Right Wing Lies: Our Public Education System is a Disastrous Failure

One of the main reasons that I have such extreme contempt for conservatives everywhere on Earth is that in general, conservatism is always based on lies. Lies, lies, lies, lies, lies, lies and more lies. One of the most annoying things about conservatives is if you care about their lies, you have to spend a lot of your time doing research about their endless lies (new ones come out every single day) to figure out how and why it’s a lie. In other words, conservatives come out with a new talking point (most every day there is a new one, or many more than one). I automatically suspect that it’s a lie because it seems implausible. But I am often not able to prove whether or not it’s a lie, so it goes into the “possible rightwing lie” category until some progressive person does the research to uncover and expose this latest lie. Rightwingers have a hardon for the US public education system. This is probably unusual on a world scale because I am not aware of any other country on Earth where the rightwing wages and ongoing, vicious and explicit war against public education. Furthermore, I am not aware of any other countries on Earth where a vast segment of the population has extreme hatred of public education. If you can find such a country, let me know. So in this sense as in so many other ways, the US is pretty much the most fanatical rightwing country on Earth. Why does the US rightwing hate public education. I am not really sure. For one thing, the US rightwing has probably always hated public education. In most of the Third World, the Right attacks public education simply by funding it very poorly. Here in the US, we have a very well funded public education system. Rich jerks send their kids to private schools, but their taxes pay for public schools that they never use. That really chaps their hide I imagine. So the rich jerks want the state to issue them a check to help pay for their spoiled brats’ private school education! The gall of these jerks! Why should the taxpayers, the people, you and me, pay for some rich weenie to send his preppie brat to some elite academy? This is the poor and the middle class funding the rich, which is really the essence of US Republican Party politics. If rich pricks want to send their kids to fancy private schools, they can pay for it out of their own deep pockets. Another reason is that public education is a multi-billion $ sector of the economy that is presently off-limits to profiteering by capitalists. Capitalists don’t like the idea that any aspect of the economy is walled off from rent-seeking, so they seek to privatize this realm in order to get in on hundreds of billions of dollars which can be directed at the private sector into capitalists’ bank accounts. Another reason is that the US rightwing, probably again unique in the world, has been engaged in a decades long effort to prove to the US people that government can’t do anything right or at all, and everything it touches, falls apart. Government always fails. Government can never do anything good for you. Don’t ever expect government to help you in any way or better your life in any way. Government is useless at best and toxic and evil at worst so it must be reduced to a minimal size where not phased out altogether. Since public education provides tremendous benefits for all citizens for free at the K-12 level, it’s a common good that needs to be devalued by the sneering and lying Right. If it can be proven that public education is crap, people will stop supporting it, and the Right will be able to defund it. This is really what is behind the endless lies the corporate media runs about our “failing public education system.” Except for one thing. It’s not failing. Not only that, but it’s never been failing. But the disgusting lying corporate media will never tell you that. And so it is that I present you with the following post from Daily Kos which shows that not only is the US public education system not failing, but it’s doing better than ever. American students, as a whole, are smarter than they ever have been, based on the gold standard National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP). This assessment began in 1971. Forty years later, our students are scoring as high, or higher in every category. Moreover, black students have made gains at a much faster rate than white students. The gap is closing. You can browse the executive summary HERE, or read the summary report HERE. We need to get better at teaching and educating as a whole society. We need to do this because it is the right thing to do. We need to do this because it will make our country stronger. We need to get better because all kids can and should get a world class education. However, we don’t need to do this because somehow we are losing our competitive edge. If you believed popular culture and the latest education deformers, you would think that American education has gotten worse over the last forty years. You would have to think the achievement gap has increased. For example, Michelle Rhee and the A.L.E.C.-aligned StudentsFirst released a despicable ad analogizing our education system with an obese, effeminate Olympic athlete. It was offensive on a myriad of levels. Just like the Olympics, the most obese nation in the world needs to improve its athleticism, but that doesn’t mean we are not competitive. Heck, I am pretty sure we crushed the field. The bottom line is that the education deformers’ narrative is divisive and dishonest. It is a misrepresentation of the real landscape. We need to be honest about our weaknesses and address them aggressively. It is not helpful to distort the entire system, tear down all public education and savage teachers in order to address our gaps. We will never stop trying to help ALL students get smarter. Supporting education, teachers, and students as a whole community is the way to do it. Burning the entire village to save it is certainly bold. Michelle Rhee, StudentsFirst, and A.L.E.C. are bold in this way. You can go with bold, or you can go with smart.

Are Straight Men Paranoid of Gay Men? Yes

Straight men to tell the truth do not like gay men at all, not one bit. Not that I blame them. It’s completely understandable. After all, being straight, and in particular being masculine, is in part all about a negation of the feminine, the effeminate and by extension the homoerotic and the homosexual. So the gay man represents everything that the straight man has been fighting like mad his whole not to be. He’s the “anti-you.” So most straight guys are extremely concerned about who is gay and who is not to the point where they are always worrying and prying about here and there wondering about whether so and so or such and such straight guy is really secretly gay. Which in general is an utterly idiotic and preposterous line of inquiry. On the other hand, I’ve never cared. I never thought homosexuality or bisexuality was a bad thing in a guy, so I never worried too much about whether some guy was set up that way. That led to a lot of idiotic naivete on my part and endless run-ins with gay and bi men. So it follows that most straight guys are outrageous homophobes, and there’s probably not a lot we can do about that. I used to have some odd experiences. I had a number of male friends in my life that for whatever reason, a lot of folks kept insisting were gay. One was DN. DN was a great friend of mine for quite a few years, and we had some great times together running all over LA and Orange County drinking, smoking weed and chasing women. DN also got more pussy than most guys will in 20 lifetimes. That was his main selling point to me, so I always shook my head and laughed whenever I heard all these “FAG!” comments. The problem was that DN had been a real pussy when he was a boy. We made a pun on his name that had “fag” in it. When he was about 10, he was a very sensitive boy. He was always bursting into tears for this or that reason. As we were in the forge of boyhood, being cast into men by hot fire, we had to stop that. It went around among the boys: “He cries like a girl. Beat him up! Every time he cries, beat him up!” So every time he burst into tears, the boys all jumped on him and beat the crap out of him. I gladly joined in. Turns out we beat him into some kind of a man in some way or another. As he grew to be a young man, he got a lot more masculine, but people I grew up always remembered what a pussy boy he was and always insisted that he was a “fag” based on his crybaby behavior as a young boy. Since he was a big pussy as a young boy, that means he was going to be a faggot for the rest of his life. Now that’s some scientific thinking! I knew DN very well as a young man, and realized that he was no longer the pussyboy he was as a boy. I was hanging around with him all the time, and my friends kept hissing at me that he was a FAG. It was often implied by family members that I was obviously a FAG too since I was hanging out with DN. Apparently there was no other way to hang out with DN without sucking his cock! That’s funny because DN and I and had a universe of fun together and I never sucked his cock a single time. I never even thought about it. I never did anything remotely gay with the guy. Why would I? It did turn out later that at age 22, DN got into bisexuality, something he had always told me he would never do. A particularly vicious, slimy and extremely typical queer basically blackmailed him into it, just like most of them will if you give them the chance. Do queers prey on, sexually harass, blackmail and recruit good-looking young straight men? Yes, in epidemic numbers. Soon after, I pretty much had to end my friendship with the guy because he was so deep into that scene. Once one of your friends goes deep into guy sex, the friendship is basically over, and you’re not going to be able to hang around with him anymore for a ton of reasons. I had some other friends who people, especially a particularly viciously insane homophobic family member, kept insisting were FAGS. I never did anything remotely gay with any of these guys, and as a general rule, they never tried anything with me. With all these guys, we had spent a ton of time together having a blast, and none of them had given off the remotest queer vibes or done anything remotely gay towards me, so I wasn’t worried about their sexuality. All that was important was how they acted when they were around me. I suppose if they wanted to be cool around me and then sneak around and suck cocks behind my back, I wouldn’t even care. Why would I? As long as he leaves me alone and keeps quiet about his queery adventures, why should I give it a minute of thought? Anyway, if you’re hanging around with a guy, and he’s leaving you alone, bottom line is he can’t possibly be gay or bi. The only reason a person could possibly care if someone is gay or not is if they are homophobic. If this is an important question to you, you’re a homophobe. Period. I have had guys would go hang out with me or go out with me at night somewhere. Some of these guys were married. They would always be trying to get away from me and get distant from me, and it seemed like they were trying to put a lot of space between me and them when others were watching. It’s like they were saying, “Hey, I don’t want you to think Bob is my boyfriend!” It was pretty annoying. But anyway, guys are simply retarded. Any straight guy who spends any amount of time around me at all should be able to quickly tell that I am not gay or bi or anything like that. Because almost 10 They communicate, “I have a homoerotic orientation. You turn me on. I want to fuck you.” There’s no way you’re ever going to have some friend you’ve been hanging around with forever who you are suddenly shocked to find out is secretly gay and sucking cocks on the sly. The very idea is insane. But most men are totally retarded on that subject.

China Versus India

New commenter Jeff remarks on the differences and prospects for both China and India. China comes out on top and looks great for the future, whereas India has its head up it’s ass as usual. Before you accuse me of being racist, I’d like to point out that most of India’s problems are 10 In other words, India is a mess not because Indians are genetically inferior or defective (although that’s possible, I’m not aware of any good evidence that it is true). Instead, they could knock it off anytime they want to as the problem is with cultural and thinking styles and not and inborn nature or deficiency. A commenter writes: “Which to me indicates either that the Chinese model is superior or that Chinese culture is superior.” Jeff responds: It’s both and more. Culturally speaking, the Chinese are more industrious, more meritocratic, more egalitarian, more practical, more disciplined, and more secular. The Chinese articulate a vision, set goals, and then go about achieving them relentlessly. The Indians make idle boasts and delusional forecasts and then vegetate: no one seemed to have taught them that the cart shouldn’t come before the horse. For China, the erstwhile Maoist system, while monstrously flawed, secured an economic foundation by vastly improving nutrition, numeracy, literacy, healthcare, and advancing women’s rights. Deng Xiaoping’s post-Mao reforms would not have succeeded without the aforementioned accomplishments serving as a steppingstone. India, on the other hand, is just fucked up, OK? Just straight up FUBAR. It’s still plagued by the caste system and mired in sexism. After some 60 years of self-rule, India still hasn’t managed the basics: 5 With such atrocious fundamentals, all the Hindutva drivel about India Rising and India Shining will remain just that, drivel. Whereas Chinese leaders are selected primarily based on merit and qualifications, Indian politics is largely a family affair (e.g. the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty) in which performance is irrelevant but blood ties all important. Despite the much ballyhooed Indian “democracy”, the Chinese system is far more accountable and responsive. Case in point, when the emergency management system was deemed deficient during the recent flood in Beijing, the mayor was fired; when Bangalore experiences annual floods, the local honchos are re-elected, repeatedly, by promising handouts to largely poor and illiterate vote banks. The Chinese know what they want: to get rich and to reclaim their former position as the hegemon. They are open to adopt whatever systems or methods that can propel them there: this is the essence of Deng’s motto that it doesn’t matter if a cat is black or white, so long it catches mice. The Indians, by contrast, have never articulated a collective vision and are therefore content with a hodgepodge of caste-based feudalism, socialist license raj, and neoliberal excesses: a little something to appease every constituency and ideological group. And just to miff the Hindutvas and PC banshees, let me close by pointing out that Chinese are generally more intelligent and have a much tougher mental constitution, which undoubtedly contribute to their superior performance vis-a-vis the Indians. P.S. For those of you interested in enlightening cross-cultural comparisons between India and China, read Mr. Navneet Bakshi’s blog. Mr. Bakshi is an Indian who had lived and worked in China long-term. He endears with his brutal honesty and incisive observations.

Postcard from India

A nice little postcard from a Western traveler to India appeared in the comments the other day. Here it is: I spent a couple weeks in India 4 years ago and I completely agree with this post. The day I arrived I caught something (Delhi Belly) after drinking a fruit & ice blended drink and I was sick for a month. Guess why? Because there’s shit in the water they make ice out of. The cities smelled like shit, especially the areas where the fishermen lived. I nicknamed the harbor in Mumbai, which is called the Queen’s Necklace by locals, the Queen’s Toilet. The water was brown because it’s probably full of shit. Many buildings were literally crumbling with holes in the floor, but it was all normal to them. Whenever I meet an Indian hyping up the country and how it’s going to be the next China, I either point out that it’ll take a long long LONG time to make progress in that country, or I just politely agree because there’s no use arguing with someone who’s delusional and going to take your comments personally. My opinion as an educated man with many friends in the class of top 1. Seriously fights & punishes corruption and bribery (many friends’ families use government connections to gain advantages over business rivals and especially foreign investors/businesses, the rich also tout their position, net worth, and bureaucratic friends to threaten cops or other officials who would dare punish them for violating laws). 2. Invests in infrastructure – build sewers, clean the water, increases the building safety code and regulations. 3. Increases public education (many people lack analytical skills, the lower class basically has a slave mentality). 4. Put some of the many homeless to work cleaning up the streets – there’s too much garbage everywhere.

Is the Right Always or Almost Always Wrong? Yes

RR writes (in blockquotes here and below):

The Right is wrong 10

Just about.

Was the Right wrong about Communism?

Yes, they lied about it constantly, and they continue to lie about it, and their alternative to Communism is a catastrophe. Much better critiques of Communism emerged from Centrists and especially social liberals and social democrats (socialists).

Is the Right wrong about Feminism?

The Right opposed not just gender feminism but also equity feminism. They are wrong about abortion, reproductive rights, the ERA, gay rights and equal pay. Anyway, feminism is so mainstream now that most female conservatives are basically feminists. Sarah Palin is basically a rightwing feminist. Much better critiques of feminism have emerged on the Left and especially from the Men’s Liberation and equity feminist movements.

Was the Right wrong about welfare reform?

Yes, yes, yes! A thousand times yes!

Leftists have much more blood on their hands historically than Rightists do.

Not really. Whether history is over or not is irrelevant. Whether history is ongoing and progress is on the horizon or whether it’s dead and capitalism reigns on Earth forever, it’s no matter, because capitalism continues to kill. By not going with the Chinese model, 120 million Indians were killed. We know this because India and China were equivalent in 1949 in life expectancy. The increase in life expectancy in China versus India means 4 million excess deaths in India every year from 1949-1980. Stalin and Mao were the greatest humanitarians that ever lived. Never has life expectancy increased so rapidly in so short a time. Combined they saved tens of millions of lives even after subtracting the deaths under their regimes.

From the French Revolution up through Mao’s reign of terror, Leftists have a LOT to answer for.

A few of the rich were killed by the Jacobins, it is true, but the Royals had a lot of blood on their hands. A revolution is not a dinner party you know. Surely the Ancien Regime ground out many more deaths than the Jacobins did. At any rate, many elements of the Left have always opposed most of these excesses from the guillotines to the Cultural Revolution.

The Feminist Enemy Fires Another Shot at Men

Here. Virgin Airlines has decided that if you are a male and only if you are a male, you are not allowed to sit next to unaccompanied children who are not related to you on a flight. Women of course may sit next to children any time. Although this was a policy formulated by Richard Branson’s Virgin Airlines, it obviously has its roots in feminism. Gender feminism states that all men are potential rapists and child molesters. The Pedophile Mass Hysteria sweeping the US right now is being caused by a number of factors, but some of the perpetrators are gender feminists and femiservatives. Femiservatives are basically conservative feminists or conservatives who do the feminists’ bidding for them. For instance, around 1920, a femiservative outfit called the Women’s Temperance Union put into place California’s age of consent laws, putting them at 18, which was very high for the time in an era when many females were marrying at 14 or 15. This same WTU was also responsible for the atrocity of Prohibition. Prohibition is a prime example of how Female Rule always fails. Male Rule produces more or less workable and functional societies, whereas Female Rule always produces dysfunction and chaos. Male Rule versus Female Rule means whose thinking will rule society. Will male thinking or female thinking dominate the public sphere? The Virgin Airlines rule is a prime example of the chaos caused by Female Rule. The idea that men may not sit next to children for fear they might molest them is classic female thinking.

White Versus Black Homicide Rates in the US

Volodmyrr writes:

The population of whites is 82. 4.3344 of 8.2453 = 52. Blacks are responsible for 52. Is this correct?

There are some problems with these figures. Here are the updated figures for around this year:

US Population by

White            6
Hispanic (all)   1
Black            1
American Indian   

Those figures are very much estimates. No one quite knows how many South Indians are in the US. Arabs are blended in with Whites, as are Jews. So the vast majority of Muslims in the US are in fact White. The figures for Whites and Hispanics are somewhat uncertain and may be off by a percentage point or two. The Hispanic figure is very hard to define and may or may not include illegal aliens. White Hispanics appear to be blended into Hispanic in this analysis. In particular, the mixed race category is very hard to even define, much less quantify. It was left out of this analysis.

Homicide rates by race
Rate per 100,000
Other            4.1
White            4.5
Black           34.4

Good God! Those figures are completely insane! Excuse me! But as you can see, the Black rate is fully 8 times higher than the White rate. The White rates itself is quite elevated compared to many White European countries. The Black rate is so high that it calls out for public discussion, which unfortunately is now completely blacked out and forbidden. If nothing else, the Black rate is a public health emergency. That’s why I write about Black crime on here. It’s the one negative thing about Blacks that most pro-Black White liberals will talk about. That’s their big worry and big concern, and they are not necessarily to shy to bring it up. I understand why Blacks get their back up about this. Suppose you’re a Black with a clean record who more or less obeys the law and certainly has never killed anyone. Your reaction is going to be, “Why are you going on about Black crime? I don’t commit any crimes! Leave me out of this!” Fair enough. But the vast majority of victims of Black crime are Blacks themselves. And if it’s a public health emergency anywhere, it’s a public health emergency in the Black community. And that’s something that Blacks ought to be concerned about. That’s why I appreciated Tulio’s post so much the other day. A figure that is 8X the White rate surely cries out for some sort of an explanation, and it’s a great problem for aspiring social scientists to crack their teeth on. At the very least, it cries out for extensive investigation. The standard liberal rejoinders about poverty, lack of education, lack of opportunity and racism get old real fast. There’s something more than that going on here. Anyway, all of these explanations really lead us nowhere. What is Ayn Randian America like nowadays? Are we about to get cracking on poverty, lack of education, lack of opportunity and racism? Not exactly. Ayn Randian America, exemplified by Republican Veep pick Paul Ryan, is about to throw in the towel on all of those problems, give it up, go home and declare victory or whatever. Spending on all of these problems is expected to decline radically in the future where it will not be zeroed out altogether. So we end up with a non-testable and non-falsifiable theory:

Observer: Why is there so much Black homicide? Liberal: Poverty, racism, lack of opportunity, poor education. Observer: Well, ok, since this stuff is not going away, can we at least ameliorate these problems and see if it affects the rate any? Liberal: Nope, these problems have always been with us and will be with us for the foreseeable future. Observer: Ok so there’s no way to even test your theory to see if it’s true or not, right?

Even worse is a circular theory that many toss about.

Observer: Why is there so much Black crime? Conservative parroting liberal argument: Poverty, racism, lack of opportunity, poor education. Observer: Well, why is there so much poverty, racism, lack of opportunity, poor education in the Black community? Conservative: Well, mostly due to crime I would say.

Now, this may well be true, but we aren’t solving anything with a circular argument. Racists use a similar circular argument:

Observer: Why is there so much Black homicide? Racist: LOL, did you just crawl out from under a rock? Niggers like to kill people. You never noticed that? LOL. Observer: Well, that’s interesting. But then why do Black people like to kill each other then? Racist: Why do niggers like to kill people? LOL! Because they’re niggers, that’s why! LMAO!

Well, perhaps that is true and perhaps it is not, but it’s hardly explanatory now is it? And it seems rather tautological. Good theory should be: Testable: You should be able to test it out somehow. If you can’t even test it, it’s more or less garbage and empty bloviating. Falsifiable: There must be some way that one could possibly prove the theory false if the facts came out in a certain way. If you can’t theoretically do that, the theory is just empty wind. This is where you get the saying, “Not only is it not right, but it’s not even wrong!” about some theories. Explanatory: Theory should attempt to explain the facts. Theories that fail to do that are said to lack explanatory adequacy. Saying that Black people commit tons of homicide because they’re a bunch of niggers is interesting and rather humorous, but it doesn’t really answer the question. That statement lacks explanatory adequacy because it fails to explain the facts on the ground in any way whatsoever. It’s the sort of answer that makes you feel puzzled as you walk away shaking your head.

"It Ended With a '53 Buick," by Alpha Unit

My husband almost bought a Woodie. It was about 25 years ago. He had a neighbor who had one in storage, and she wanted to get rid of it. All he can recall about it is that it was a 1940-something Dodge and that the wood was badly warped. Even though she was going to give him a great deal on it, he passed. Way too much hassle, he decided. The hassle of maintaining these cars is one reason people stopped wanting them. They look beautiful, but they can be high-maintenance divas.

A Nash Suburban “woodie.”
Woodies weren’t “Woodies” until some time in the 1950s, I found out. Before then they were just station wagons. Station wagons were a way of transporting people and their luggage from train stations to their final destinations. They were directly descended from horse-drawn express wagons. Before the 1930s the passenger compartment of a vehicle was normally made of hardwood. A station wagon had the typical wooden body – built by a local carpenter, probably – and was used in a privately-run shuttle service. The 1923 Star was the first wooden paneled station wagon sold commercially (made by Durant Motors). But the Ford Motor Company sold more wood-bodied cars than any other manufacturer, according to Art Daily, building its own bodies in a plant in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.

Ford Motor Company was vertically integrated; the wood – kiln-dried maple and ash framing, with mahogany panels – was harvested from the company’s expansive Iron Mountain first-growth timber tracts. It was harvested, kiln-dried, and aged, all in one facility. Skilled craftsmen hand-built, assembled, and trimmed each car’s wooden body as they would fine furniture. Then it was shipped to a local Ford assembly plant to be mated to its engine and chassis.

General Motors didn’t sell as many wood-bodied wagons as Ford. Since it wouldn’t have been efficient for GM to produce the cars in small numbers, says Art Daily, a few respected suppliers hand-crafted Chevrolet, Olds, Pontiac, and Buick woodies. Packard, De Soto, and Nash also offered wood-bodied wagons. Chrysler came out with its Town & Country wood-bodied wagon in 1941 and eventually began making wood-bodied 4-door sedans and convertibles. The Town & Country, with an all-steel roof and a white ash and mahogany body, is designated a Classic. People really want to see them. And get their hands on them. Wood-bodied cars were undoubtedly complex and expensive to build and required special care.

Many pieces were made of rare bird’s-eye maple, resplendent with natural whorls and unique flowing patterns. Woodies were beautiful, but they were weather-sensitive and subject to an early demise. Manufacturers issued instructions with each wood-bodied car that instructed owners how to sand and re-varnish the body every year. No one would tolerate that frequency of maintenance today, but it was a different era. And Woodies were fragile. A fender-bender that’d simply dent a metal car body could reduce a hapless Woodie to matchsticks. Brutal Northeast winters meant that these were essentially three-season cars, at best.

People who restore Woodies say that most of the ones they see are in bad condition. They commonly see both dry rot and termites. Eric Johnson, who rebuilds these cars, spoke to John Katz of Hot Rod and Restoration about the difficulty of restoring original wood.

I’d love to have a car with original wood. I’d love to keep it all original. But when you start taking an old wooden body apart, it’s like opening a can of worms. You may have seen only a few rotted areas when it was all together. But when you take it apart you’ll find tenons that are rotted out from where water got into it.

He says that sometimes you have to build a whole new reproduction body – something Rick Mack specializes in. He estimates that less than 1 percent of Woodies have good, original wood. He builds about a dozen woodsets a year and ships them all over North America. As Jeff Layton describes it:

The process is meticulous and time-consuming. There can be upwards of 64 wood pieces on a vehicle. Very few are straight or square; most bend in two directions, and some have a twist. Mack uses a hand-crank press to laminate and shape replacement wood. He then uses jigs, patterns, and templates to dictate where to drill holes, round corners, and router interlocking pieces.

Pieces are accurate to the originals within 1/64th of an inch, he says. (Once varnished and installed, even judges at car shows can’t tell if the wood is original.) Because many woodies were kept in storage during winter months, some of them can be found in pretty good condition. But to a lot of owners, proper maintenance was not a priority. Manufacturers understood this. Some people say that the last great year for the Woodie was 1949. Postwar auto production made handcrafting complicated and maintenance-intensive wood frames and panels hard to justify, according to David Traver Adolphus. During the 1950s, car design, along with the tastes of people who drove cars, underwent radical changes, he says, and woodies fell from favor. The Chrysler Town & Country was discontinued in 1951. The 1953 Buick wagons were the last of the real woodies from a major American manufacturer. Rick Mack drives a 1950 Ford Woodie wagon, even though it’s not a great idea in the Pacific Northwest. “Driving in the rain can make the wood swell,” he confesses to Layton. But he drives it anyway. He loves Woodie wagons.

“Why Growing Up in India Makes You a Nasty, Cruel, Desensitized Faux-nationalistic Gold-digger,” by Novusipsum

This is a great piece by an Indian blogger that he left on my blog as a comment. The original is here. It’s very good, and it’s actually quite well written. He takes on his country in a way that is not often seen in Indian writers.

I particularly enjoyed the bit about Kashmir because it rings so true. Almost every Indian I know goes nuts when I mention Kashmir. They raise their voice and start pounding on the table as their faces gets red. They tell me that the problem is 10

However, when I tell them that most Kashmiris hate India and that many Kashmiris have taken up arms against India, they insist that I am wrong. Most every Indian I met was exactly like this. They are like drones, utterly indoctrinated by some Borg. They are brainwashed on this subject as bad as a North Korean.

Most of these folks are what you might call middle class or upper middle class educated people. A number of them had university degrees and were quite intelligent. One man used to be a university professor.

Why Growing Up in India Makes You a Nasty, Cruel, Desensitized, Faux-nationalistic Gold-digger

1. School

While people remark on shortage of functional schools in India, I say the kids who don’t go to school have it good. The national curriculum is odious and objectionable, seeing as it is designed for kids who bow down before all authority and the various empty suits regardless of whether they make any sense at all. You cannot contest your teacher. At all. Ever. Such behavior is simply unacceptable. Put another way, the system is a hundred percent authoritarian.

School kills all your creativity. Creativity, especially of the extroverted kind, is not encouraged. There are tried and tested methods to break the will of those who are too free. The system is based on rote-memorization. You must bend your mind a certain way to do that: it means all the rules are already laid out and decided for you. You do not need to think. Your brain must function in a certain way. Any challenge to the established order will make you a pariah.

Kids learn how to secretly and openly hate each other over the grades they are given for breaking their own will and doing pointless mind-numbing work that will be of no use to them at any point in their later life. The focus is on merit – on who is better at following rules. No wonder India has not produced a single India-based world-class scientist, technician, engineer. Science, technology, and engineering after all,re fields where your ability to think is highly valuable.

Barack Obama does not need to worry about Indian kids out-smarting American kids. If they do, it will be by doing hours of grinding and rioting, and when they do, the rest of the world need to start worrying.

This system is evil!

2. Parents, Teachers, Peers

All these people are the product of evil Indian schools and other cramming establishments and will force you to succeed in a way that they deem appropriate. You must resist this but you can’t. They are everywhere.

Your peers will pressure you to bow down, submit, and ‘teach you the value of money’. In other words, how to be a vicious gold-digger. Money is nice but being a nasty, evil, little scummy gold-digger is a degeneration of your soul that even Indian’s ascetic scat-munchers do not attain.

Indian people are therefore nasty and selfish to the extreme. It is of no surprise, seeing their upbringing and their environment.

3. The environment

Your average Indian city, town, village is a primitive clusterfuck without running water or proper sewage disposal. Casteism is rampant; stupid people need little motivation to be proud of what is after all a genetic accident. They think their bloodline is ‘pure’ and grind the ‘lower’ caste people down into the dirt. Respect for human life and dignity in India has to be the lowest in human civilization.

The streets are narrow and dirty, usually overflowing with broken sewage and water lines (which frequently mix), and the garbage the average Indian household does not feel ashamed of throwing on the streets. Any kind of social grace is completely absent, people shove and push each other, vehicles honk incessantly and without reason, and the local temple’s loudspeakers blare out shitty religious hymns.

Living and growing up here, you will learn little by little to let go of your humanity. You will get desensitized to the beggars and lepers in the street: emancipated, poor and trodden down. You will see old men and women driven out of their homes by their sons, eyes pleading for mercy and trying to make sense of the plethora of people around them who ignore their plight and pass right by.

Your average Indian will not even notice the squalor on the street or the helpless human beings on the street. He will simply accept these things as a part of life, which is why things never improve. He is the selfish product of a callous, heartless, and evil system. He will never change, and western democracies should not allow such people into their homelands. Not even for a ‘visit’.

4. The Media

Catering to a large middle class that pretends to be educated, some people have taken the initiative to bring them these people latest news of the world. These people are funded by rich business interests with their own agenda as well as Hindu nationalists. They make the usual salutary noises about bad governance and bloated bureaucracy, things that are so odious that it even permeates the thick bourgeois skull. This is why the middle class types buy newspapers and watch news—they can relate to it.

But the most vicious thing the media does is to fill the average Indian with a sense of pride and nationalism, something that certainly goes against all basic logic and sanity. What people would be proud of a country like this? Only brain-washed, selfish jerks that the education system produces and the media maintains.

The average Indian is full to the brim with national pride that he has no logical reason to feel. His ideas on casteism and the workings of the society are reinforced by editors of the national dailies and the news channels.

His stance on Kashmir, a truly beautiful place inhabited by beautiful people, has been drilled into him incessantly. The parable of Pakistan exporting its terrorists (not that it doesn’t – and it turns out the Americans knew about it all along) to India and that the Kashmiris love India (Huh?) has been in print for thirty years now. Of course, India is always the poor, helpless victim.

5. College

Most people in India never even graduate from their high schools, let alone college. And I say good for them. Because the system feels the need to grind out all kind of potential competition it may get from any future thinkers.

If school doesn’t manage to turn you into a humanoid selfish fuck, your college certainly will. India’s unemployment problem is vast. Of the colleges that ‘guarantee’ any jobs such as professional degree mills like IIT, NIT, AIIM, etc., it is interesting to note that only Indians think these places are good. An independent peer review ranked the ‘best’ IIT at around 350th at world level. Yet the middle-class scramble for securing a seat there so intense it simply has to be seen to be believed.

Millions (you heard that right, millions) of middle-class Indians right now are rioting, grinding, and chewing equations, formulas, and facts for entrance exams that maybe a hundred of them really understand. These people aspire to be ‘engineers’ and ‘doctors’.

The workload is so immense that you can’t find time at age 16 and 17 to ogle girls (or boys), party, learn how to drink beer without making a face, or hang out with your friends. But what am I saying? Hell, most Indian people don’t find time to do that ever in their lives anyway.

College itself is a turdfest -professors with massive egos, an anal-retentive and callous administration, and overall awkward social interaction between the sexes. Girls hanging out with boys are labeled ‘hookers’ and ‘sluts’. Massive sexual repression is the hallmark of this point in your life, and given the pressure to rote more equations and secure a job, you’d be lucky escaping the place without a drug habit or a drinking problem.

Is there anything good about India at all? With fertile plains to the north, large iron ore deposits to the south, the biggest aluminum stores in the world and 3

The only thing wrong with India is Indians.

Bhabi Was Banned

A lot of you are probably happy about that, but I was putting this off for a long time and giving her one chance after another. Although she was a disruptive influence on here for quite some time, I can’t really ban on that. She was banned for hostile tone. She was also derailing a lot of good threads with tangential stuff about her one note themes, emo and frivolity. She destroyed a lot of good threads with her obsessive and off-topic posting. Not that I ban on that, but it’s not so great. Regular posters, please don’t worry and continue posting away. None of you are anywhere close to getting banned.

Feminism As the New "Default" in Western Women

Pat writes:

From the blog post: RL: Men and women struggle for power in various ways even in marriage and loving relationships. This is because they have different interests. When the pro-female agenda is imposed on society, the anti-male effects are obvious. Because what is pro-female is often anti-male. Because females (even feminists) hate us? No, many to most of them love us. What is pro-women is often anti-male due to differing and competing interests, values and agenda among genders.” Pat: I think this is very insightful. But one of the problems is that these days (IMO) women generally have become so chauvinistic that considering what negative effect a piece of legislation or court ruling or public policy will have on men not only does not occur to most women, but that even being asked to consider that angers them.

Thank you Pat. Pat is correct. I point out to pro female women (like even my own Mom) about how the pro female shit she pushes is bad for men, and she just gets angry! This is the reaction of the typical female too. And even my own Mom, who I love more than even myself, I have to admit, is a fucking feminist! My sister is a feminist! Fuck, they’re almost all feminists! The truth is that feminism has basically become the default for almost all females born in the US. It’s even effected elderly women in a pretty bad way. It’s become so unconscious that a lot of women will even deny that they are feminists while still strongly supporting feminist positions. Feminism is simply unconsciously “normal” in Western women.

Will Pashtun Women Put Out?

Dota asked an Afghan commenter how easy it was to get Afghan or Pashtun women to put out. In my opinion, Pashtun or Afghan women in general will not put out under any circumstances, but there are a few whores here and there. I had a physician who was a medical student in Kabul during the 1970’s when the Communist revolution was going on. He talked to me about the fervent of the times. He told me that he had never dated any women before he met his wife, and I assumed that his wife was a virgin when they married. He was surprised talking to me that some American men had so much dating experience. He implied that his attitude was typical for an Afghan man. Men socialize with men and women socialize with women. The sexes don’t really mix much at all. I think they start gender segregating them even as children. Around age 12, the females go into “purdah” which basically means that they are secluded from everyone. But during the Communist revolution, there were a lot of enthusiastic young Communists, mostly Pashtuns, and there was a lot of  “Let’s do it for the party” (LOL) and “Hey comrade, show me how comradely you are” (LOL) type stuff going on. Both sexes were into it because it was liberating, but a lot of the women complained that guys were tricking them into sex with the old, “Come on, we are comrades, so that means you need to fuck me” (LOL) type lines.

If We Cut Off All the "Welfare" the Black Out of Wedlock Birthrate Will Decline

Bhabi says, regarding welfare and out of wedlock birthrates, to read the Moynihan Report. I am familiar with this report. Moynihan, a liberal Democrat, did sound an alarm about a rising out of wedlock Black birthrate and he predicted many social problems would flow from this. If I am not mistaken, he was saying nothing whatsoever about “welfare” or other social spending in that report. What is even more interesting is tha the White OOW Birthrate is now at the same level as the Black rate was Moynihan sounded his alarm. Yet the predicted catastrophe among White kids and communities has not unfolded. Look. Welfare is dead for all intents and purposes. Even where it is alive, it is like $300/month. Try living off that. With the welfare basically cut off, the out of wedlock birthrate is still stuck at 7 If you believe they would do that, you got another thing coming. A sky high out of wedlock birthrate appears to be an intractable problem in Black America. It has nothing to do with social programs, and it certainly won’t go away if these programs are all eliminated.

Thoughts on the MRA/PUA/MGOTOW Sites

Bhabi writes:

Robert, you’re now claiming to be an MRA?

I am an MRA, yes. But I don’t like a lot of them. I do like the posters and commenters on a blog called Antifeminism. The main thing I dislike about the MRA/PUA/MGOTOW sites is that the misogyny is just so extreme in so many cases. I’m actually a guy who loves women, or at least tries my best to, difficult as it can be at times, so blatant misogyny like that really bites me the wrong way. I hate feminists, but I love women. And there’s two kinds of women,  feminists and real women. Also there is a lot of feminism mirroring and general victim addiction that you see in most nationalist/chauvinist movements – and yes feminism is just female chauvinism. This is characterized by “They hate us!!!!”  And endless screaming accusations of misandry. For one thing it is mirroring the idiot victim addiction I mentioned in a previous post. Victim addiction is demeaning to men because it depicts men as weak and helpless victims – a bunch of whining bitches. Mirroring the enemy is not progress, and the proper response to female chauvinism is not male chauvinism. Yes, some radical feminists hate men, but I am not really concerned about that. I’m laffin right now thinking about it. What are these bitches going to do? Come over here and fuck me up? Beat me over the head with their strapons until I die? Big deal. On the other hand, I am not going to ally with a bunch of haters who hate me and my kind, i.e. feminists. Male feminists are basically pussies who apologize for being men and beg forgiveness from women by claiming they are not like the rest of those evil pigs. In response, feminist women give feminist men what? In many cases, precisely nothing. Also, I don’t like the whining, screeching tone. “They’re discriminating against us men and boys!” Oh boo hoo! Those mean girls. Didn’t they make a movie about them? Even if these bitches are discriminating against men and boys (and there is little evidence that feminism has gone that insane yet) the proper response would not be crying into our hankies and screeching like a bunch of banshee bitches. A man doesn’t act that way when challenged. When challenged, threatened or attacked, a man fights back. He goes out and fucks you up. So I think that the Manosphere ought to be taking a much more aggressive, hostile, menacing and threatening tone towards these feminists. It should be like, “Look bitches. We are at war with you! Got it? And we mean it. You wanted a war with us? Fine. No problem. You got that war. Understand? We are taking you on!” We should be threatening to fuck people up. I don’t really advocate doing it, and it’s illegal anyway, but it’s the proper male response to feminism. Not wailing, but instead pure macho violent rage complete with bellowing, chest beating and threats. Let them think twice about taking us on. Are we gonna fight back? Damn right, bitches. You want to start a war with us men? No problem, you got one. Are you down? I don’t really think we live in a misandrous culture, and misandry is not much of a problem nowadays. What is a problems is female thinking ruling society = Female Rule = Feminist Rule = Feminist Totalitarian Dictatorship. Keep in mind that millions of male manginas assist with these women in enforcing female rule. I don’t really think most women hate us, and I don’t think they are misandrous. Instead, they’re just being cunts. This is what happens when you empower women to the extent where they think they can impose their bullshit thinking on society when male thinking would do a lot better job of it. Men and women compete and differ in many ways and have opposing interests. So the stuff that female thinking is going to push via feminism is inevitably hostile to men. Most of the feminist women pushing this do not even hate men at all. Many love men. But it’s not misandry that’s the problem. It’s female thinking and in particular, allowing women to carry out their competitive war of interests with men into the social and especially legal arena. Men and women struggle for power in various ways even in marriage and loving relationships. This is because they have different interests. When the pro-female agenda is imposed on society, the anti-male effects are obvious. Because what is pro-female is often anti-male. Because females (even feminists) hate us? No, many to most of them love us. What is pro-women is often anti-male due to differing and competing interests, values and agenda among genders.

Tulio on Black Crime and Feminism and What to Do About Them

Tulio, a Black man in his 30’s, is a regular commenter on the site. It was nice to see him move out defensive mode on the subject and write a deep and heartfelt post about these matters which are so painfully dear to his heart. He said that he thinks about this stuff constantly, as he is a young Black man. That’s sad, but if you care, it’s understandable. Tulio notes that the problem is now so entrenched that it seems to be intractable. He also notes the corrosive effect of a lot of the new Black music. Even White prison gang members have remarked on how detrimental they feel this music has been to White youth in recent years. They say young White man come to prison after listening to hip hop for years and think they are tough badass gangsters going to live it up in paradise in a maximum security prison. And boy do they have another thing coming! I would like to thank Tulio for this post. Even if these problems seem intractable, we should at least be discussing them, as the human and societal damage is of epic proportions.

Black Crime

As for Black crime, it’s a confluence of a lot of different things and not an easy problem to solve. Single motherhood. You have a lot of fatherless homes and single mothers. While not all single mothers raise bad sons (I personally know great guys raised by single moms), most guys in prison never had a strong father in their life. Women’s role is nurture; men’s role is discipline. Boys aren’t afraid of their moms. They’re afraid of their dads. Boys need fathers first and foremost. I don’t know what the high cause of single motherhood is in the Black underclass. I truly have no idea, and I think about this stuff all the time since I’m a Black man. It wasn’t always like this. There was a time that Blacks were known for having strong families. The explosion seems to have happened in the 60s. I don’t think there’s anything genetic about it. This doesn’t seem to be the case in Africa, especially traditional African society. It seems to be something unique to Black Americans. I don’t know what it looks like amongst Black Latins or Caribbeans. But family in Africa seems pretty strong, so I know it’s not genetic. Dead zones. Secondly you have a large cultural vacuum in certain parts of the country. Do you ever read about how there are dead zones in the ocean? Certain areas where there is not enough oxygen and that part of the ocean is devoid of life? The inner cities of America are dead zones. They are islands of misery, hopelessness, broken schools, high unemployment, drugs, urban decay. There’s very little there to give people inspiration and hope. The church is often the only thing. The people living there have just enough so as not to revolt, yet not enough for them to be functional players in the economy. The origin of such ghettos can be traced back to segregation. Some of these communities thrived at a time and were fairly self-sufficient. The Black middle class fled these places. And all that was left behind were the poor and a crumbling society. The middle class Blacks might have served as role models to those less fortunate. The Whites didn’t care about them either. Everyone that could afford to get out, got out. So what can be done about it? I don’t know. The problem seems almost intractable. So I guess the only real solution here would be some sort of gentrification. Concentrated poverty is a very dangerous thing. As I’ve shown before, it can turn White people violent as well like it did in NYC tenements or as it currently does in Glasgow. Spreading the poor out a bit should help. And it should also make their behavior better through cultural osmosis. I can imagine no worse situation than being a Black kid raised by a poor single mother where the only male role models are thuggish rappers and drug dealers. They need to see other things and get out of that box. They need something positive to aspire to. High unemployment. When unemployment is high, it makes working in the dark side of the economy more seductive. I’m sure many of these kids coming up would like to be able to make a decent living and not have to worry about ending up in jail or getting gunned down. But the fewer jobs there are, the more it makes the risk of selling drugs seem worth it. Even fairly decent people will start acting shady if that’s the only way they have to survive. Well one major problem is that many blue collar jobs that Blacks used to do for a living wage either went to China or went to illegal aliens. It wasn’t uncommon to see Black carpenters, drywallers, construction workers, meatpackers, etc. Now these jobs are almost all entirely done by Mexicans illegally in the country. This was a huge issue in the rebuilding of New Orleans after Katrina. There were a lot of Blacks out of work that wanted those construction jobs, and they were livid that they were going to Mexicans who aren’t even citizens and don’t even have any roots in the city. How can anyone not feel their pain? The gutting of solid blue collar work has had a huge effect on Rust Belt White America but it has been an utter disaster for Black America. I see no easy solution here either. Music. I also thing the music is a problem. Now maybe it’s an issue of art imitating life, or it’s the other way around, I don’t know. But I do think it has something of a feedback loop effect. A lot or rap music, even if not explicitly advocating violence, tends to reinforce a lot of selfish attitudes, hyper-materialism, fast money, fast women, party hard, a lot of Machiavellianism. It’s pervasive, even in the more lukewarm hiphop music. Sometimes it’s just the attitude. The anger. One rarely sees rappers smiling or seeming happy unless surrounded by money, bling and sexy women. This stuff has to stop, and if I had a kid, I’d be very careful about what they listen to. That said, not all rap music is like that, a lot of it is positive and life affirming. Some of it is great to dance too or just enjoy in the background if you have the smarts to not get caught up in the Machiavellian stuff. It should also be noted that not all “Black music” is like this. The majority of Black music is not rap and does not contain violent lyrics. Unfortunately though, most of the music young Black males of the inner city listen to will be rap and often with terrible messages. What can anyone do about this? Not much, as long as there’s a first amendment, rappers can pretty much talk about whatever they want sell their music to whomever they want, most of which is bought by Whites anyway. Sorry I don’t have any easy solutions, but these are just a few things that contribute to the issue.


As for feminism, and I assume we’re talking about feminism of the more militant variety, the Pandora’s Box is open on that one. I wish things had stayed with equity feminism, and we could’ve left it there. But it then evolved into an assault on gender roles and gender as some sort of social construct rather than biological reality. That’s what happens when people with PhD’s take over the movement. I know it’s not realistic for every American man to find a foreign woman, but for those that can, I think that’s the best solution. Foreign women are much more enjoyable to be around.

What Should Be Done About Black Crime?

Often when I write about Black crime, people start jumping up and down and demanding to know what my “solution” is. If I have no solution, I am more or less ordered to shut up about it. It’s usually Black people who do this, but White liberals and Leftists do it too. We could start by admitting there’s a problem in the first place. The problem has a name: Black crime. The first thing we need to do is to overcome the obstacle course of diversions that Blacks and White PC types throw up every time we mention the problem that dare not speak it’s name. “Why Black crime? Why not White crime? Whites commit crime too! Why not human crime! Blacks are not different from other humans! What causes Black crime – the same thing that causes crime in humans in general! No! Let’s talk about White crime like child molesting, serial killers, mass shooters, the Holocaust, colonialism, the American Indian genocide, bla bla bla.” Another line is to deny that there is a problem altogether. This is done by mustering together all sorts of weird statistical arguments, comparing statistical outliers, pointing out various White historical crime ways, recent and dating back centuries. Various outliers, Black and White, are tossed about as if they were rules and not exceptions. Arguments are made that Black crime is really no big deal after all and anyone should just go live with a whole bunch of Black people and everything should be peachy and rosy. I advocate doing nothing other than what we are already doing (massive law enforcement or whatever). I’m not necessarily saying, “Something needs to be done about it!” Well, that’s what your average human thinks when they look at the problem, but that may not be the best way to look at it. More important is that this a serious problem, it needs to be discussed openly, frequently and loudly, and hopefully there is some way we could possibly ameliorate it. In the meantime, we need to keep on doing tried and true stuff like locking up unbelievable numbers of Black male criminals. This actually works to lower crime simply by taking these idiots off the streets. As far as what else to do, I guess I will leave that to LE theorists and criminologists. Guiliani’s “broken windows” approach is ugly as Hell, but that worked too. But all these are shitty ways of dealing with the problem. It’s everyone’s solution. What to do about tons of Black criminals. Lock em up for God sake! By the millions! Yeah, it works, but it’s less than ideal. Main reason I think it needs to be discussed is because it is 10 This is the way most Blacks and many PC types react when the subject is broached. But the White crime rate is far below the Black crime rate. The Black rate is so much higher that most sane folks simply do not want to live around large numbers of Blacks. The insane Black crime rate has also contributed to the decay of many Black hoods and cities and turned them into what looks like wastelands. So there is something special about the high Black rate:

  1. Makes people scared of Black people.
  2. Makes people avoid and not want to live around Black people.
  3. Helps turn Black hoods and cities into post-nuclear bombed out wastelands.
  4. Fills jails full of Black guys.
  5. Leaves a huge
  6. Creates an incredible number of victims, including insane victimization rates in the Black community itself.

So there are differences. The White crime rate, whatever it is, does not:

  1. Make anyone afraid of Whites.
  2. Make anyone avoid or not want to live with Whites.
  3. Help destroy White cities and turn them into dystopian ruins.
  4. Fill corrections facilities full of huge percentages of White men.
  5. Leave vast
  6. Create an insane victimization ratio in White communities.

So at the very least, let’s get the conversation out there so we are talking about the elephant in the living room called “Black crime.” We need to keep studying it because we are as yet uncertain why Blacks commit crimes at a vastly higher rate than Whites and Asians. It’s a paramount issue in our society and a question in desperate need of some sort of an answer. Once we start to figure out why Blacks commit crimes at such a high level due to biology, genes, diet, and various and sundry environmental and cultural variables, then perhaps we can start looking towards some ways to ameliorate the problem. There are drugs and gene therapy and genetic engineering for biological and genetic causations. These therapies are advancing at a rapid pace. There are possible dietary interventions. If there are societal and cultural factors at play, we can design cultural and sociological interventions to deal with those. These interventions should be rigorously tested using the best possible science and it would be nice if they were cost effective. There are all sorts of other interventions – psychological therapies and counseling of various types, yoga, meditation, the list goes on and on. Some of these therapies may even be useful for genetic or biological causations. We really ought to be testing out various interventions with Blacks right now to see whether they reduce Black crime or not. But of course, no one is even studying it. Because that would be racist, you know.

Victim Addiction Works: Blacks Increasingly Ape Jewish Paranoia

Every time I check in with Black people, they sound more and more like Jews. And that is not a compliment! This is what Jews do. If you start writing or talking about Jews, Jews get super suspicious instantly. They start looking all agitated. Neurotic Jewish kook (NJK): “Whoa! Why are you talking about us! Whoa! Why did you write an article about us? What’s going on here anyway?” Innocent Gentile (IG): “Well, you know, I think about Jews a lot nowadays…” More alarm. NJK: “Whoa! Why are you thinking about us a lot? That’s very alarming! Why do you think about us a lot?” IG: “Oh, I don’t know. Jews are interesting. I’m fascinated by them.” NJK: “Whoa man! You’re obsessed with us! Dude that is like so alarming!” The basic idea that the Jew has is that any non-Jew who is reading, writing, talking or even thinking about Jews “too much” (which really means at all) is automatically an extremely disturbing and frightening person because it’s assumed that any Gentile who shows a lot of interest in Jews is probably an anti-Semite. The response of the Jew is typical. NJK: “Whoa dude! Stop reading about us, man! Put those books away! Whoa! You sure are talking about us a lot! Stop talking about us, dammit! Shut up! Whoa! You’re writing about Jews! Dude! That is like really alarming! You are really scaring me! You’ve got to stop writing about us right the fuck now!” Then the Jew gets really worried and starts asking all these weird suspicious questions to try to figure out if you’re an anti-Semite or not. Even if you say nothing incriminating, he doesn’t really believe you, and he’s still looking you up and down like a detective. Typically, this probing reveals some “evil” anti-Semitic attitudes (as defined by Jews, which just means anything Jew-critical in any way, shape or form). Then the Jew reacts in various ways, either saying you are stereotyping to saying, “Hey, that’s anti-Semitic man come on.” That’s the mild form, if he still likes you. They can get way worse all the way to severely abusive, threatening, menacing, terrorizing and homicidal. At worst, they begin investigations into you like stalkers and contact your neighbors, employer, etc. to try to smear your name or get you fired. Bottom line is I am seeing Blacks do this more and more. Acting like a bunch of Jews! Which, really, to me, is just shameful. Proud, strong Black people aping, of all people, the paranoid-masochistic, victim-addicted, fanatically vindictive, stalkerish, harassing and totalitarian Jews, altering between shivering huddled in the corner and swinging a baseball bat at your head. Really now. Come on, Black people. You can do better than that.

What Are the Possible Solutions to the Problems of Black Crime and Modern Western Feminism?

What are the possible ameliorations for the problems of Black crime and the wreckage created by modern Western feminism. The truth is that the cat is pretty much out of the bag for both of these problems, and they are not going away or even getting much better anytime soon. Nevertheless, they must still be discussed. The damage from Black crime is overwhelmingly born by Blacks themselves but also hits society at large and non-Blacks as well. It’s a total disaster and ought to be discussed for that reason alone. A problem is a problem and should be discussed as such regardless of whether ameliorations are handy or not. We haven’t even decided what is causing the problem, much less what to do about it. Let’s figure out what’s causing it first, then we move on. In the meantime, let’s make sure we do not import many more millions of Black people, as they will tend to be crime prone. We have enough Black problems already. Why import more problems? I often talk about problems for which a solution is not entirely obvious. I have described at length the problems of feminism, and everyone asks me what to do about it. All solutions are reactionary. I don’t advocate any of them. The problem is not going away. Feminism is the norm in the West, and women will go on being feminists, and the cat is out of the bag anyway. What men can do?

  1. Learn some game.
  2. Become a fighter against feminism, manginas, white knights and other idiots.
  3. Import a non-feminist wrecked woman from another land. Etc.

What can we do about Black crime? This is unknown, but we should be talking about it anyway. If we can figure out what causes it, we can think about ameliorations. If there are environmental variables that increase or decrease Black crime, let us discover and explore those. If there are biological reasons, let us explore those. The future for biological interventions is bright. There are new drugs all the time and in the future, we will even have gene therapy. In the meantime? I would encourage all sane people to avoid overwhelmingly or even majority Black areas because the crime and disorder is simply way too high for any sane person to tolerate or subject themselves to. Further, the risk of possible victimization is extremely high. This is one thing people can do. Just get as far away from the problem as possible.

Why Are Americans So Hostile to Unions?

Bhabi says:

RL: Along with that, Reagan deliberately allowed mass importation of illegals from Mexico. The purpose of this was to destroy the part of the middle class that was working class based, because by this time, many working class White had worked their way to the middle class with union jobs. At the same time, the all-out ideological war on unions was ramped up. You will not find one single major newspaper, news magazine, radio channel or TV station that supports the organizations of the working class – unions. All of the US media is dead-set against unions.” Bhabi: This is strange. Americans pride themselves on having a very large middle class. “Middle class values” are seen as the bedrock of the civilization, and yet the very mechanism which created this large middle class and its values, unions, is demonized. Any explanation for that? You say that even working class people now hate unions. Why? Are the unions not working in their best interests? What about the fact that the Left, or at least a very vocal portion of it is pro illegal immigration and Mexicans taking the jobs of America’s laborers, like construction workers?

Any explanation for the demonization of unions? I think Bhabi should go and read some Karl Marx. Under capitalism, the ideology of the state and society is generally the ideology of the ruling class. Since 1980, the ruling class and bourgeois class (the capitalists) have been ascendant in the form of the Republican Party. The Republican Party doesn’t give two flying fucks about the middle class, but one thing they all agree on is that they hate unions. 10 Why? For class reasons. Most all capitalists hate unions. Many wealthy people also hate unions because they are the class war organs of the working class, who wage class war against the ruling class, who then wage class war back at working class. So the ruling and working classes are engaged in class war, with the capitalists allying themselves with the The Right doesn’t care that unions created the middle class. They would just blow off the argument and say it’s not true. Or worse, they would agree that it did and then say, “Fuck the middle classes.” You see, under capitalism, the middle classes and upper classes are also at war, even though few recognize this. The upper classes wage constant war on the middle classes to take more and more of their wealth and income away, and the middle classes are too stupid to see this. The Right convinced most Americans that unions are the enemy. US White collar workers typically hate unions for class reasons in that they see themselves as higher class than dirty blue collar workers who work with their hands and get oil all over their uniforms. This is simply cultural snobbism. There is also a group of medium wage clerks and manager types such as bank workers (president or vice president of your local bank) who see themselves as oppressed by both blue collar union workers (overpaid beer bellied lunch box slobs) and the rich. This strata is the part of the base of rightwing populism in the US and forms a large element of the Tea Parties and the Ron Paul crowd. Historically and cross culturally, this group has fascist tendencies, as do the middle classes in general. In addition, white collar workers do not see themselves as workers at all nor do they see themselves as working class. If you don’t get paid by the hour and punch a time clock, you are not working class. Instead they are some sort of “professional or managerial class” which means they get to avoid calling themselves workers because they get a salary and work at a desk in a suit and tie. Nowadays, the vast majority of workers are not in unions, so it’s just sour grapes. Non-union workers resent union workers for making more money than the non-unionists do. Crabs in a barrel scenario. Further, the US is very curious in that many working class folks simply drank the Koolaid. Anti-union propaganda has been relentless for decades now. 10 For decades now, both parties are down with neoliberalism that is extremely hostile to labor. I have known many, many workers who were openly hostile to unions. They repeatedly told me, “Unions are bad for workers!” That’s an insane comment, but that’s what a worker’s brain on anti-union propaganda looks like, egg on a skillet. I knew other idiot workers who constantly bitched about their union dues. When I told these fucktards that the only reason they had such a great blue collar job was because of the union, they looked at me like I was from Mars. They thought that was a lie.

Glasgow, the Most Violent and Depraved City in All of Europe

There are articles all over the Net now about Glasgow, the most violent and disordered White city in Europe. Much hand wringing is going on about gangbanging, heavy drinking with resulting disease, spousal abuse and knife crime, especially knife homicide. It’s Whites who are engaging in almost all of this “ghetto” behavior. But there is a problem with this argument, and that is a relative one. In 2011, Glasgow had 20 homicides in a city of ~700,000. That is a rate of 2.85 per 100,000. Glasgow has the second highest homicide rate in Europe, the Whitest continent on Earth. It’s the nadir of Whiteness. The most recent figure for Black male homicide in the US is ~26 per 100,000. So the rate for Black America as a whole is fully 9 times higher than the most homicidally violent city in all White Europe. Blacks in other nations in the Caribbean, Latin America and Africa have similarly sky-high rates of violent crime and homicide. Even well-ordered and heavily Black nations such as Barbados have very high violent crime rates. So, Black people “acting normally” here in the US (their background rate – forget their much higher rates in big cities) commit 9 times as much homicide as European Whites at the very worst of their very worst. In general, any given large area with lots of White folks will be vastly less disordered and violent than any given large area that has lots of Black people. Most folks, even Leftists and liberals, know this instinctively, which is why there exist such things as White Flight, gated communities, White suburbs, anti-Busing protests, etc. Bottom line, Whites are simply vastly less likely to engage in violent crime and general disordered activity than Blacks are. Violent and disordered areas are the exception to the rule among Whites. Calm, peaceful, orderly areas with little violent crime are the exception to the rule among Blacks, to the extent that they even exist at all. Now, all of this certainly cries out for an explanation. My explanation is that Blacks and Whites are simply different. Now whether that differences is biological or environmental, it exists. I lean towards biological, but I acknowledge that we have no hard evidence for it yet. But the observational evidence surely suggests that there is something biological going on. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

Is the "Hong Kong" Libertarian Model a Solution for the 3rd World, or for the West?

Gene writes:

If the author bothered to do some research, they would find that Hong Kong’s well-developed economy is the product of the deregulation that libertarians strive for. Furthermore, Japan offers very little for welfare, with some citizens starving before they receive aid.

Yes but Hong Kong has a ton of social housing or government housing. It also has a monumental problem of very poor people who are more or less festering in some very rundown areas. The gap between the rich and the poor is simply off the charts insane. The Hong Kong solution (basically no state, no regulation of business whatsoever and little to no social spending) is the model for the 3rd World forever now. The “Hong Kong model” has been more or less tried and failed in both the current 3rd World and in the West in the past. I don’t even think it works that well in Hong Kong, but that’s just the socialist in me. The results have been disastrous. The West, including the US, had a more or less libertarian society along those lines in the 1800’s. The effects were similarly catastrophic, similar to 3rd world societies today. Japan basically has a welfare state, but the welfare state is provided by the corporations instead of the government. But that’s equally opposed to Libertarian profit-maximization theories to have corporations wasting so much money on such profit-deflating “inefficiencies.”

Do Blacks Act Better When You "Cut Off the Welfare?" No

If you take away the “welfare,” do Blacks act any better? If you make Black people poorer and poorer and more and more desperate, do they act any better? Of course not. There are 3rd world countries all over the world that are full of millions of Black people. They don’t give them one red cent of “welfare.” They fester in the most horrific slums imaginable with crime that is off the charts. Do Blacks act any better when 3rd world countries “cut off the welfare”? Of course not.

Does Welfare Disincentivize Two Parent Family Formation, Education and Work? No

Bhabi writes:

Yeah and welfare disincentivizes two parent family formation, education and work. But Clinton made some welfare reforms in office, which were good.

Actually, allowing people to survive doesn’t really do any of that. Anyway, people don’t necessarily act worse if they don’t work. Welfare of course does not disincentivize education.  You get welfare even if you go to school, or especially if you do. As far as 2-family formation, that was a mistake. But welfare started in 1935. Blacks had welfare available to them from 1935 on. It only became an issue after the 1960’s, when manufacturing jobs left the cities and men had no way to support women. The premise of welfare is “children must be supported, one way or another.” IOW, adults may not have any right to survive, but children do. Welfare said simply “children have a right to survive, and we will ensure that they are allowed to live until they are 18.” This is the crime of welfare! To allow children to live instead of die! The real problem with welfare was started by I believe the conservatives who set into place something called MARS. Conservatives were furious that a woman might be getting welfare if there a man anywhere in the vicinity as he ought to be supporting her. So women on welfare were basically banned from having sex by welfare authorities, or at least they tried to enforce such a ban. The inspectors would come around and open women’s closets to see if there as a MARS around (man assuming role of spouse). If there was, she was cut off. The whole thing was a bad idea. Kids need to be supported regardless of whether there is a man in the picture or not. The solution is to allow kids to get welfare if family income is low enough weather there is a man in the picture or not. Lack of affordable medical care and day care meant for many women going on welfare was logical. With welfare, you didn’t have to worry about getting child care for your kid. If you quit welfare to work at McDonalds, you now make too much money to get Medicaid and you can’t afford day care for you kid. Makes no sense. May as well take the welfare so your kid gets day care and medical care. The system basically punishes you for working. That’s not the fault of welfare. That’s the fault of a lack of cheap day care and social medicine in the US.

What Pathologies Does Social Spending Cause? None

Bhabi writes:

Bobby Ji, I don’t get it. You declare yourself a socialist, even communist, and are in favor of government handouts year after year, generation after generation, lifetime after lifetime, yet you fail to see how that leads to Detroit?

“Welfare” – really just social spending – doesn’t lead to Detroit. There are socialist countries all over the world with robust social programs and no slums. There are 3rd World countries all over the world with zero social spending that have slums way worse than Detroit. Social spending doesn’t cause slums, crime or really anything. It doesn’t even cause single motherhood or breakup of families. All it does is allow human beings to survive at a very basic level.

A Thought Experiment Regarding Detroit

People say economics ruined the city. The remaining Blacks (keep in mind that Detroit is 9 Others say like commenter Ishmael that Detroit has a Black problem. Many of Detroit’s problems flow directly from the fact that it is now a 9 Keep in mind that in the US, whenever any huge US city gets around 9 Let’s try a thought experiment: Suppose we had a Stalinist or Stalin-like dictator in the US dedicated to the common good and the greatest good for the greatest number. He would also be, like Stalin, utterly dedicated to the concept of what the right derisively calls “social engineering” on a mass scale. Detroit now is the same under this Stalin-type dictator. US Stalin has had it with Detroit as nothing seems to work. He decides to transform Detroit. Whereas now it’s 9 You still think it would be the same city? Would the 9 I do not think so.

Are Asian Women Nicer Than American White Women?

Bhabi wrote:

I hear that White American men have a huge fetish for East Asian women and looks wise I don’t get it, though there are some very pretty East Asian women, I think the American men just expect that they are in general “nicer” than White American women, and who knows, maybe they are, but somehow I doubt it. Asians, and that includes South Asians like my people too, are more upwardly mobile obsessed than Americans and can be totally merciless gold and status diggers. Pick your poison, boys!

Oh Hell yeah! Asian women are way nicer than White American women! If you get with an Asian chick from another country who has no money (makes an average salary in that land) she will not be a gold digger at all. You will seem like a millionaire to her anyway even if you are poor. Asian-American women, it is true, can be merciless gold-diggers. They are extremely materialistic to the point of insanity. My brother married a Vietnamese woman who is an outrageous gold digger. Her gold digging is so out front that it would seem offensive to most Americans. She’s into MONEY big-time. Jewish women have a reputation for being gold diggers, but it is not that well earned. Instead, they badger and pester you to be successful and make money. Not that they marry for money per se. A lot of Jews are kind of nerdy, leftwing and not particularly materialistic types nowadays. Hispanic women are very low on the materialism scale. Especially if you get one from overseas, she will think you have a million bucks because she is just poor. Plus, Latins in general are more relaxed and not obsessed with money. Hispanic women are also generally very nice and sweet, especially if you treat them well. But once they dump you if they think you mistreated them (as in cheating on them for example) they go cold as ice too just like Asian women. The legend of the hot and cold ranting and raving Latin bitch is in my opinion largely illusory. I was hanging out with a Brazilian woman here in the US for a while, and she was friends with an older Brazilian woman. The young one, a 19 year old, basically cut it off with me for some reason that I don’t recall. The older one said something like, “Well, she doesn’t want to hurt your feelings. We Brazilian women are raised not to challenge men or hurt men’s feelings. We avoid confrontations with me.” I thought, this is one cool culture! American Indian women can also be pretty nice in a deferential sort of way. I have known many, many Asian women, and especially immigrants are extremely nice, way, way, way nicer than American White women. They’re basically trained to be submissive and deferential to men and to not start shit with me. All women must be like this! I was involved with a Taiwanese woman at university, and even when she was being a total bitch, it was almost laughable, because her Taiwanese megabitch mode was about the same as how most White women act normally! As far as how White women get when they are bitchy, well, she just didn’t go there. I dumped her though and then she turned into an extreme hater evil Chinese Dragon Lady from Hell. The coldest and meanest icewomen you have ever seen on the face of the Earth! I see why Chinese guys keep them under control! They have a hidden bitch factor that’s colder than the North Pole. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)