravidians) and Caucasians. I smell a fish. 🙂
There is overwhelming evidence that out of Africa came the father of all the races, and so you can’t get too far by excluding any race from the African link. Anyway, I believe there is only one race…the human race. At least that we can be certain is not based on speculation but truth. Peace!

The truth is that even South Indians are part of the Caucasian race. This is clear on any genetic chart. Cavalli-Sforza’s charts make it clear that South Indians are Caucasians.
Other charts show Indians are partway between Asians and Caucasians, but closer to Caucasians. This is probably about right.
No genetic chart shows the South Indians as closer to Australoids. The only Australoids on genetic charts are Melanesians, Papuans and Aborigines, and South Indians are nowhere near any of those. Negritos do not appear on genetic charts in general as they tend to group with whomever they live with. Filipino Negritos group with Filipinos; Thai Negritos group with Thais, etc.
It is true that on skulls, Tamils do group with Australoids, but on genes, they are just typical South Indians, more or less Caucasoids. But most South Indians have Caucasoid skulls.
This commenter, an Afrocentrist, makes the typical mistake of conflating Caucasian with White or European. But there are many non-White or non-European Caucasoids out there.
If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

Female Rule: An Example

A male feminist commenter, who has now been banned, writes:

Wait a minute…there are actual people who don’t realize that asking co-workers for sex at work is incredibly inappropriate and grounds for sexual harassment?
This site his HILARIOUS!!!

What happened was that a man asked out a woman at work. He did so privately, but the woman was such an insane cunt that she told all of the women in the office. The women all pretty much hated the guy, but the guys couldn’t really care less about him. The women considered him undesirable – a creep. There was a huge uproar because this guy asked a chick out. Big deal!
The supervisor suggested that it was sexual harassment for any employee to ask out any other employee. There had already been several high profile relationships among the workforce.
First of all, sexual harassment has to do with higher ups demanding sex from those under their employ as a condition of further work. You either sleep with me or a fire you. It was recently expanded to the point where a man is persistently bothering a woman and won’t knock it off. Well, that is maybe sexual harassment, but I doubt it. The woman has to make it clear to the guy that he needs to knock it off. then if he continues, there’s a problem. What sort of a problem, I am not sure. Perhaps he will be fired.
For all intents and purposes, sexual harassment does not exist among co-workers at the same work level.
It is certainly not sexual harassment for a male coworker to ask out a female coworker. It never has been. It’s not even sexual harassment to flirt with coworker.
People are spending more and more time at work, and many coworkers start dating each other. It happens all the time. No one is going to stop it or do anything about it.
This is a clear example of Female Rule. The commenter, who supports Female Rule, feels that all relationships among coworkers should be banned. It should be sexual harassment for any man to ask out any female coworker. If women ran the world according to female rules, this is exactly the sort of law or rule that would be put into place.

Woman As Guerrilla Fighter: Why Men Make Rules and Women Break Them

Steve writes:

You are accusing woman in general of being immoral or amoral in certain ways. You are portraying them as vindictive and opportunistic, using rules to get their own way. You are questioning the moral integrity of woman in general.

This is exactly what I am doing. By the way, Alpha agrees with me on this. And you know who told me, “Man make rules. Women break them.”? My own mother! She knows her own gender very, very well. Now, neither my mother nor Alpha are inclined to use rules as tools like that, but they understand that the basically conniving nature of women means that many will.
There is a good reason why women do this. Men are strong. We are stronger. Rules favor the strong and disfavor the weak. The weaker people will use rules as tools to be used to their advantage however. The stronger will demand that everyone play by the rules.
An example is the rules of war. Strong states like the US and the Zionist entity demand that their opponents play by the rules of war. However, those fighting the US, Israel and any other huge state would get completely creamed if they played by the rules of war.
So guerrillas and any weaker force fighting any stronger force will always bend the rules and break the rules and use guerrilla warfare, deception, sneak attacks, suicide bombings, spies, no uniforms, hiding behind civilians, waving surrender and then dropping their flags and shooting and other pussy bullshit when fighting the stronger force. It’s the only way they have a chance.
Women don’t really stand a chance going one on one against men. That’s why they use subterfuge, spying, conniving, rule-breaking, deception and other “guerrilla war” tactics when fighting men and others in general .
Guerrilla war and deceptive, non-rules based war are essentially feminine warfare tactics. The US and Israel demanding that everyone fight fair and square is a masculine mode of warfare. The way women see it, demanding that they fight fair and square is bullshit. Men are stronger, so men will always win.

Someone is *Going* to Rule – Either Men or Women, Take Your Pick

Beatrix writes:

I’m still wondering why it has to be either ‘men rule’ or ‘women rule’? Seems the best of both would be a better idea.

Steve doesn’t seem to understand. It’s not a matter of what is better or worse, or what moral or not. One sex or the other is going to rule the other. Either men rule women, or, if they don’t, women will rule men. There is no and will never be equality in the sexual realm. One must dominate, and the other must be submissive.
I reached that conclusion painfully. I long felt, as a feminist and one who came of age in the various Liberation movements, that the world would be better if ruled by women than by men. I now realize that that is wrong.
Male rule is natural and normal and produces functional societies. It is unfortunate that women are often treated poorly in these societies, but at least they work on some level.
And my observation is that in patriarchal societies, both males and females are very happy in their respective roles. This is because men want to be masculine and women want to be feminine.
This is the natural order, and people are happiest when obeying the dictates of nature as their bodies and minds are cognitively, culturally and evolutionarily evolved to be happiest in the natural order. Violations of the natural order will feel unnatural to most humans on some level and will result in mass unhappiness.
Further, violations of nature cause chaos. Commenter Justin said that male rule is natural and female rule only causes chaos. This is my position. Female rule, whatever it’s moral or theoretical benefits, simply doesn’t work. The end result is some sort of chaos.
It is this chaos that people are talking about so much in the Manosphere and on the MRA and PUA blogs. The PUA are attempting to make lemonade out of the sour lemons of this chaos. The others are bitching and complaining, probably to no avail in the long run.
What do I mean by Female Rule and Male Rule? I mean the views, ways of thinking, world view and sexual philosophy of each group will come to dominate society. In Female Rule, those views and philosophies are the female way of thinking. In Male Rule, those thinking modes and opinions are the male way of thinking.
A commenter named Richard Smothers wrote a long piece about a crazy woman, a girlfriend he was living with. She threw him out of the home without giving him 30 days or even 30 seconds to get his stuff. When he tried to get back in to retrieve his stuff, she said he had hit her. He had not, and he had never hit her the whole time he had been with her. Then she got a restraining order against him.
The cops told him that if he went back in the house, they would have to arrest him as she said he had hit her. Those were the rules. The cops also that they were dealing with a tidal wave of women abusing the new rules about domestic violence with false claims of men hitting them.
The case went to court and the judge forced them into arbitration. Once again, the court was dealing with extreme abuse by women of restraining orders against men who had never harmed them in any way.
We are also seeing a tidal wave or false reports of child molestation filed by women against ex-husbands and ex-lovers. The women say that the men abused their children. In a huge percentage of the cases, the charges are simply false.
The problem here is that I have heard stories like Richard’s so many times that I can’t even count all of them.
Women bait men into hitting them. Women invite two men they are involved with over at the same time to try to bait them into a physical altercation, in which case she will call the police. Women wrestle with their sons of the floor, all for the purpose of getting little bruises all over them, then when the man comes over, try to bait him into hitting her (and using the bruises as evidence of the attack) or claim he was the one who caused the bruises.
All of this is an example of female thinking ruling society.
As I said before, men make rules and women break them. To women rules are tools to be bent in wichever way they want to bend them towards whatever ends she needs to use them for, morality be damned. Men think that rules are hard and fast and not to be violated. To women, rules are potential tools and even weapons in their arsenals, to be possibly used if the day arises.
In a recent case, a man had falsely paid child support for years for a child that was not his. He finally went to court and got a lab to prove it was not his. The court argued that the man had to keep paying child support for the child until the child was 18 because this was “in the best interest of the child.” The real father had to pay nothing. This is an example of female thinking ruling society.
We are also dealing with epidemics of false sexual harassment charges, mostly against men who women feel are undesirable or “creepy.” Creepy just means that the guy is omega or maybe even beta in some way. If an undesirable guy shows interest in a woman, that’s “creepy.” I know guys who have been accused of this for merely checking out young women. If you’re a “creepy” omega or even beta, you don’t even have a right to look at women anymore.
I know another guy who got accused of sexual harassment for asking out a woman at work. That’s all he did. He asked her out. She didn’t really respond, and he dropped the matter.
This is also female thinking. The notion that undesirable guys have no right to have sex or even attempt to have sex or even look at a woman is a female notion. That millions of males, otherwise harmless, are “creeps” simply because females don’t like them is female thinking.
There is more to write on this subject but I will save it for another post.

On "Momma's Boys"

Steve writes:

I think the mama’s boy thing is a bit of a non-issue to men. Most men are perfectly comfortable with loving their mum.
The only girls to ever tease me in that way were Mauritian Hindu girls. It did annoy me. Not because I was ashamed of being close to my mum but because they were dissing my masculinity. At the same time I felt that the implication wasn’t true that being close to your mum detracts from your masculinity. I thought ‘yeah I love my mum, so what?’
Men know deep down that their mum is the one who really loves them unconditionally and it matters to them. Often men’s mums have helped them through a lot too. I remember a tough guy ex drug dealer, who was described to me as an animal when it came to fighting, told me that his dad was a bastard who mistreated him but him mum was his ‘angel’.
You get black thugs and gangsters who are fiercely devoted to their mothers who brought them up alone. Also, Lennox Lewis, the ex heavyweight champion of the world (baddest man on the planet), was always seen with his mum and known to be close to her.
Drop the mama’s boy thing girls. We don’t care. Jealous or something?
I guess its supposed to imply a a little boy who goes crying to his mum or something but we are men and we love our mum. Get over it. It doesn’t mean shit about shit. 😀

The whole “Momma’s boy” thing is a huge issue to girls and women, but it’s basically a non-issue to men and boys. Men and boys don’t really care whether some guy is a “Momma’s boy” or not. It’s not important. What’s more important is the question, “Is he masculine or not?”
Let’s give the example of prison inmates. These are some of the hardest, toughest, baddest guys in the whole country. No argument there. They are off the charts in terms of masculinity. The vast majority of them have “Mom” tattooed somewhere on their bodies. They all love their Mommas. The vast majority of them also hate their fathers. Clearly loving your mother and hating your father doesn’t turn you gay!
However, the extent that hating your father is a problem, many criminals and antisocial types do indeed hate their fathers. Gay men don’t have a great relationship with them either because the son’s effeminate behavior probably bothered the father. Many to most of my friends hated their fathers. Not one of them was gay. A recent survey should that 37% of all men dislike their fathers.
A much more serious problem than men loving their mothers is men hating their mothers. I do not like to be pessimistic, but a man who hates is mother is not in a good place psychologically. I believe it is possible to hate your mother and still end up in good shape psychologically. However, many men who hate their mothers also end up hating or disliking women in general. A very large percentage or rapists and serial killers who target women hate their mothers.
It’s possible for a man to be overly attached to his mother, this is true. Many masculine men who love their mothers don’t necessarily listen to everything they say or obey them. Surely the prisoners above don’t listen to their mothers all that much. Obviously their mothers don’t approve of their behavior, but the men don’t care much whether she approves or not.
Many mothers try to inhibit their sons’ masculinity in various ways. In particular, they dislike it when their sons (especially their young sons) begin having sex. It’s important for boys and men to not listen to their mothers when their mothers try in various ways to stop them from having sex. Most players and womanizers have mothers who disapprove of their behavior. The players love their mothers, but they don’t listen to them when it comes to sex.
The truth is that the vast majority of mothers are going to love you anyway no matter what your sex life is like or how many or how few women you sleep with.
My own mother pretty much told us not to be Momma’s boys. She gave the example of Karl Menninger, who she spitefully called a Momma’s boy. This man, one of the top psychiatrists in the country, called up his mother to ask her whether he and his wife should have a baby. My Mom made it clear that no grown man should be asking his mother’s permission to such a thing.
So really the best mothers should love you unconditionally as the best mothers do but at the same time should discourage men from being a Momma’s boy. Momma’s boys do not reflect well on either the son or the mother.
Yes, I have been called this, especially by women. Why, I don’t know. For a while there, quite a few people thought I was gay. Even women did. Even women I was dating did. Even women who I was having tons of sex with all the time did. Go figure.
I remember this one bitch, I was at her place. I mentioned my mother and she spitefully laughed, “Your mother!” Some asshole guys joined in the cackling. I was actually sleeping with this bitch at the time. I am not sure what she was trying to say, either that I was unmasculine or that I was gay, I don’t know.
Another time I was 20 and had a 16 year old girlfriend. We were having sex all the time, and my Mom didn’t dig it. She said she was too young, and it was illegal. Well, she was right. Nowadays guys doing this get arrested of child molestation charges, get called pedophiles, get sentenced to 10 years in prison and have to register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives. But back then things were saner. I told my teenage girlfriend my mother didn’t approve, and she went ballistic on me.
Females in general are hung up on the Momma’s boy bullshit for psychological reasons. The females you are involved with feel they are competing with the mother for the attention of the man.
In most of the world, this is no big deal as it is considered normal for the son to be very close to the mother (see Mediterranean Europe, Latin America, the Arab World, South Asia, Southeast Asia and Northeast Asia for example).
However, in the West, wives and girlfriends see the mother as a competitor for affection. If they think he listens to her too much or likes her more than he likes them, they get pretty nutty. At that point, the man becomes a “Momma’s boy” which is really an attack on his masculinity. Verbally, your woman is kicking you in the nuts and saying you’re not a man.
Western (Jewish) psychiatry – primarily heavily Jewish psychoanalysis – made a huge deal about “Mommism” and how it supposedly fucked up men. Considering that Jewish guys are about the biggest Momma’s boys on Earth, this obsession is curious and smacks at some sort of denial and projection defense mechanism.
Truth is that in nations like Italy who have whole countries full of millions of Momma’s boys of all ages. Italian men are extremely virile and masculine, and there is little evidence that “Mommism” has had any detrimental effects whatsoever there. Truth is that there is little empirical psychological data that “Mommism” along Italian lines (which is also practiced in much of the world) is harmful to men in any way.

Single, Male and Adult: Should You Live At Home or Move Out?

I don’t think men should live with their parents for a long time after they are considerably into adulthood unless they have an excellent reason for doing so. Not that I think there is anything all that wrong with it, but in our society, you are just going to bring a shitload of abuse down on you if you keep living with your parents too long. It’s wrongly seen as “living with your mother” even if your Dad and siblings live there too!
I lived at home while I got my BA because I didn’t have the money to move out, and I was a fulltime student. I got tons of grief the whole time at university for doing this. I did move out for 9 months or so on a student loan, but the money ran out and I had to move back home.
After I graduated, I kept living at home for another 9 months or so until I moved out again. During this time, I endured a mountain of abuse for living at home at age 23 after I had graduated from college. I did move out for 6 weeks during this time for what was only a short-term deal, but then I moved back. Truth be told, I was saving up money to move out after I graduated!
The overwhelming majority of idiots pouring it on me on this issue had not gone to college. They were working class folks who moved out soon after high school. During this period, I got fired from a job for no apparent reason other than the guy just didn’t like me. One of the stated reasons for firing me was that I was still living at home. He was utterly furious about that.
I got a new job a long ways from home that required me to move. I was very coy about my previous arrangements, but the new boss guessed that I had moved from my parental home to my new apartment at age 24. He was extremely disgusted about that and went on and on about how at age 19, he was living on a fucking houseboat in Amsterdam with a girlfriend. Of course, he hadn’t gone to college.
In the interim, I moved back home a couple of times for post graduate education, once to get a teaching credential and another time to get a Masters Degree. If you are living at home past age 23 for any reason, even a post-grad degree, you are really going to get the heat poured on you.
During those periods when I moved home to get post-grad degrees, I met many women. Quite a few of them were stark raving furious that I was living at home, even for a good reason. I still dated a lot, but it was a difficult situation. American women are simply insane on this question.
Even now, though I live 33 miles away from my Mom, I catch grief about that, always from a woman. Apparently I haven’t moved far enough away! She’s still within driving distance. Horrors! Actually, more than one woman has explicitly told me that I live way too close to my Mom and I need to move farther away from her. The implication is that I’m still a Momma’s boy because she’s an hour away by car.
I see her maybe once or twice a week, and I admit that I take my laundry up there to get it done. So I guess I am still a Momma’s boy at my advanced age then.
I think the American fetish with moving out as soon as you hit 18 and moving the maximum number of 1000 miles away from your family and seeing them as rarely as possible is a bit extreme. It’s a Nordic thing based on radical individualism. Most of the rest of the world is much more family oriented for better or for worse.
Nevertheless, as long as society is this nutty about this stuff, I think it’s better for men to move out if they are single. Ultimately it helps you mature more as an individual, and you have much more of a potential for a sex life living away from home. Sometimes you just have to cave in to society’s demands.

How Close are Southeast Asians Related to Southern Chinese?

Tyler Lee (apparently a Chinese male) writes:

I think it is only applicable to about 10-15% of city dweller Filipinos when suggested that they are related to Southern Chinese. I have been to quite a few places in the Philippines and most Filipinos look like native Malaysians & Indonesians, and their native cultures and languages are almost alike.
The ones that look like Southern Chinese are most likely to be mixed descendants of earlier Chinese immigrants from centuries ago. Another supporting fact is that although they have been a democratic nation for longer than nearly all Asian countries, Philippines is still dirt poor, and Filipino IQ, as a whole nation, is no where near that of Southern Chinese.
However, I do see similarity with Fujianese/ Cantonese and Vietnamese, based on the look, culture and relatively high academic/professional performance among these in the U.S.

Filipinos are very close to Southern Chinese. However, Thais, Lao and Vietnamese are also very close to Southern Chinese.
As far as why Thais, Lao, and Filipinos do not particularly look like Southern Chinese, that is because they are heavily admixed with native SE Asian or native Filipino. In Filipinos, the male line is Ami from Taiwan, but the female line is ancient island SE Asian related to proto-Tai from 10-20,000 YBP. This was basically an Australoid or Melanesian type grouping. The male line via Taiwan aborigine is not related to more recent infusions of Chinese genes in Filipinos over the past ~1000 years.
It is well known that Vietnamese were predominantly Australoid (Melanesian) until ~2,000 YBP. At that time, there was a huge infusion of genes from Southern China (Cantonese region) and they transitioned from Australoid to Mongoloid (SE Asian type). They had already been transitioning this way for ~2,000 years, but the mass infusion of Chinese genes helped them along.
With the Thai and Lao, they are mostly Southern Chinese. A huge infusion of Southern Chinese genes poured in from Yunnan about 900 years ago and admixed with native SE Asian (probably Melanesian/Australoid type). This admixture created the modern Thai or Lao people.
Closely related groups can have dramatically different IQ’s. We can see this by looking at SE Asian IQ’s.

                  IQ     Genetic distance*
Group
Southern Chinese  105    -
Northern Chinese  105    Very far
Vietnamese         99.5  Very close
Thai               98.5  Close
Lao                89    Close
Filipinos          86    Close
*Genetic distance compared to Southern Chinese.
1. Thai, Lao and Filipinos are about equidistant from
Southern Chinese

Bigfoot News July 24, 2012

New photos of the Bigfoot steak from the Sierra Kills! Several exclusive new photos of the BF steak from the Kills. We copyrighted all of them to protect others from stealing them from the copyright owner. We have permission from the copyright holder to put the placeholder copyright on them and also to publish them. These are all photos of the same steak taken from different angles.
Another photo is apparently of some tissue, fat and hair from the Bigfoot. It’s a bit disgusting unless you like blood and guts stuff or you have an MD. However, the tissue and fat photo is interesting because it is the first time a photo of actual Bigfoot fat and tissue proven by DNA has ever been published. If republished, photos must have the copyright notice.

Bigfoot steak with a shotgun shell by it.

Bigfoot steak with a shotgun shell by it, another angle.

Yet another Bigfoot steak photo. This one is more familiar to most viewers.

Bigfoot steak, yet another angle.

What appears to be some rather disgusting tissue and fat from an actual Bigfoot, along with what looks like some Bigfoot hair attached to it, from the Kills.

Interview with Bobo Fay on Joe Rogan reveals interesting details. Bobo’s interview with Rogan was very revealing. In particular, when Rogan asked about the baby Bigfoot and if they recovered it, Bobo’s mouth dropped and he paused for a moment as if thinking of something to say. Then he said, “I will tell you after the show, ok?” Bobo then proceeded to launch into the standard tale about the body recovery two weeks later, bla bla.
I believe that was telling, and that Bobo was as much as saying that the baby Bigfoot was recovered from the scene, which is what I and some of my sources have long believed.
Bigfoots are 99.5-99.6% human. Yetis are 99.4-99.5% human. This was one more thing that Bobo revealed in the interview. I do not know how he got that information, but it seems about right. By contrast, Neandertals are 99.6-99.9% human, and Denisovans are minimum 99% human. Bobo also revealed that many studies are going on regarding Bigfoot hair, which is unique.
Rumor: Justin Smeja and driver were drunk and had just seen a game warden on the day of the Sierra Kills. In the same interview, Bobo said that Smeja and the driver had been “pounding beers all day,” in Bobo’s words, and had just seen a game warden. They were afraid they were going to get a DUI or get arrested for shooting the Bigfoots. For the record, Smeja says he only had 2 beers on that day.
Correction: Actual relict hominid type of the Bigfoots may not be known. In a previous post, I said that the Dr. Melba Ketchum team knew precisely which relict hominid the Bigfoots are. Upon talking further with my source, I have determined that they were mistaken and were reading things into what they heard.
The corrected story is that MtDNA side of the Bigfoots is Homo sapiens sapiens, or human. However, the Ketchum team has determined that the nuclear side is some sort of what I would call an ancient relict hominid, much more primitive than we are. Whether they have determined precisely which one, assuming the Bigfoots are known in the scientific record at all, is not known.
Is Bigfoot Homo Heidelbergensis? Upon conversation with a source, they said that people on the Ketchum team “did not disagree” when the source told them they thought Bigfoots were Heidelbergensis. That means the Ketchum team “did not disagree” with the Heidelbergensis theory. The source also said that their own preliminary DNA studies have revealed that Bigfoots are a mix of various hominids, including modern humans, Neandertals and Denisovans.
The source feels that “the base” of the Bigfoots is Heidelbergensis, but we lack Heidelbergensis DNA, so there is no way to prove that by DNA. However, if the Ketchum team has a body or part of a body, especially a skull, then they could make a Heidelbergensis determination on that basis. If they only have the baby, this will be much harder to do because it is hard to match up baby relict hominids with the adults of the species because they are often so different.
Another source told me that they had seen what they feel are skeletons of Bigfoots on museums and private collections, and they feel that Bigfoots look most like the Heidelbergensis skeletons they have observed. When asked for more details on these purported museum and private Bigfoot skeleton collections, they could not tell me anymore.
Ketchum DNA paper may be at Nature group. I have sources who know which journal the paper is at, but they will not tell me, so I have to guess. Asking around a bit, I would say that Nature is a pretty good guess, but I can’t confirm that in any way.
But let’s put it like this. Is there a “Nature group” of journals, that is journals are that affiliated with Nature but not Nature itself? If so, I would say to look there. I would also look at journals associated with the journal Science, say a Science group if it exists.
Ketchum DNA paper should publish from August 21 – September 4, 2012. If it passed peer review on July 10, 2012, which is possible, then I know for a fact that the publishing time at the journal this paper is at is 6-8 weeks after passing peer review. Figuring 6-8 weeks past July 10, I arrive at this date.
Correction: Matt Moneymaker drug rumors may be in error. I published these rumors a while back because so many people pass them about. However, the cocaine rumors about Matt seem to be in doubt. That is, perhaps Matt had a cocaine problem and perhaps he did not. We can’t tell one way or the other at this time as it’s inconclusive.
However he did have an extensive pill habit for a while. He had some pain issues, so he got on pain pills, and this developed into an addiction as he may have an addictive personality. Whether he beat this problem or not, no one knows.
He’s been a wake and bake pothead for quite some time. This was confirmed via discussions with people who have gone on trips with him and observed this.
Matt also continues to have a good relationship with Wally Hersom, which would be dubious if Matt actually had ripped Wally off for a salary for all of those years.
Source and quantity of Wally Hersom’s fortune revealed. See that AC/DC adapter, well, wherever you’ve got one laying about? Hersom invented that and patented it. That’s the source of his fortune, and he is reportedly a billionaire. All of this from Bobo’s interview with Rogan. I have asked many times about the size and genesis of Wally’s money but was told it was a tightly guarded secret. I guess not anymore.
Ontario Bigfoot video. Via trackersthename shooting in northern Ontario in what looks like deep wilderness. I published a still of this earlier. There is a young adolescent Bigfoot observing the cameraman who was not discovered until reviewing the video later. The Bigfoot pops its head up over some rocks and watches the cameraman as he describes a Bigfoot blind he has found.
It would be nice to see another shot of this area to see if the Bigfoot is still ion the picture. If it is, it’s not a Bigfoot but some natural formation. The Bigfoot can be seen for a few seconds and it does not move, which may or may not be odd.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eob4CmKaHws&feature=plcp]
Ontario roadside pics. I published the video of these pics a while back with the proviso that the photo was of a hunter in a ghillie suit by the side of the road. Shot by a Go-Pro video camera attached to a bumper on the way out to a camping spot. A source told me, “I have never seen trapezius muscles that big on any human.” The source has done extensive work in various museums and knows models and physiques very well.
Possible Bigfoot by an Ontario roadside. The shoulders look too wide for a human.

Look at how wide the shoulders are. Notice what appears to be a coned head.

Coned head in Bigfoots and other primates related to size not gender. When the Smithsonian Institution was shown the Patterson film, they said it had to be a fake since female primates do not have saggital crests.
However, a good theory about gorillas is that saggital crests are related to size and not gender. When a skull gets a certain size, a saggital crest may develop due to adaptive anatomy. Female gorillas may lack such crests simply due to smaller size. Since Patty is very large, once a female Bigfoot reaches a certain size, she may develop a saggital crest also.
I am not on Bigfoot Forums. Yes, I read there. I have not joined, and there are no posters there who are me in disguise. I would not join that forum if you paid me. Obviously, I do not have a positive relationship with them.

Gender Feminism Is About Female Rule Over Men

I am an equity feminist. I am not a gender feminist.
The problem with gender feminism is you end up with millions of psycho, ballbreaking bitches like the ones you see in my comments threads. You want that?
Also, feminism was a puritanical movement at its inception and it still is. It always will be. This is because the female view of sexuality is puritanical. Feminism is about empowering the female view of sexuality, supplanting it with the traditional male view of sexuality and imposing the female view of sexuality on the public space. The only way society can function is if you have the male view of sexuality holding sway over public space.
Also, feminism has been anti-men and pro-lesbian from the very start. It’s basically a hate movement against men and male sexuality. It’s not about equality, it’s about women lording it over men.
Anyway, in the realm of the sexes, equality doesn’t even work. Someone has to wear the pants. One has to dominate and the other has to be submissive. It’s nature. With feminism, you get masculinized women and feminized men. You also get insane sexual harassment epidemics (mostly crap and lies), the worst rape laws on the planet (look at Sweden for an example of the madness that ensues when you let women write rape law) Slut Walks, Women Hall Back movements, and other lunacy.
It’s shit.
In areas where the radical Left holds sway such as revolutionary movements around the world, women are empowered over men. In these places, the first thing they do is outlaw booze, gambling and pornography, not to mention prostitution. The three things that keep most guys from shooting up theaters. In Peru, when the Shining Path took over, they outlawed adultery. They had public executions of adulterers. That’s what women want. That’s the Feminist Utopia.
Let me give you an example. Here in my town we have many Hispanics. It’s basically a patriarchal culture, but here in the US, things have loosened up, and now the women have a lot of freedom, which they relish and love. Now down in Mexico, it’s way too patriarchal, and it’s oppressive. But here, it’s the right balance.
The men are masculine and dominant and the women are feminine and submissive. The male view of sexuality dominates the public sphere, and the female view of sexuality is sidelined. Women view men as pigs and horndogs and they just ride with it. Men are openly sexual and aggressively pursue women. If women are not interested, they just ignore them.
Both sexes talk and flirt to various degrees constantly. Men and women are constantly and openly checking each other out. It’s a great, sexually open and free environment.
Women are allowed to work, and many of them do. They even have good jobs and wear nice clothes and drive good cars. They can walk the streets, even at night, with little fear. This is good.
There is also a lot of divorce, because women now have the freedom to do that, and they do take advantage of that. They can move in with a man they are not married to. They can have sex before or outside of marriage, though many don’t really want to. The women don’t sleep around that much because they think that’s slutty.
The women don’t try to be men. Instead they are very feminine. The men are extremely masculine, and there is little wimpiness or homosexuality. Traditional sex roles! The men are in charge, but the women like it that way. Both sexes are extremely happy. This society works because it’s not feminist-wrecked yet.
This is in stark contrast to White society which is more or less feminist ruined. In that society, people don’t seem to be very happy. That’s because in White society, you pretty much have female rule and matriarchy. Women have been given way too much power, and they’ve abused it.
Female hypergamy is normal, but not in my Mom’s day. That’s why everyone got married. Judging from the Game Sphere, it’s epidemic now. I hear that in China there is an epidemic of hypergamy too, along with tens of millions of Incels, many of whom are going postal on a regular basis.
Female rule is oppression and control of men. That’s the end result of feminism. Feminism is the desire for female rule over men. It’s not about equality. It’s about supplanting their view of sexuality with ours and imposing it on the public space.

Casteism in India – A Disaster

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgDGmYdhZvU]
This video shows that contrary to the continuous lies of Hindutvas and Indian nationalists that casteism does not exist anymore in India and that caste itself is almost completely disappearing, India is still shot through and through with the very worst casteism, from the top of society to the very bottom, from the wealthiest universities and cities to the poorest villages.
It spans across all religions in equal virulence – Christian, Muslim and Sikh communities all practice caste despite the continuous lies that they don’t (for instance, in my town, most Sikhs here lie and say that there is no caste whatsoever in Sikkhism – but look at the video and see what a sick lie that is).
If you are a Dalit, there is little hope. One wonders why Dalits even bother to convert out of Hinduism and into Islam or Christianity if they are going to be subject to the very same casteism in the new religions. One wonders if there is any way out for the Dalit at all. One Dalit says he considers Buddhism – would that have given him an out?
Even in Communist ruled Kerala with its progressive society, caste still rules the day. In fact, the ruling Communist party cadres themselves practice the worst upper caste violence against Dalits who try to seek power in local affairs. So even Marxism doesn’t seem to lead a way out of caste. There doesn’t seem to be any hope at all.
Particularly poignant were the segments showing how virtually any caste, even Dalits, has some caste below them to shit on. In this way, almost everyone gets to rule someone else and shit on someone below them, so nearly everyone is a bit of a tyrant with slaves to abuse below him.
The casteism is obviously worse in the rural areas, but it’s very bad in the urban areas. Even if you get an MD or a PhD, Dalits still have to deal with it. No matter how high you climb up the educational or occupational ladder, there’s no way out.
The government has made casteism illegal, but prosecutions are rare. In particular, at the local level, the state and its police enforce casteism as the local cops are the armed face of the upper castes.
Sikkhism, which was specifically created to be anti-caste 500 years ago, is now rife with the sickest casteism.
Christianity, the very tenets of which would obviously seem to obviate any caste system, is full of casteism in India.
The brotherhood of the ummah, decreed by Mohammad himself, is amended in India in favor of casteism. In a sick show of cynicism, Indian mullahs have written books and issues various fatwas claiming that somehow caste in Indian Islam is Quranic, but it can’t possibly be so.
Over and over, the movie quotes Hindu scriptures and interviews lying, slimy Brahmin priests. The priests are clear as they reiterate numbingly that caste is an integral part of Hinduism. Much is made of the Laws of Manu, which are quoted liberally in the video (lying Hindutvas on this site claim that no Hindu follows the Manusmriti anymore.)
But watching the video, the opposite seems clear – that the Laws of Manu, strictly enforced, are the living and beating heart of casteism across the land. The Manusmriti are as alive now as when they were penned 2100 years ago.
The near-naked Brahmin priest of the Indian holy city on the Ganges who is interviewed repeatedly throughout the movie is a particularly sick joke of a man. All of the Hindu holy men in the movie seem like idiotic caricatures.
Yes, they have perfected the art of staring at one’s navel, slowing down one’s heartbeat and meditating for hours at a time. But at the same time they rule over of a barbaric cultural-religious system that is not only utterly devoid of morality but that promotes the most grotesque and pitiful blatant immorality. But that’s fine because all that is important is navel gazing, music and perfecting one’s yogic discipline. The solipsism of this religion seems directly tied to its amorality.
One ends the video with little hope for India. On the caste front, all seems hopeless. Indians are ferociously religious, and divorcing caste from Hinduism seems virtually impossible without neutering the religion to such an extent that it can barely exist anymore.
One walks away from this viewing convinced that Indian society is sick at its very essence, terminally ill with no hope of cure in our lifetimes.

Matriarchy (Feminist Rule) Destroys Every Society That Implements It

You know, women never used this word “creepy” or “creep” back in the old days. All this shit is new. Shy, nerdy, dorky, weird guys (harmless) were never seen as creepy or creeps.
This is what happens when you let women rule. You end up with millions of ballbreaking feminist cunt types, rape hysteria, sexual harassment hysteria, mass calling men creeps (shaming, emasculation and humiliation of men for the crime of being low status), millions of enraged and increasingly dysfunctional Incels, mass movements towards female hypergamy, Alphas cleaning up like crazy.
It’s all just shit. Women need to be ruled, and they need to be controlled. Men must rule women. When women get power, you get the Hobbesian Hell that I just described. It’s Hell on Earth. There’s a reason why we never let these bitches rule us. They’re too crazy to run society, and any society they run turns to Hell very quickly.
You see, if these cunts had their way, they would make rules that only high status men could look at them or approach them. That’s the Female Utopia. In the Female Utopia, the hotties never have to bothered by low status males looking at them, much less talking to them. All of their attention would be reserved for the Alphas they craved. Any low status man looking at them, much less talking to them, would be virtually arrested or at least shamed to Hell.
Calling men creeps is a way of saying, “No low status man may show sexual interest in me. Only high status men may show interest in me.”
Yes, women are that evil. They’re a bunch of cunts, but only if we let them run wild.
That’s why we have always ruled them in the past and why we ought to rule them now.

"Sexual Marxism" Has Always Been the Norm for Human Society

Bhabiji writes:

Bob, you are confusing feminism, which is a social construct, with nature. Sexual selection is natural. Arranged marriage system or sexual Marxism is a social construct that thwarts the natural developmental progress of humanity. Just look at all the cultures that practice arranged marriage today. Look at the type of children they are breeding and churning out, particularly the males.

Wrong. If you study primitive or tribal cultures and then you study more civilized societies of various types historically, which I have, at length, you realize that marriage was more or less mandated for all persons, often at an early age. The sexual selection was in favor of the more high status males, who women competed for probably.Or males competed with each other to get the best females.
Only a few women got the high status males. The rest had to settled for mid status to low status males, and they did. There were no winners or losers because everyone got married. This is really the only way to run things. So human society has always been run on some sort of a Sexual Marxist basis.
The alternative is some Hobbesian Sexual Nightmare state where you have all these millions of Incels running around. Doing what? I don’t know?
Shooting up theaters?

"Creepy" is Woman Speak for "An Unattractive Man Who Shows Interest In Me"

Steve writes:

Is it creepy if an unattractive girl shows interest in a guy? When you think about it like that, it just seems…unkind.
Calling a guy creepy if he just showed interest but didn’t really do anything wrong – it’s just unkind. It’s sort of nasty. That’s my take on that.
On the other hand, if a guy is really full on, if he acts or speaks inappropriately to a woman to the point where she feels uncomfortable or scared, then calling him creepy is more justifiable.

This is exactly my opinion.
From my point of view, if a woman is not showing any interest in me, disdaining me, ignoring me, etc. (which happens all the time) I certainly won’t approach her! I am not an idiot!
I am extremely conservative about how I approach women in part because I am terrified of being called creepy! So you see, calling men names like that is very inhibiting and results in a puritanical society where people are uptight, inhibited and afraid to express themselves sexually in a free, liberated and uninhibited manner. Seeing how I go to some pretty extreme lengths to not be called creepy, I take this stuff personally.
On the other hand is it creepy for men to whistle at women or blow them kisses or whatever? Maybe not. Black men act aggressive like this to women all the time. You go to Italy, and the men are very forward. I don’t necessarily consider that creepy. Those are simply men who are acting aggressive and forward. I don’t normally do it myself, but I don’t necessarily think it’s evil. Women should just ignore it and move on.
I live with a lot of Hispanics. The less assimilated Hispanics are extremely relaxed about sex. The men are all wild horndogs, and the women are comfortable with that. The women just think that all men are naturally pigs and ignore them most of the time. It’s perfectly normal for the Hispanic males to be pretty aggressive about how they look at or talk to women. If the Hispanic women don’t like it, they just ignore them.
But the Hispanic women look at men a lot too and even flirt with them. There’s a lot of open, healthy sexual expression going on, and to me it’s very normal and uninhibited. Hispanic society is healthy like this because it’s a patriarchy and hasn’t been feminist-wrecked yet.
Less assimilated Hispanic society doesn’t have much use for words like “creepy.” You never really hear the women in that group describing men using a word like that.
As the Hispanic women get more Americanized, they start using such male-shaming words.
If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

Lousy Life or Happy Death? Which to Choose?

Jake writes:

Now about the Dravidians and my Nazi like comments, I know it sounds extreme to say they should be dead. I was arguing with Steve about this but given that through centuries of social and biological engineering through this “Indian” culture, some of these people are socially excluded from a lot of spheres in life and don’t have the ability to compete with other groups when in terms of creating and having a “happy life”.
They face exclusion from every society they go to and the only way they can leverage society towards them is to breed in massive numbers or resort to aggregate behavior where the host society is affected to be focused towards them. So really their entire life is a battle and involves eternal misery/suffering.
Don’t you really think it would have been wise if they didn’t exist and instead went to history along with every other group that was absorbed/destroyed through wars, migrations and conquests?

I will always take existence over nonexistence and life over death. Even a very miserable life is preferable to death, but then I am not suicidal.
I have experienced quite a bit of what others would call total misery, and I even learned to like it or at least live with it. OCD in a way is Hell on Earth, and we just learn to live with it. There are some people who have looked at my life and said, “How can he not be depressed? Look at his life?” But at the time I was not depressed at all. In fact I was quite happy.
Even a crappy life has some value to me. I am not one who expects life to be wonderful and an endless bowl of cherries. To exist at all in at least a halfway decent life is good enough and trumps death and nullification of all in every sense.

Pedophilia Versus POCD Redux

Anonymous wrote:

I’ve had pure O my whole life. As a child it was both religion and contamination related. As I got older it turned into health and contamination related. (I became an atheist and stopped caring about intrusive anti-religious thoughts.)
But here’s where it gets a little tricky. When I was 10 years old and just discovering my sexuality, I noticed that I especially had a fondness for girls who were 5-7 years old. I knew this was much different than others my age, and felt quite guilty about it. I was also attracted to 10 year olds, however.
As I got older, every time I saw a cute little girl, I would avert my eyes and repeat to myself in my mind “I’m not a pedophile, I’m NOT a pedophile.” It felt very much like the intrusive thoughts from my OCD and happened constantly. This continued until around 16 years old.
At this point, I became interested in anime and the primary school aged characters in these shows. I talked to others who were interested in animated little girl characters also. At this point, I was still having intrusive thoughts, but being interested in the fictional characters didn’t bother me at all.
And then, in the same places where I was discussing these fictional characters, people would also often post pictures of elementary school girl models and actresses. I began masturbating to these photographs, but every time I would feel immensely guilty and hate myself for it.
Awhile later, I met a 6 year old girl. She began visiting us often. I just fell in love. In no other time in my life had I felt this way before. She was a joy to be around and extremely beautiful. We became very close, and I cared for her more than anything. After meeting her, all intrusive thoughts stopped and I accepted my attraction as normal for me.
I’m now in the my early 20s, and have very little interest in women. The pedophilic intrusive thoughts are no longer there, only the ones based on health worries and contamination remain.
I do have sexual thoughts about young girls, but I see them as normal for me now. Although when I see a cute girl that I’m interested in, it’s closer to crushing than lust. “Oh wow, she’s so beautiful.” The girls that I tend to like are between the ages of 5 and 11. They are just so cute.
Now, based on this information, do you think I have a pedophilic orientation? Or do you think it’s possible that I had POCD and just gave up fighting it?
A few things to consider: I would never touch a girl, I know it’s wrong.
It also has nothing to do with being dominant. I actually find the idea of dominating a young girl extremely disgusting.
It also is not only physical, I am extremely attracted to the personalities of very young girls, and just hanging out and playing games with them have been the best experiences I’ve ever had in my life.

This is a fascinating post. It shows that someone can have both OCD and pedophilia, so the notion that OCD’ers are too good or too moral to develop pedophilia is not correct.
Pedophilia in my opinion is simply a sexual orientation like homosexuality, bisexuality or heterosexuality. It can’t be much changed like any of those. There are countless gay and bisexual OCD’ers. I know because I have talked to many of them. Surely there must be some OCD’ers with a pedophilic orientation.
It’s probably better for a pedophile to have OCD than to not have it. The OCD pedophile will be a lot less likely to act on his urges due to his extreme morality, guilt and conscientiousness. The OCD will act as an inhibitor towards acting on the pedophilia.
I am absolutely certain that he has pedophilia. There’s no way that he could possibly have POCD and just gave up fighting it. Though it shows that there are some similarities between POCD and true pedophilia, and this shows how differential dx is so difficult with these cases.
I am actually sorry to hear that he has no attraction to adult females, but perhaps this is his normal orientation. I wish he had an adult attraction so he could live and love happily and legally in our society. As is, his sex life may well be barren or solitary and his love life may be thwarted.
However, many pedophiles are absolutely happy with their orientation and love being this way. He seems like he is too. I am very glad to see that he is happy with his orientation and his sexual and love desires. I love to see people who are happy. I agree that him that he should not act on this orientation as it’s illegal.
If he ever wants to have a real sex life with a female or really fall legally in love with a female, he will need to expand his love map to include adults, though most pedophiles have no interest in doing this. In fact, many to most pedophiles say that even if there was a cure for pedophilia, they would not take the cure.
I also love females of all ages. I love females period. Little girls are wonderful in a special way as a special kind of female, though I see them as seeds of women rather than fully formed entities and I see women as the fully town product rather than girls that moved on.
But there’s a girl inside every woman, and a budding woman inside every girl. If you love females, you learn to love the sprouted seed of girl in the woman and the sprouting woman in the girl. In a way, they are one and the same – females at different stages.
I actually like teenage girls a lot more than little girls. Little girls seem ridiculous to me, and there’s little sexual attraction there. I had a world full of good and great times with teenage girls, often sexual, when I was young, and I think about those wonderful days all the time. When I see teenage girls, I reminisce. About the teenage girls that I knew and loved, who will live forever in my heart.
Though when I do meet a teenage girl nowadays, they seem silly to me, and I can’t see getting involved with them. I would not do it even if it was legal. But the teenage girl is definitely a special type of female – not a girl and not a woman. Not better than a woman or a girl but only different.
I probably like adult females 18+ best of all, since they are legal. I like teenage girls who are fully developed, around age 16-17 because to me that’s just a woman. But their immaturity is a massive turnoff. Even young women of college age often turn me off now because they seem to immature and silly.
A fully formed and mature woman is not only maximally attractive to me (all females age 16+ are maximally attractive to me) but her mind is also fully matured, and that is a massive turn-on to me as I get older. Sex and love is more than just a hot body you know. And the fully formed and fully matured woman has a joyous wonder and glory about her that is equal to if not superior to that the teenage girl and the girl. All the female maturational types are wonderful in their own special ways.

How I Came To Be an "India-Hater"

Seriously? writes:

If you’re looking for an Indian to go out of his way to proclaim love for Christians and Muslims, you’re not going to find one. My Brahmin Hindu mother has four best friends, whom she spends all hours of the day talking to: two Pakistani Muslims, a Sikh, and a white Christian. No Hindus. She has no need to go around showing this off to prove her tolerance.
What you’re asking for is unreasonable. Indians don’t run onto the streets, trumpeting their respect for other groups of people. No one does. It’s true some Indian American communities are insulated, but much less than Muslim and East Asian ones.
You guys kind of remind me of newly converted high school atheists, who, upon hearing not everything they’ve been told about Christianity has been accurate, go out of their way to make Christians (in this case Indians) much worse than than they really are. It’s all really just an angry reaction to what you perceive as a lie.
I’m sure you’ve heard of the lost tribes of Israel, the Parsis, etc. who found refuge in India. I’m sure you can also imagine few other places, much less Europe, would have absorbed these diverse groups and accepted them so fully.
There’s no denying that, while not all Indian Hindus are tolerant, India has been much more tolerant than other civilizations have been. India may very well have been the first truly multicultural society on Earth.
Think about it, India has all the major religions (along with many minor ones), perhaps a hundred different ethnic groups, all coexisting. It’s been that way for thousands of years and still is now. Now think about Pakistan which was once the same way, where all the other major religious groups have since been all but wiped out.
But I guess when you found out that India wasn’t entirely the land of peace, and there have been a few attacks against Muslims, you suddenly brandished this next to meaningless piece of information. You wanted to make Hinduism and India look as bad as Christianity and Islam do. It’s understandable, but both wrong and an exercise in futility.

Not at all. I have known about attacks on Indian Muslims for years. I was always suspicious of Hindus and Indians, but I let it pass because I am a liberal and we are supposed to love everyone.
My close friendships with a couple of Indian Hindu Brahmins were very eye opening. Very nice guys, good people, but Hindutvadis and Indian nationalists. They hate the British, Pakistan, Muslims, Christianity, the White man, Europeans, European civilization, on and on.
There was a rage there that was very hard to describe. And they believed the most profoundly anti-scientific non-theory, like rejection of IE and the Aryan Migration Theory. They tossed about all sorts of antiscientific tripe. They both supported the caste system to the hilt, while saying it didn’t exist anymore, while railing against reservations.
Before that, I knew a few others. I had a good relationship with a couple of Hindu guys from Delhi who worked for me, except the programmer grossly oversold his abilities to me in a typical Indian fashion. His brother was so profoundly classist that I had to school him on how that was not cool in the USA to act so classist like that. He arrogantly dismissed my concerns.
I knew a Hindu woman from Pune who hated the US and Pakistan. She was kind of a trip though. Always bugging me to send her dirty pics. I kept sending her dirty pics, but she said they weren’t good enough. She wanted pics of me fucking various women, but to tell the truth, I didn’t have any! She was pretty kooky and emotional.
Every Hindu I ever met was stark raving nuts on the subject of Kashmir. They all insisted that all Kashmiris loved India and that the whole problem was Pakistan stirring up shit among content and happy Kashmiri Muslims. I told them that Kashmiris themselves wanted to go free and be independent and not join either country, and they all acted like I was speaking Greek. They were brainwashed worse than a North Korean, and this was in the world’s biggest democracy.
Then I met a lot of Hindutvadis on the Net and that was a real eyeopener. Then I read a lot about US programmers losing their jobs to Indians and the hatred these Hindus had for the White West, and that was really eye-opening too.
The rage, really the impotent rage, of Indian nationalists and Hindutvadis is very frightening and reminds of other ultranationalists the world over and throughout history. Honestly, Hindutvadis remind of me Nazis in the 1930’s.
They done us wrong! We are getting back at them!
I’ve met only a few Hindus here in the US. Mostly I have met Sikhs, who I am starting to think are just Hindus are disguise! Mind you, I made some Sikh friends here of a sort (one was one of my physicians, a Sikh nationalist), and some of them were ok. The best and most progressive Sikhs are the Sikh nationalists – the rest of them are just typical backwards and reactionary Indian nationalist types, little different from Hindus.
The more I dug into the Sikhs, the more I figured out they are just as backwards and barbaric as the Hindus. Really disappointing.
The few Hindus I met here were odd. A couple were doctors. They could be very, very friendly until you asked them something about their country. Then they got very bizarre and suspicious, shut up immediately and often left the room.
One guy was a physician. Between visits, I looked up his name and it turned out he was some mid caste from Andra Pradesh. Next time I saw him towards the end of the visit, I asked him if he was from Andra Pradesh, and he flipped out, said yes and left the room. Then he turned cold and hostile when we had to have some dealings afterwards. He acted like I was an enemy spy.
The few regular Hindus I have met around town are Gujaratis (Patel) and Punjabis, and they are profoundly arrogant. I do not know why. They get incredibly weird if you ask them anything about India, and even weirder with me because it’s obvious that I understand the place more than 98% of Goris.
Not that I let Islam off the hook. I already think that Islam is backwards, barbaric and reactionary. But many Muslim societies are quite stable and even prosperous. There is little crime or social disorder. Things work, in an odd way.
It’s really up for grabs which religion is worse – Islam or Hinduism. Both are reactionary, backwards, sexist and barbaric. Hinduism tosses in feudal to make it a full monte.
Islam is expansionist and treats minorities very poorly, but Hinduism doesn’t treat minorities well either. Prejudice against Muslims in India is profound. There are routine pogroms and mass murders committed against Indian Christians. Sikhs were treated to a near genocide a couple of decades ago. Hindu tolerance leaves much to be desired. Further, as Hinduism hardly accepts converts, it doesn’t even absorb minorities via conversion, which is at least one nice thing about Islam.
Secular Muslim societies, now under attack all over the Middle East, worked very well and were very tolerant towards minorities. Much more tolerant than Hinduism.
Of all religions, Hinduism cares about human beings the very least of all. It’s quite possibly the most backwards and barbaric remaining ancient religion. We can theorize this as all ancient religions seemed to resemble Hinduism in their polytheism, nature worship and caste system.
Monotheistic Judaism was advance upon Hinduism, but as a tribal religion that hardly accepts converts and preaches hatred for those outside the tribe, it’s still an ancient tribal religion in some ways similar to Hinduism. It’s a typical tribal anti-universal religion.
Monotheistic Islam which held out the branch of conversion to all of humanity was an advance upon amoral and casteist Hinduism. There is also a socialist feature to Islam, and at its root, it is a law and order religion par excellance. No Muslim was above any other Muslim; all were part of the ummah.
Monotheistic Christianity represented a further advance upon Islam, holding out the branch of conversion to all of humanity. Heathen were to be loved and saved, not declared war on or converted by force. Modern Christianity preaches pacifism and no longer converts by force, which was never common anyway. Christian pacifism was an advance upon militaristic Islam, and Christian socialism went beyond the rudimentary socialism of the Koran.
At the end of the day, I just feel that there is something terribly wrong with Indian people in general and with their whole society. It’s fucked up something bad.
And as long as that’s going on, I am going to continue writing about it.

Define Gender Feminism and Radical Feminism

William writes:

I’d like to understand these two terms a little better, gender feminism and radical feminism. Can you express and/or define what they represent to you and what you think they might mean to the woman who fit these terms?

For all intents and purposes, radical and gender feminism are the same thing. Looking at it more closely, radical feminism is part of gender feminism, but more the extreme end of it. It’s possible that there are gender feminists who think that some of the radicals just take it too far, but in general, the radicals have a firm and hard place in the world of gender feminism. Surely, in Women’s Studies programs, the radical feminists are an essential part of the canon.
The radicals are quite extreme in their man-hating, and many have abandoned men altogether for a political lesbianism. Many have hatred of men that can only be considered pathological or extreme. They often hate pornography too and want to make it illegal. They are often associated with the left and in particular the Hard Left, but socialist feminism is actually a bit different.
Gender feminists are a different breed, and many are happily heterosexual. If the straights though are extremely pro-gay, which really means pro-lesbian. Lately, transsexuals have gained a hallowed place at the table. The straight gender feminists don’t necessarily hate men, but there is definitely a lot of anti-male bias there. They are mostly at war with the Manosphere types and the Men’s Rights crowd. They have very little sympathy for the concerns of men and they don’t understand men at all.
Gender feminism is in opposition to or an expansion of equity feminism. Equity feminism simply wants equal pay. Gender feminism takes it further into more of an objective war against men in general, who are seen as the enemy. The aspect of men that is defined as the enemy is typically the sexual self – that is, they are really at war with male sexuality itself, which they regard as evil. They also lack a good understanding of male sexuality, which they caricature.
Others take it a lot further into a hatred of masculinity itself, which is defined as evil. Only the wimpiest of men are acceptable to these women, and indeed, many strong male feminists are extremely wimpy men. Quite a few are actually gay men, others cross dress, are “male subs” and engage in other sorts of male femininity. Really male feminists are often men who are strongly opposed to masculinity in general. Logically, quite a few of them are gay or may as well be.
Those who like sex and men a lot are often “ballbreakers” who put down men a lot and insult their masculinity. Hence many men are logically afraid of them.
Also gender feminists tend to think that women and the female nature are simply superior to men and the male nature. They deny any biology of gender and tend to think that all gender is constructed culturally. There is a refusal to look at the downside of women and femininity and to blame everything on some unseen patriarchy which is increasingly irrelevant in modern feminized and feministed America.
Among the more radical ones, there is a bizarre obsession with rape. Obviously rape is a serious crime, but it’s really not very common, and the vast majority of men never rape anyone.
Yet many gender feminists essentially run around yelling rape for dawn to dusk. Males who want to get on board with them are also required to run about hollering about rape all day and night and making it clear to everyone how they are not rapists and how they are fighting the War on Rape (how a man fights this war is not known).
The opposite of gender feminism is equity feminism, which simply wants a place at the economic table. Equity feminists often feel that gender feminists take it too far. They don’t hate men, and many of them love men. They are not on board with a war on men. They think men and women are different, even on a biological level, and don’t think one or the other is superior. They candidly admit to the failings and shortcomings of the female and femininity in general.

The Failed State of India Grew from the Indian Mind

Seriously? writes:

This blog tries too hard, and still only manages to draw one or two angry Indians — if that.

There is no hatred of the ‘White man,’ including even of the British, because Whites aren’t special enough to warrant hating. While there’s a consistent income gap between Black and White Americans, there is an even larger Indian-White income gap in favor of Indians.

India’s relationship with so-called White nations is similar to that of Japan. We don’t feel threatened and are progressing quickly enough to put history behind us.

But I think you’ve missed a fundamental shared characteristic of Indians, so much so that this blog can never be reconciled with reality. In fact, of all the stereotypes of Indians, I think this is the only one with any real merit. Indians have a kind of “brotherly love” predisposition which is hard to describe.

The second a Pakistani, for example, shows any type of support for an Indian, he or she can expect an endless stream of positive responses and absolutely no negative ones.

Recently there was a poll done to determine India’s second (after Gandhi) “greatest” individual. India’s first Muslim president received the most votes, even over the likes of even Nehru, who only ranked 15th. Despite the poll’s assumption that Gandhi was bar none the greatest Indian, polls including Gandhi invariably show Ambedkar (India’s Dalit activist and philosopher) ahead, usually ranking Ambedkar first or second.

But I guess you still may be able to twist this around to still trash Indians.

I suspect the main motivation for this blog and the posters on here is that Indians you come across don’t consider you as great as you consider yourselves. This ends up coming across as arrogance to you, so you feel the need to react by trying to situate them further below you in the imaginary hierarchy you had before meeting them. Indians don’t react as negatively as you had hoped and so the effect is repeated and overall magnified.

Combine that with confirmation bias and then you eventually reach the conclusion that Indians have no good qualities whatsoever, have never accomplished anything, and are scheming to take over the world. But you can’t afford them anything positive, so you then say they don’t have the capability to do anything special like take over the world in the first place. It’s all pretty sad, really.

That is very interesting about that poll.

But how come every Hindu one meets has an extreme hatred of Muslims and/or Pakistan then? What’s it about? If Ambedkar is such a hero to most Indians, then why is India still mired in the most barbaric casteism known to mankind.

It doesn’t make any sense.

And I am starting to think that like most Indians, just about everything “Seriously?” says is a lie. There is hatred of the White man, and it’s most prominent among Hindus. Among Hindutvadis and on Hindutvadi websites, hatred for European White Christians and their civilization is quite extreme. I have even seen some of it in Indian nationalist Sikhs (most of the Sikhs in my town are actually strident Indian nationalists).

I treat Indian people the same way I treat any other human. I thought they were extremely cool for a long time until I finally started to figure out what was really going on with these people, and since then, I have been less than impressed.

The most arrogant of all Indians around my town are surely the Hindus. They are much worse than the Sikhs. They have a strange attitude. They really do think they and their civilization is superior, but on the other hand, they are not going to tell you two words about it, and if you ask them anything about it, they get suspicious and hostile and act like they think like you are an enemy spy, and they clam up and shut down.

What you have here are people who have extreme pride in one of the backwards, barbaric, and reactionary civilizational structures known to mankind. From a Left POV, that is nothing to cheer about.

Then you look at the country they have created, or really destroyed, and you start to put it all together. This throwback socio-religious culture has created one of the most outrageous and pathetic civilizational trainwrecks and failed states on the Earth. Of course the civilizational pileup we see on the ground was created cognitively and emotionally by the barbarism inculcated in the Indian mind. The two must be connected.

As long as backwards barbarism continues to rule the Indian mind, we will continue to see the smoking ruins on the ground.

More to Punjabi Sikhs Than Meets the Eye

Beartrix wrote:

Hey Robert, did you hear anything about this murder suicide of a Mr Avtar Singh in Selma, CA?
‘From Kashmir to California: in the footsteps of a wanted killer-Journalist Zahid Rafiq tells how he tried to reach Avtar Singh, a former Indian military man living outside Fresno with a dark past in Kashmir. On Saturday, Mr. Singh killed his family and himself.’
It’s quite interesting, Mr Singh was a former Indian Army officer wanted for ‘atrocities’ committed during his service in Kashmir.

Yes we heard something about it.
What’s funny is that around here most Sikhs are rabid Indian nationalists. They are almost Hindutvas too, because they won’t let you say two words against Hinduism before they get mad and shut you down.
I have tried to talk to a few of them about Kashmir, but they always take a strong Indian nationalist line on that. One family started pounding on their table and ranting about Pakistan. I asked why they cared so much about Kashmir, and they said a lot of Sikhs including their relatives had served in the Army in Kashmir.
Around here, Sikh separatists are quite rare. I have met a few of them, but they are not common. Sikh separatists are critical of their own society, and they really hate India. They are sympathetic to Kashmiri and the separatist rebellions in the Northeast.
I thought I would get somewhere saying shit about India and how Punjab would be better off separate. That typically doesn’t work at all. One guy got mad and started ranting and raving about how great India was, and then he went on this crazy tirade against the West, especially America. He was a Sikh! But he may as well have been a Hindu for all intents and purposes.
Most Sikhs will tell you they don’t believe in caste, that caste sucks, and that Sikhs don’t believe in caste. But that’s as far as they will go against Hinduism. You get the impression that Sikhs think they are part of Hinduism or at least a branch of it.
Sikhs seem extremely cool at first until you scratch the surface a bit. I noticed the same callousness and selfishness that I have seen in most other Indians.
All Sikhs insist that Punjab is very rich, and there are no poor people. I told one guy that there was 25% malnutrition in Punjab, better than 50% in India but still. He shrugged his shoulders and said there are rich and poor in every country. He clearly was not bothered in the slightest that 25% of his own people were starving! Then I started to realize that Sikhs are really Indians first and Sikhs second.
Some of them around here can be friendly enough, but typically anything other than the most casual conversation is quickly shut down. A few will be friendlier than that, but that’s the minority. One guy lied and told me he was a Mexican when he was really a Sikh.
I asked a couple of them about their religion and they just shut me down. They said there’s a temple if you want to go and learn about it. They clearly don’t want converts at all! The truth is that they are pretty difficult people to get to know, and I think they really only want to socialize with their own kind.
I will say that they are model citizens, and they commit almost no crime. They have very strong families with strong emphasis on discipline in children. The men are good family men who work hard and help their kids every day after school with their homework. The kids are quite studious and seem to do well in school. Many around here are either in college or headed to college. You see them in coffee shops crowded around their books.
Punjabi women are very beautiful, and the guys are handsome too. But it seems that they only date their own kind. I haven’t been able to get any Punjabi women to say more than a few words to me in general.
However, there are some young Sikhs now who are born in the US. They are extremely assimilated, and most of the bad qualities of their immigrant brethren are gone. I met a few of the guys, and they are very cool. They are also quite smart and intellectually curious, which is pretty rare around here. They become full-fledged Americans very quickly.

Who Hates the European Christians More – Hindus or Muslims?

Mohit writes:

“RL: If Whites were so horrible and evil for India, then why don’t Indian Muslims and Sikhs hate the West too? They don’t; it’s a Hindu thing. By the same token, if Indian Muslims are so evil, then why don’t Sikhs hate Muslims too? ”
So you need a proof that Indian Muslims hate the West? OK.. Here it is..
“Mumbai: Although the US has withdrawn the military course that was instigating anti-Islamic sentiments among military officers, anger among Muslims over the issue is growing in India. Raza Academy, an organization of Barelevi Muslims, conducted a protest demonstration against the US for the idea of bombing Mecca and Madina, the holy cities of Muslim world.
The protestors also expressed concern at the silence of Saudi Government over the issue.”

Yes, Muslims do hate the “war on Islam” crowd, but as I am not part of that crowd, it’s no big deal.
Well, we have Dota on here. He’s very pro-Christian and pro-West, and he’s an Indian Muslim. Also we have some Pakistani Muslims in my town, and they are the friendliest South Asians around here. Every encounter I have had with South Asian Muslims and Muslims in general has been quite positive.
I also have or had some Pakistani Muslim friends, including one female. She didn’t really hate the West at all, except she felt the US was attacking Islam. She had no general beef against infidels, the West or Christians.
I have also made friends with some Afghani, American, Yemeni, Egyptian, Moroccan, Indonesian, Thai, Turkish and Palestinian Muslims. Pretty much nothing but good times and good vibes all around.
Although some of the Pallies did throw me out of their friendship circle accusing me of being an Israeli spy LOL. They were extremely radical and to be honest, they were not even Muslims at all. They were ultraradical Palestinian Communists.
Also, I fought it out a bit with a South African White guy, an anti-Semite and convert to Islam. He was a Salafist, and he accused me of hating Muslims or something.
I have never known any Al Qaeda or radical Islamist types who hated Christians, infidels or the West. I’m sure they exist. Just never met any.
However, I should edit to say that after I published the Mohammed cartoons, I got a couple of phone calls from Muslims that could have been seen as death threats. I did not worry too much about them.
Generally, with Muslims, if you don’t hate them, are kind and good to them are not on board with the war on Islam crowd, they are very friendly to you. Like most people, they don’t take too kindly to being attacked. I always make it clear that I am not down with the war on Islam crowd, and they are generally quite friendly to me.
Your average Muslim always struck me as a fairly moderate type, males and females included.
Indian Hindus have far more hatred for the West, Europeans and Christianity than all the Muslims I have known put together. Really there is no comparison.

Bigfoot News July 18, 2012

Original Justin Smeja post on Taxidermy.net is available again. The original post has resurfaced after being archived for some reason for a very long time. After getting archived, it was almost impossible to get ahold of a copy. I knew a couple of folks who had copies, but they could not give them to me for the longest time. Finally someone gave me a copy, but it was formatted very strangely and was quite hard to read.
Now the original post that shook the world is back online at the site. Why this happened, no one knows. You need to join the site to be able to read it though. It isn’t really as interesting as everyone thinks it is, but it does have historical and research interest.
First major news article on the Sierra Kills. There will be more! The first major news article on the Sierra Kills has appeared in a Yakima, Washington newspaper, the Yakima Herald Republic, in the sports section of all places. The author, Scott Sandsberry, is apparently an outdoorsman.
Like a good journalist, he did a lot of research into the Kills and related subjects. He spoke to many of the higher ups in the Bigfoot field, and they all swore to him that the Sierra Kills story was true.
One fascinating new tidbit we learn is that Smeja and the driver apparently took a “Bigfoot researcher” with them when they went back and recovered whatever it is they recovered. All previous accounts said that Smeja and the driver went back alone. One of my sources has long insisted that someone from the Olympic Project must have gone to that site soon after the Kills occurred with or without Smeja and the driver.
In addition, the article reveals for the first time that there was an argument between Justin and the driver after the shooting of the baby. One person, possibly Justin, insisted that they had to take the baby’s body with them as proof that they shot it. The other person, possibly the driver, insisted that “Whatever that is you shot, it’s not a Bigfoot, and it’s not a bear. It’s some sort of a prehistoric man, and you’re going to jail for murder if you take it back with you.” Hence it was left where it was.
Sandsberry did an excellent job of investigative reporting on this story.
Exact site of Sierra Kills determined. I have learned that the exact coordinates are 39°39’18.20″ N 120°34’10.56″ W. That puts the site just southwest (1.2 miles SW) of Haskell Peak, California. Google Maps locale here.
Would be nice if someone could go up there and shoot some photos or video of the area. I think there are already some photos of the area online, but they are not identified specifically as the Kills site, so I am not sure that that’s what they are. It looks steep and very heavily wooded: spectacular.
Once again, Dr. Melba Ketchum reported that she received two steaks, one from the baby and one from the adult. This is what I reported last week, and I have just confirmed this once again. Who did she tell, and what was the nature of the communication? I can’t tell you, but it one of the highest up people in Bigfootery.
Why did Ketchum tell this person she had two steaks, one from each creature, if that was not true? At any rate, subsequently, all talk of any samples from the killed baby Bigfoot vanished off the face of the Earth. Why have references to the samples from the baby vanished? Why were they made in the first place? Does or did the Ketchum team have sample(s) from the baby Bigfoot from the Kills?
Ketchum apparently confirms that her original paper, possibly at Nature Magazine, was “handed back without review from an unknown publication.” This from a source who said that Ketchum told him this in an email. This information was originally reported by Matt Moneymaker. He said it was handed back due to “no testable hypothesis.”
Is Ketchum’s paper soon to be published by Nature Magazine? The source above said that he felt that the paper was handed back without review by some unknown journal and that he thought it had been resubmitted to the same journal later and that they were working with that journal ever since.
Assuming this is correct, and Moneymaker’s story about the paper being handed back by Nature is correct, the paper may indeed have passed peer review at Henry Gee’s Nature Magazine, and may be published by them soon.
Gee stopped by my website briefly some months ago to comment on my reporting on this story, only to say that someone had written him to ask if the paper was with him, and he answered that it was not with Nature “at this time.” I later asked him if if the paper was with Nature now, and he said he was allowed to discuss that. His attitude was best described as “coy.”
Whence the name Sierra Kills? People keep asking where the name came from. I broke the story simply as “Bear Hunter’s Tale,” with, it is true, some initial misinformation which was later cleared up. I then posted it as a thread online at the Bigfoot Forums when I was still a member. It quickly became clear that I had dropped an incredible bombshell on the forum.
There was no name for the incident for a while, but soon some clever poster at BFF named the incident “The Sierra Kills.” There was something thrilling, shocking, exciting, frightening and even perversely humorous in a shock/tabloid journalism way about that name, and it still sends chills down my spine to see those words, but at the same time, it gives me a thrilled smile. It’s a creepy name for the incident, but it was a pretty creepy incident after all.
Ketchum paper was finished at end of May, but the peer review team still wanted photos and video to back up the paper. Apparently they wanted photos and video of the specimens that can be tied to Bigfoot by DNA. It looks like there was some time involved rounding up legal rights to this material and whatnot.
Ketchum paper may have passed peer review around July 10, or maybe sooner, but no sooner than early June. If it passed around July 10, and that date does look good to me, then there will be 6-8 weeks following acceptance until the paper is published in the journal. We know it will take 6-8 weeks because that is how long Ketchum said it would take this one particular journal.
Hence it follows that the article will publish around August 21-September 4, 2012. Announcement will probably be on a Thursday.
Smeja sent Bigfoot steak sample in for replication testing via a non-Ketchum lab. According to the interview below, Smeja wanted to get his sample tested at another lab outside the purview of Dr. Ketchum. He sent it in some time around the beginning of June. It is not known whether the lab did it for free or whether he had to pay a fee to have it tested. According to Smeja, the initial results are “very interesting.”
Blockbuster interview with Justin Smeja by Ro Sahebi. Ro Sahebi is a documentary filmmaker based in Redondo Beach, California. In this interview, what I call the interview of the century, Ro interviews Smeja for an entire hour in Ro’s home over a few beers.
The interview was so shocking that Derek Randles threw Smeja out of the Olympic Project as he felt that the interview made Justin look like a trigger happy redneck idiot, and this was bringing it down on the OP. Randles threw him out in public on an online forum, which wasn’t very classy.
Smeja says many things in that interview that shocked people. He said that at first he thought it was a man in a bear suit or a monkey suit, and he was looking around for the film crew and what he assumed must be a movie shoot.
At that time, he thought, “If this is a man in a suit, too bad. I am going to shoot him anyway.” That’s an unfortunate thought, but Justin didn’t kill a man in a suit. We can’t sentence people to prison based on their thoughts. Justin hasn’t killed any humans yet, and I doubt if he ever will.
Justin also says he shot it because “This thing does not belong here. It has no right to be here.” A lot of people were shocked at that statement too, but that’s not an illegal thought either.
He also had an opportunity to shoot a fatal shot into the adult, but it went over a hill and he didn’t take the shot for some reason, possibly because the driver was still yelling at him not to shoot.
Justin also admitted that he shot the baby to get evidence to take back with them. After he shot the baby, he cradled it in his arms for a couple of minutes as it died, and it appears that Justin had some sort of epiphany or emotional experience in which he looked into its eyes and saw something human. Disgusted by the whole situation, he threw the dead and bloody body of the baby back at the driver. A lot of folks were shocked by that behavior too and described it as callous.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LP0cl5l2WWI&feature=youtu.be]
Smeja tossed out of Olympic Project by Derek Randles. On Bigfoot Forums, Randles made a post that publicly threw Smeja out of the OP after Justin’s interview, which Randles said made Justin look like a trigger happy redneck idiot.
Discrepancy in size estimates of Bigfoot steak sent in to Dr. Melba Ketchum DNA project. In the interview, Justin says they cut out a piece about as big around as a quarter and sent it in to Ketchum. However, when Ketchum received the steak, she got on the phone to Richard Stubstad and described the dimensions to him as 4″ X 3″ X 2″ or as he now puts it, 8″ X 3″ X 2″.
Stubstad and I based our estimate of a 2 pounds weight on these size dimensions. Whichever cube dimensions are correct above, that’s a Hell of a lot bigger than a quarter. Someone is not being completely forthright here.
Bobo Fay reiterates that Ketchum concluded that the Sierra Kills Bigfoot steak is from a relict hominid. This is what we have been reporting all along, and it’s nice to hear it from one of the most colorful and connected folks in the Bigfoot World.
Bobo also reveals that part of the reason why the peer review of Ketchum’s paper is taking so long is because Ketchum apparently invented some novel methods of DNA extraction, analysis, primers used, or something along those lines. The peer review team had to replicate her methods a couple of times on their own to make sure that she was using valid tools for analysis, and this what is taking so long.
Bobo gave a 2 1/2 hour interview to Joe Rogan, who is a TV game show celebrity announcer.
Matt Moneymaker may have good Bigfoot evidence. The rumor is that Matt, head of the Bigfoot Researchers Organization, has good “biological evidence” of Bigfoot, apparently given to him by a hunter. It will be revealed when the time is right, possibly when Ketchum’s paper is published. It is not known how or why they think this is from a Bigfoot. Looks like it is flesh, bone, blood tooth or nail, something along those lines. I figure flesh or bone.
Whatever we think of Matt’s personality (he can be a tool at times), his past history of corruption or other foibles, it is important to acknowledge the great work that Matt and the BFRO have done for this field. They will go down in history as a great research organization. Even after discovery, hopefully they will continue to do good work. Hats off to the BFRO.

Setting the Record Straight on Soviet Agriculture

An interesting article argues that Soviet agriculture was not a failure at all, but was instead quite successful in certain ways.

Per Capita Consumption of Meat and Fish in 1980
in Kg.
            USSR   UK
Beef        11     12
Pork        23.5   6.1
Poultry     6.0    9.8
Fish        17     7.1
Total Meat  57.5   35
Fresh Fruit 37     30.7
Sugar       42.2   16.5

As you can see, in 1988, Soviet citizens ate almost 50% more meat than your average Brit. They ate 4 times more pork, 2 1/2 times more fish and about the same amount of beef. The Brits ate a bit more chicken. Soviet citizens ate a bit more fruit than Brits did, this amid typical complaints that fresh fruit was almost nonexistent in the USSR.
Yes, there were chronic shortages and long lines, and much was made of this. Even Soviets themselves were often frustrated by the food situation. But you can see that the shortages and lines were occurring in the context of some respectable levels of consumption.

Daily Per Capita Consumption Of Calories & Protein
In The Late 1960's
               Calories   Protein
               (Per Day) (Ounces Per Day)
United States  3,200      3.39
USSR           3,180      3.24
Britain        3,150      3.10
West Germany   2,960      2.86

There were shortages of meat in the 1980’s, but that was due to increased consumption, not declining output. In the 1960’s, there were meat surpluses, but meat was highly priced so it was an expensive item for most families. In the 1980’s, the price was the same as in the 1960’s but wages had increased by 2 1/2 times.
US rural life is characterized by harsh working conditions, poor housing, inadequate diets and low wages. Outside of the gulags, none of that was true of rural life in the USSR.

Per Capita Meat Consumption 1988
       Norway Sweden Japan
USSR   +      =-      2X

In 1988, Soviet meat consumption was higher than Norway, a bit lower than Sweden and twice that of Japan.
Since the 1960’s, Soviet food consumption had been running on a par with the developed world.

USSR vs US, 1989
Hogs      More
Sheep     More
Cattle    More
Wheat     Higher Production
Rye       Higher Production
Oats      Higher Production
Barley    Higher Production
Cotton    Higher Production
Potatoes  Higher Production
Sugar     Higher Production
Wool      Higher Production
Milk      Higher Production
Butter    Higher Production
Eggs      Higher Production
Fish      Higher Production

The need for grain imports post 1970 was not triggered by declining wheat production. Instead they were triggered by growing demand for and consumption of meat by the Soviet population along with increased income.
America is the largest importer of meat on Earth and is now a net importer of fruits, vegetables and fish. Does this mean that US agriculture in these areas has failed?
There are inefficiencies in both systems. In the US, farmers destroy hogs, burn grains and potatoes and leave crops to rot in the ground because prices are too low. In Europe, farmers dump crops along the side of the road and dump milk in ditches for the same reason, even though there are hungry people in most of these countries.
Combines miss 20% of the corn crop every year and it is left to rot. Due to market mechanisms, it is not profitable to glean the missed corn from the ground and harvest it by whatever means. It is true that capitalist agriculture is more efficient than socialist agriculture when it comes to minimizing labor costs. But from a workers’ POV, one wonders if that is such a great thing.
In the USSR, workers lived on their farms year round while in US agriculture, farm work tends to be seasonal. Therefore, it was more costly for the USSR to support rear-round agricultural workers at their farms. Nevertheless, this capitalist efficiency has a high cost in rural areas: chronic high underemployment and rural poverty rates.
It is true that the US farm worker was 7-8 times more productive than a Soviet worker, but this was mostly due to increased mechanization in the US. There were .73 trucks per worker in the US and only .056 trucks per worker in the USSR.
However, Soviet workers were 3-25% more productive than Italian workers, and their productivity was similar to that of many West European farmers.
Productivity and yields for all crops continued to grow during the entire Soviet period all the way up until the end. Much of this was accomplished by increased cultivation of arable (but often marginal) lands.
Yields per acre varied, but the US typically produced twice as much per acre as the USSR. Part of this was due to poor growing conditions in the USSR. However, cotton yields in the USSR were typically 50% higher than those of the US, and for several years, East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Hungary had wheat yields per acre nearly double the US rate.

The USSR Did Not Fail

It’s commonly argues that the USSR failed. I would argue that it did not fail at all; instead, it was a spectacular success. For instance, in pre-revolutionary Russia there were famines and starvation deaths, often countless ones, every single year. There was never enough food to go around. Safe drinking water was rare outside the cities. Hardly anyone had electricity.
Soon after the USSR was established, everyone had safe drinking water. The whole country was wired up. And after the collectivization famines of the early 1930’s, full food security was achieved for the first time in Russian memory. And Soviet citizens at the end of the USSR’s reign ate just as well as West Europeans, as noted in a previous post.
It depends on your definition of success.
In fact, since the return of capitalism, agricultural production of fruits, vegetables and livestock collapsed. Production of all these things was much higher in the USSR.
This is what I would call a “market failure.” Apparently the reason for this market failure is that farming has been privatized, and the oligarchs with all the money in Russia now do not see agriculture as a profitable medium, hence they refuse to invest in it as there’s no money in it. And the banks don’t want to loan for farmers as they see it as a risky loan.
The majority of farm production is now occurring on small family farms, not large concerns.

Soviet Citizens Ate Just as Well As West Europeans

Steve writes, quoting a British author.

“While most citizens struggled to survive… a secret elite enjoyed great privileges: special living spaces, special hospitals, special schools, special lanes along which the Politburo’s limousines roared at 90mph.”

Yes, the elite lived somewhat better than the masses, but compare how much better the elite lives than the masses under capitalism to the privileges of the elite in the USSR and there is no comparison. Western elites have lifestyles dramatically superior by many times over those of the masses. The Soviet elite only lived somewhat better. The differences were not that dramatic.
This same author also wrote that the USSR was one of the most unequal states on Earth. No! Not so!
Anyway, since when do capitalists have issues with inequality? They should be praising the inequalities of the USSR to the skies as a glorious capitalist feature of the system.
They didn’t struggle to survive! That’s bullshit! For instance, food. They go on and on about food shortages. maybe there were some. But you know what? In the USSR, people at just as well as West Europeans did! In some cases, better.
They ate just as much bread products, fruits, vegetables and meat as West Europeans. Also just as much or more meat – fish, beef, pork. They ate just as much food in just as good a variety as you Brits did! So they had an excellent and nutritious diet.
They can go on and on about food shortages all they want to, but if they ate just as well as West Europeans, what differences does it make if some stuff was out of stock sometimes? They still ate just as well. In one place, some stuff was out of stock, in the other place, the shelves were full, but each one ate just as well as the other.
Now, some West Europeans may have eaten more luxury foods, shall we call them, then the Soviets did. But were those luxury foods available to all Soviets?
It’s true that Americans ate more of most types of food than Soviets did, but Americans also ate more of most types of food than West Europeans.

Tang Dynasty, "The Internationale"

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHUowgu-51I]
The Internationale, one of the greatest songs of the last century, is of course the anthem of socialists, anarchists and Communists the world over.
It is the official song of many Communist parties and is the official anthem of the Socialist International.
This is the best hard rock version of the Internationale ever done, off the Tang Dynasty’s 1992 album A Dream Return. This band is extremely popular with young Chinese, and this song has also become very popular with the same group. Tang Dynasty is best described as Chinese nationalists, but they also love Mao and CCP.
The Internationale is the international anthem of the working class the world over, sung and recorded in most major languages. Even if hate Commies, you have to admit it’s one kickass song.
There’s some great Mao-era footage in this video, with lots of photos of the Great Helmsman and young Chinese waving Little Red Books. Even with the major changes in China, Mao remains very popular. And its national yearly Congress, the CCP still plays an instrumental version of the Internationale.

Socialism is Winning, All Over the World

The Socialist International is an international organization of socialist and social democratic parties all over the world. It is one of the most powerful organizations on Earth because many nations all over the world have very powerful or even ruling parties that are members of the Socialist International. It might surprise you who is a member of that group.
For instance, the PRI in Mexico, the AD in Venezuela, APRA in Peru, the National Liberation Party in Costa Rica and the Liberal Party in Colombia are all members (not that those parties are any good!), as is the PRD in Mexico, New Space in Uruguay, the PNP in Jamaica, the Socialist Parties in Albania, France, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Chile, Uruguay and Yemen, the Labor Parties in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Israel, Dominica, St. Kitts and Nevis and St. Lucia, the Social Democrats in Iceland, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro, Romania and Slovakia, PANOS in Greece, the Socialist Workers Party in Luxemburg, the Democratic Parties in Moldova, Slovenia and Serbia, the Democratic Party of Socialists in Montenegro, the People’s Party in Mongolia, the PUK in Iraq, the PPP in Pakistan, the PLO in Palestine, Congress in Nepal, the Progressive Socialist Party in Lebanon, Democratic Forum for Labour and Liberties in Tunisia on and on. Of course the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and parties like Frelimo in Mozambique, MPLA in Angola, ANC in South Africa, FRETELIN in East Timor, Polisario in the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and SWAPO in Namibia are also members.
Socialism isn’t losing at all. Socialist and social democratic parties of various forms are either ruling or in ruling coalitions of many to most countries on Earth or they are large parties in the opposition. Socialism hasn’t failed at all. It won, it’s winning, and it will continue to win.

Bigfoot News July 12, 2012

Blockbuster news! We have it on good authority that the Dr. Melba Ketchum study has not only proven that Bigfoots exist, but that they are an existing relict hominid. But that’s not the big news; you already knew that.
So what’s the big news? A source inside the Ketchum camp has informed me that the Ketchum study folks not only have proven that these hominids exist, but they have identified the exact hominid that the Bigfooots are! “They know which one it is,” is how it was related to me.
That means, apparently, that the Bigfoots are a known hominid, known from the fossil or possibly DNA record. It’s a hominid that is already known and exists in the scientific record. Not only that, but this known hominid has managed somehow to survive to the present day! So a known relict hominid, well known to science, never went extinct and instead survives to this very day.
I asked the source which identified hominid the Bigfoots are, and the source either would not or was not able to tell me.
There are parts of this that I do not understand. Do they mean that they have identified the hominid on the nuclear side? Because on the MtDNA side, the Bigfoots are 100% human. Bigfoots are hybrids. Or does it mean that the Bigfoots themselves are concordant with and identical to a known relict hominid, known by science but thought to have gone extinct?
Are there known relict hominids which are hybrids of human on one side and an unknown relict hominid on the other? I don’t know, and so much does not make sense about this information.
Could it be Neandertal? Maybe, but Neandertal was not human on the MtDNA side, and I believe Richard Stubstad said that Neandertals were ruled out on the nuclear side. Could it be Denisovan? Possibly, but I do not believe that the Denisovans were human on the MtDNA side either.
Could it be the Red Deer Cave People recently found in China? Possibly, but I believe that we lack DNA for these relict hominids. However, they do have a backwards-sloping forehead, and this is what true Bigfoots have and most hoaxes get wrong. It can’t be Flores Man – they are far too small.
What about Heidelbergensis? This has always been my favorite for the Bigfoots. However, I believe we have no Heidelbergensis DNA. Nor do we have DNA from various forms of Erectus and whatnot.
So how is it that they think they know which hominid it is? My source told me that they may know if they have an actual Bigfoot specimen, which he suspects they do. The source thinks that the Ketchum study retained a full Bigfoot specimen from the Sierra Kills. In that case, they could compare say the skull from the Kills with existent skulls of say, Heidelbergensis.
David Claerr has written many fascinating pieces on this topic. In one of his articles, he implied that he had seen Bigfoot skeletons either in museums or in private collections. I asked him to elaborate, but he was not able to do so due to agreements with his sources.
The Ketchum camp really, really does not want this information getting out now, so I have been told. But this information comes from a new source inside the Ketchum camp who is best described as “disgruntled” with the way things are going.
I wish I could tell you more about this, but this is apparently a deep secret among the study folks, and it was hard enough to come up with this tidbit. But we will see if any elaborating information comes out in the future due to this revelation.
Ketchum received two Bigfoot steak samples, one from the baby and one from the adult male. We reported this a while back, but no one believed us so we will repeat it as I just heard it one more time. When the initial samples were sent in from the Sierra Kills, there were two samples. One sample was reportedly from the baby and one was from the adult.
How do we know this? Because Ketchum told a close associate (who we cannot name) that that is what she received. She also said that one had hair resembling the color of the baby’s hair, and the second had hair resembling the adult. Subsequently, all talk of the second sample vanished, and now it apparently doesn’t exist. All reports now only discuss “the sample,” which is from the male.
So what about the second sample she received? What happened to it? My source told me they think it’s been buried. The source thinks the entire body of the baby was retained initially, and it is presently with Wally Hersom, though that is just speculation.
The baby is theorized as being secreted away, apparently, all in an effort to keep Justin Smeja, the shooter, out of jail. The source also told me that they thought that Ketchum’s Hollywood publicist and attorneys told her that anything relating to the baby Bigfoot is “kryptonite,” and that it has to be buried.
It’s all pretty wild stuff, and I’m not sure how true it is. But we do know that Ketchum said she received two samples, not one, and that she described them to a colleague as coming from two different animals.
What happened after that? Who knows? It’s all so mysterious.
Additional hints that Smeja’s body recovery story may not be correct. A friend of mine listened to Smeja’s interview on the radio a while back, and he said the Smeja sounded quite honest up until the part about the body recovery. At that point, he felt Smeja did not sound fully honest anymore due to his voice tone and sentence structure and whatnot.
There are other clues. On Bigfoot Forums, “the general” was asked why he shot the baby Bigfoot in the throat. He responded testily that he didn’t want to damage the head. The implication was that he wanted the head for evidence, and this is why he shot the baby. Smeja’s driver has already told us that Justin shot the baby for evidence.
In addition, on Bigfoot Forums, Justin described exactly where the bullet entered and left the body of the adult Bigfoot. He said it entered 3 inches below the nipple and exited at a precise point in the opposite lung. My source said there is no way he could determine that at 80 yards, and that he must have inspected the body after he shot it.
On the radio show referenced earlier, Justin was asked whether he was sure the adult was dead. He answered twice, emphatically, that the adult was dead. The second time was in response to a question, “Are you sure it’s dead?” “I’m sure it’s dead,” Justin answered with finality. My source told me that that no hunter ever says he is sure he killed an animal unless he inspects to body to make sure it is dead.
Update on the Erickson Project. We don’t have much, but a source close to the Erickson Project said that the word from Adrian Erickson on the release of his film is “soon.” My understanding is that the paper and the movie are still to be released in tandem. Sorry we don’t have any more than this.
Publication date for Ketchum’s paper. This depends on what the window is between acceptance of a paper and the publication of that paper. Does anyone know what that window is? If you can figure out what the window is, you can get a time frame of a possible early to late publishing date.
I would also like to know if papers are ever accepted for publication (pass peer review) but are then killed for one reason or another. If this ever happens, then maybe there’s a slight chance it will not publish at this venue. As for me, of course I have no date at all.
Reason for all the secrecy in the Ketchum camp? An observer has hypothesized that all of the secrecy is not necessary in order to not jeopardize the paper; instead, it originates with the needs of Ketchum herself, who has some mysterious need or desire for all this privacy.
I asked a source why she was so hyper-secret if it’s not needed for the integrity or existence of the paper, and the source said, “She wants to be next Jane Goodall or Diane Fossey. She wants to run around in the woods and study these creatures. She wants to be to Sasquatch what Fossey and Goodall are to chimps and gorillas. And she thinks that all of the leaks somehow get in the way of all of that.”
MK Davis breaks down Paul Freeman’s great Bigfoot video. The famous Freeman video from 1994 is widely considered to be authentic. Unfortunately, it has very poor resolution. MK Davis, whatever his other faults, is excellent at video work. He has enhanced a scene from the end of the video that some said showed the Bigfoot picking up a baby and walking away with it. I was never able to make out that aspect of the video, so I could never comment on it.
But in MK Davis’ great enhancement, it looks very much like the Bigfoot in the video does pick up a baby Bigfoot at the end and put it in its arms. We have seen a number of videos where adult Bigfoots pick up babies and go away with them. The most famous is the Memorial Day footage. Another one is the Beast of Gum Hill video, where the Bigfoot crosses a creek in front of the couple riding ATV’s in a creek and picks up a baby on the other side.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jfalypfvpnk]
Strange photo of possible Bigfoot in the Basque country. Here is a strange new photo from the Basque Country. There have long been reports of Bigfoot type things (not sure exactly what type – maybe Almas?) roaming these mountains. I was surprised at how spectacular, stark and rugged the Basque mountains are. I don’t what the thing in this video is – to me, it looks sort of like a man. Doesn’t seem to be shaped like a Bigfoot. On the other hand, maybe Almas are different.

Photo from the Crypto Crew.

Back story from the blog where it appeared:

The witness, Joxan (Basque name), and his 14 year old daughter took advantage of a day off for an excursion through the area. After passing the peak of Bianditz, they took the path of the three cromlechs going to Errenga (Errenga and Bianditz are peaks in the Basque Country). At that moment, they heard a loud whistles, and about 200 meters away, they see something moving Penas-Errenga that catches their eye.
At first they thought it was a dog, a person, a monkey or a bear, despite bears having disappeared from the area a century ago. Witnesses see a man covered with hair, he was wearing “a kind of leather poncho” and moves at a quick run up the mountain, while emitting loud whistles. These sounds, long sustained, seemed to be answered from a nearby peak and also from the surrounding woods.

Reading the blog post in Spanish, subsequent investigation is questioning the reality of this photo and investigators are wondering if it is a manipulated image of some sort.