Robert Stark Interviews Dick Smothers, Jr.

Richard Smothers is actually a good friend of mine. A girlfriend and I had lunch and then dinner with him a while back when he stopped by my town. He is also a sometime commenter on this blog. He is also the son of Dick Smothers of the famous Smothers Brothers.
Here are the list of topics:

Robert Stark interviews former porn star Dick Smothers Jr.

Topics include:

  1. Growing up the son of Dick Smothers of the Smothers Brothers and how he had a fairly normal childhood.
  2. Why being a porn star was not his main dream growing up.
  3. His rock band Kamikaze and his 80′s tribute band.
  4. Why he likes to create what he performs.
  5. The corporate environment of the music franchise.
  6. Why there’s more independence in the porn Industry.
  7. Why the porn industry resembles the publication industry rather than the film industry.
  8. How his first porn debut was in a Showtime softcore series My First Time.
  9. The softcore genre.
  10. His preference for couples scene and the genres he refused to act in.
  11. Abusive and degrading genres of porn and how girls are often coerced into those films.
  12. How guys like Max Hardcore harm the industry.
  13. How the porn industry includes both kind and abusive individuals.
  14. His appearance on Howard Stern’s show.
  15. Luke Ford and his observations on individuals in the industry.
  16. People who are traumatized or have long term psychological problems from porn.
  17. Dating women in porn.
  18. A dominatrix film he refused to act in.
  19. Why he was considered straight-laced by the standards of the porn industry.
  20. Why he wanted to be a positive male representative of the industry.
  21. The interview with Reuters were he said he wanted to be the Orson Wells of porn.
  22. Why there needs to be more creativity in porn.
  23. How porn becoming more accessible has harmed the profits of the industry.
  24. Why there’s a mean streak in America and how that influences its porn.
  25. Why he left the industry.
  26. The AIDS Scare and how the industry is regulated for STD’s.
  27. The types of men who act in porn.
  28. The culture of narcissistic celebrity culture in America.
  29. His advice to someone looking to get into porn.

Are Loners Shy or Misanthropic?

Anon writes:

OH, a final thought: it’s the same way with friendship. A lot of people are loners because they feel like the world is full of terrible people as a result of their experiences, and they become generally misanthropic. But that doesn’t mean they don’t get lonely.

Female myths in bold below.
Extrovert myths in italic below.
I think a lot of loners are very nice people, often men, but they are just very shy. When they try to talk to people or make friends, people rejected them about a million times, so I figure a lot of them have just given up trying to talk to people or make friends. They think about going over to talk to that girl, remember what happened the last 4,000 times they tried that, figure she’s just going to reject him like all the others, so they just say forget it, “Why should I try if I know I am going to fail?” A lot of these people say they have tried everything they can think of, and they still just get shot down endlessly. I really don’t blame them for just giving up. I probably would too.
There are some misanthropic loners out there, but I haven’t met many of them. I can’t remember the last time I met a misanthropic loner. Most of the misanthropes I know are extroverts. A lot of loners are just people who really like to be alone. The other very large group is the super shy, nice guy type who has been rejected 1,000 too many times, and now he’s given up.
I think the loner = extrovert thing is largely a myth created by extroverts. That guy’s alone all the time – he obviously hates people!
And it’s also a myth created by women – shy, anxious, nerdy, loner, meek = serial killer!
It’s completely insane since almost all serial killers are wild extroverts like all psychopaths, but this is the insane way women actually think.
I think if people would just give a lot of these “loner” guys a chance, they might be surprised at how friendly, sociable, and even extroverted they can be. And a lot of them are probably pretty good at sex too. Problem is no one wants to take a chance on these guys.
If most or many times you go to talk to someone or approach a woman, there is a positive response, the person will continue to try to be friendly or approach women. He sees a woman, thinks about approaching her and figures, well, this often works out pretty well, so I think I will try here.

Yet Another Female Myth

Anon writes:

What you’re seeing here is a biased audience. Men who are able to get a woman are happy and don’t have any reason to go online communing with other men over how happy they are with women. It’s when a problem arises for someone that they feel the need to vent. These men complaining about women are the ones who strike out a lot and have been hurt as a result. Of course they still want a woman biologically, but they’ve been rejected so many times they can’t bring themselves to actually trust a woman.
Many women get like this about men, too, when they’ve been rejected a lot or had a lot of relationships that ended poorly. My mother was like that, she ascribed to the “men are pigs who needs them” doctrine but as soon as a dashing cowboy started courting her she was all over him, it was gross. XP
So no, I don’t think loving and hating women go hand in hand. I think that rejection is hard for people to deal with and leads to hatred, but regardless your biology doesn’t change.

Female myths are in bold. This is the typical female response.
Any man complaining about women obviously isn’t getting laid or can’t get laid.
But that is so untrue! Because many of the biggest players of all are the worst misogynists you ever met! Have you noticed how misogynistic so many pornographers are? Those guys get more pussy than your average army battalion and they’re misogynist as Hell. Go to the PUA sites like Roissy and Roosh. Those guys are drowning in pussy and so are a lot of their commenters and the misogyny is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
And I happen to have a girlfriend right now, and until recently, I actually had 2 girlfriends. Which is not unusual. In my life, I have dated maybe 200 women and girls. So as you can see, I can’t get laid! And not only that, but it’s a lifelong condition!
I understand females very well and have had a universe of great experiences with them.
All  men have problems with women, all of them. It’s universal. All  married men complain about women, whether they are getting tons of sex or whether they haven’t had sex with their wives in 20 years. It’s universal male behavior.
As far as loving women and hating them, I do not see a lot of that. But you can certainly love the positive half of the female essence for all it’s worth while disdaining the negative half on some level or better yet, accepting it for what it is and that it is not changeable and then ignoring it.
Loving women and hating women both require a lot of energy.
If you have decided that you want to love them (focus on the positive side) then you won’t have much energy left over to hate them.
And having been around a lot of misogynists, I do not think they love women very much, sorry. Hating women takes a lot of energy. You probably wouldn’t have enough left over to invest in truly loving them, which is expensive energy-wise.

Do Desire for Women and Hatred for Them Go Together?

Steve wrote:

…not that desire of women and hatred of them usually go together.

You know, I went to that PUAhate site that was famous due to the Eliot Rodger case. There were all these incel guys screaming and yelling and complaining about women. They had a right to complain as women were treating these guys pretty horribly. They would go and get a new job, buy new clothes, buy a new car, go to the gym, do all the crap you are supposed to do to get a woman, and it was all to no avail. No woman would even look at them. There was the usual, “They only like assholes, they don’t like nice guys.”
Then they would post pictures of these porn stars and beautiful models, and they would be drooling all over them like wow I sure would like to fuck that! I was thinking, “Wait, I thought these guys hated women?”
I told a friend of mine about that and he said, “Well, that’s just normal. All guys are like that.”
“Like what?”
“Well all normal guys pretty much hate women because of how they act, but then on the other hand, if they are heterosexual, they are also horny as Hell and they want to fuck them really bad.”
So there is that desire for women going together with hatred for them thing.
Personally, I would prefer to get outside the misogyny thing as I think it goes nowhere and is not productive, adaptive or helpful and it’s a lot more fun to love them than to hate them. But I get where misogynists are coming from. Misogyny is not mysterious, unfortunately.

Robert Burns, "Tam O Shanter"

This poem was written in and is being read in a language called Scots, which is not a dialect of English as many people think. Scots split off from English in ~1500, or 500 years ago. This is approximately what two languages sound like when they have been split apart for 500 years. I listened to this, although I can make out some words and even phrases here and there, honestly, I do not have the faintest idea what he is talking about, and I am missing most of this language. I can hear ~25% of it, if that.  However, a good friend of mine from England listened to it and she said she could make out ~70%. So there you go. See if you can make heads or tails of this stuff.

The Money Shot

Not Robert Stark asked:

Why do some pornos depict men ejaculating onto women’s faces? Do you consider that violence?

I do not know. Personally I think it all about degradation and humiliation of the woman. It could also be a way of “marking the man’s territory”. He is marking her as his. Some people interpret it as an intense act of love. It doesn’t seem that way to me, but if you want to view it like that, be my guest. Personally, I think it is totally disgusting and gross, but on the other hand, it really turns me on at the same time.
Quite a few women really hate a guy cumming on their face, and they will get very mad if you do that to them. They will get so mad, you would think they are going to beat you up. I mean hopping furious.
That said, there are quite a few women who like that sort of thing. There are also a lot of women who like to be dominated, debased, degraded, humiliated and treated like complete whores and sluts.


Everybody knows that pestilences have a way of recurring in the world; yet somehow we find it hard to believe in ones that crash down on our heads from a blue sky. There have been as many plagues as wars in history; yet always plagues and wars take people equally by surprise.
― Albert Camus, The Plague

Feminism Is Fighting a War Against Reality

From the ridiculous, idiotic PC-Left site FSTDT. In this case, the feminist branch of the PC nutcases jumps in.
They posted this comment from Dalrock’s site below. Dalrock is a fundamentalist Protestant Christian Manosphere site. I really do not mind it so much, and it isn’t particularly misogynistic as far as Manosphere sites go.

The problem with seeing women as “badly broken” is that it leads logically into, “But they can’t all be broken. So I just need to keep looking until I find a Nice Girl, and she’ll like me for being clean and kind.” Or a guy thinks if he can just get his crush to listen to reason or get some therapy or something, she can be “fixed” and lose that attraction to bad boys.
Women aren’t broken, they’re just women. (Or to put it another way, they’re broken by Original Sin, and have been since Eve, so it applies to every single one of them until the Second Coming, so accept it as their nature and deal with it.) Your great-grandmother didn’t reject the thugs and layabouts and settle down with that nice farm boy because she had no desire for bad boys, adventure, or independence. She did it because her desires were restrained, by laws, conventions, upbringing, religion, and economic realities. Those restraints are now gone, so we’re seeing them in the wild, as it were.
Guys need to get past being angry at women for not being men with breasts, or thinking they can be fixed. Think of them as flighty little birds, pretty to look at and pleasant to have around. Their song can be enchanting, but it wears on you after a while. They can be fierce in defense of their nest, but otherwise are easily frightened and swayed by emotion. They’re soft and warm and cuddly, and great to have around for some things, but terrible at others. They need constant care and guidance, and should rarely be required to make a decision more taxing than what to cook for lunch.
Once you see them realistically for what they are, with their own pros and cons, you can A) decide with open eyes whether you want to risk shackling yourself to one, and B) enjoy their company more in general. I find women much more enjoyable, even delightful sometimes, now that I’m not always mystified by what they do or wishing they’d stop being weird and act “normal.”

The FSTDT feminist lunatics then pile all over this poor guy with the usual feminist bullshit. First of all, they call him a misogynist. While there are some comments in this post that I would not agree with, I do not feel that this post is particularly misogynistic, particularly in terms of the Manosphere. In fact, I think for the Manosphere, this is a pretty pro-woman post. Let’s go over it.

The problem with seeing women as “badly broken” is that it leads logically into, “But they can’t all be broken. So I just need to keep looking until I find a Nice Girl, and she’ll like me for being clean and kind.” Or a guy thinks if he can just get his crush to listen to reason or get some therapy or something, she can be “fixed” and lose that attraction to bad boys.
Women aren’t broken, they’re just women. (Or to put it another way, they’re broken by Original Sin, and have been since Eve, so it applies to every single one of them until the Second Coming, so accept it as their nature and deal with it.)

The FSTDT folks are ripping him to shreds for this one, and he sort of deserves it. They are saying that this shows how religious men hate women, but his views are not limited to fundamentalist Christianity. The view he is espousing here is typical of the Manosphere and unfortunately, it is typical of men in general. How do I know this? I have been talking to men my whole life.
It’s wrong to say that women are broken, or, if they are, that they can be fixed. They aren’t really broken, and yet they also can’t be fixed. They are what they are. From male eyes, women do seem crazy. If you want to call it broken, go ahead, but I would not use those terms. This is simply how they are. They are born this way. This “crazy” behavior is due to their genes, hormones and probably culture too. There is nothing to be done with it, so you have to accept the fact that this is just the way they are, and they cannot change. That’s called acceptance.

Your great-grandmother didn’t reject the thugs and layabouts and settle down with that nice farm boy because she had no desire for bad boys, adventure, or independence. She did it because her desires were restrained, by laws, conventions, upbringing, religion, and economic realities. Those restraints are now gone, so we’re seeing them in the wild, as it were.

This is a major complaint of the Manosphere, that females are attracted to bad boys. Well, of course they are. Have they always been? Probably. Attraction to bad boys is probably in their inborn nature. They have evolved this way for some reason.
And in the past, women were forced away from their bad boy preferences by society, religion, economics, law, convention, and family. All correct. Therefore, a lot of non-bad boy men could easily marry. Now all of the constraints against women going for bad boys are gone, so the Manosphere says we are seeing women going for bad boys in droves (unchecked hypergamy). I assume they are probably correct in this analysis though it’s hard for me to tell on the ground due to my age.
Females have been going for and preferring bad boys my whole life. I am very familiar with this behavior. However, since I got a somewhat bad boy image myself early in life, this ended up being a good thing for me. But it’s not a lie. And at my age, mid-50’s, women are continuing to chase bad boys and give nice guys the bird. Some things never change.
The FSTDT morons, like all feminist fools, say that the “bad boy” thing is a great big myth. Probably if you ask most women, they will insist that that it is a myth. Many of these women will probably be bad boy chasers themselves or will be currently involved with a bad boy.
This is because women have no self-awareness. They don’t even understand themselves, they don’t understand men, and they don’t understand other women. This is because they live in fantasyland and refuse to accept reality. They have also gotten the Denial defense down to a fine art.
Yes, women like bad boys. Solution: become a bad boy! That’s what I have done.

Guys need to get past being angry at women for not being men with breasts, or thinking they can be fixed. Think of them as flighty little birds, pretty to look at and pleasant to have around. Their song can be enchanting, but it wears on you after a while. They can be fierce in defense of their nest, but otherwise are easily frightened and swayed by emotion. They’re soft and warm and cuddly, and great to have around for some things, but terrible at others. They need constant care and guidance, and should rarely be required to make a decision more taxing than what to cook for lunch.

Right. Women are not men. Despite what feminist idiots say, women are incredibly different from men. Sometimes I think we are like people from two different planets. But once you accept that or learn to love that, you can get along with them pretty well. Women can be immensely flighty, moody and emotionally all over the place. All of this behavior is magnified immensely when a women is in love or in a sexual relationship. Sex and love magnify women’s nuttiness to a profound degree.
If you understand this, then it won’t freak you out when the women you are screwing or who is in love with you is acting crazy. She’s acting nuts because she loves you, silly! It also true that women vary in their flightiness and emotionality.
Women are nice to look at and they can be fun to have around when they are being pleasant. Their song can be enchanting indeed. Does it wear on you? Not on me, but what wears on me is the regular if not continuous drama and chaos that ensues during a romantic/sexual relationship with a woman. Daily emotional crises can be pretty hard to deal with for a man who prides himself on emotional control. Yes, women will defend their children nearly to death. Women are indeed easily frightened and of course they are wildly swayed by emotion. This intense emotionality, an essential feature of the female, is alien to most males and is the main reason men call women “crazy.”
They can be very soft, warm and cuddly, correct. They are very useful for certain things and nothing but a huge hindrance when it comes to others, especially when their emo storms are trashing whatever project you are trying to accomplish.
A woman in love absolutely needs constant care and guidance, in particular care. Men ignore this at their own risk. A lot of men simply do not want to give women the proper care and nurturance that they require. If she’s not getting it from you, she might just try to get it elsewhere. It is not in men’s nature to care for or nurture females all the time. Nevertheless, you need to learn how to do this or at least fake it very well. If you don’t, your relationships with women will always have problems.

and should rarely be required to make a decision more taxing than what to cook for lunch.

Wow, that’s a nasty one, but I see why he says it. I think women can make excellent decisions. In my family, during crises or difficult times that required serious decision-making, my mother was often much better than my father. This is because in any crisis, my father simply panicked, flipped out, started screaming and yelling at everyone and always chose “We will do absolutely nothing” as the correct decision for the difficult situation. In other words, he chose stasis or inertia. That was almost always a terrible decision, and some form of action was usually required. So he would get overruled by my mother
There is another problem here that the lunatic feminist idiots will never admit to. When you have a romantic/sexual relationship with a woman, you might be tempted to let her make a lot of decisions. That might be a terrible idea. If she wants to make decisions, let her go ahead. But if she seems to hesitate or looks lost, go ahead and make the decision yourself. Careful studies have shown that relationships where men make most of the decisions are much more stable than relationships where women make most of the decisions.
Why is this? Women say they want decision-making power, but as usual, they are lying to themselves. They really don’t. They want a strong, powerful man to make up their minds for them. And if the man seems weak and unable to make up her mind for her, she will be forced to make decisions for herself, which she resents. She will see him as too weak to make decisions for the both of him, and his weakness will anger her and cause problems in the relationship. PC idiots will never admit things like this, but it is actually true and you ignore this truth at your own risk.

I find women much more enjoyable, even delightful sometimes, now that I’m not always mystified by what they do or wishing they’d stop being weird and act “normal.”

Exactly. You see, he has come to accept women for what they are. They no longer surprise him or freak him out. He no longer expects them to act like guys with tits. He is no longer baffled or puzzled by what seems to be crazy behavior. He understands women and accepts them for what they are and knows they cannot be changed. And in acceptance lies peace of mind.
It is unfortunate that he describes women’s behavior as weird and not normal, but that is exactly the way any reasonable man sees women’s behavior – it’s nuts. Does that mean women are weird or abnormal? I do not think so, and women’s behavior is very normal for a woman – it is exactly the way we expect a female to act. Are women weird? Well, they seem weird to men, let’s put it that way.

Obama Decides to Double Down on the Crazy

From the Cuba List, my comments follow:
Deranged Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Carl Levin (D-MI) have already jumped to support this. Rubio: “This is long overdue and the US must lead…and take the fight directly to Bashar al-Assad.” Levin: “In light of recent events in Iraq and Syria, this is appropriate spending,” Where does your Rep stand on this vote? Ask them! Obama seeks 500M dollars to train, equip Syrian rebels Agence France-Presse, June 27, 2014

WASHINGTON – The White House asked lawmakers Thursday for $500 million to train and equip vetted Syrian rebels, in what would be a significant escalation of US involvement in a conflict that has spilled into Iraq.
Following several signals in recent weeks by President Barack Obama’s administration — and months of pressure from lawmakers like Senator John McCain — the White House said it intends to “ramp up US support to the moderate Syrian opposition.”
The request is part of a $1.5 billion Regional Stabilization Initiative to bolster stability in Syrian neighbors Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, and to support communities hosting refugees.
The proposed funding would serve “vetted elements of the Syrian armed opposition to help defend the Syrian people, stabilize areas under opposition control, facilitate the provision of essential services, counter terrorist threats and promote conditions for a negotiated settlement,” the White House said in a statement.
The proposal was part of the $65.8 billion overseas contingency operations request to Congress for fiscal year 2015, which begins October 1.

While US officials normally publicly refuse to comment on details of training for opposition groups, Obama’s National Security Advisor Susan Rice acknowledged early this month that the Pentagon was providing “lethal and non-lethal support” to Syrian rebels.
About $287 million in mainly non-lethal support has been cleared for the rebels since March 2011, and the CIA has participated in a secret military training program in neighboring Jordan for the moderate opposition.
The Syria initiative received tepid support from at least one Republican lawmaker, Senator Marco Rubio, who has been a fierce critic of what the Obama administration&# 39;s “rudderless foreign policy.”
“This is long overdue and the US must lead, with European and regional partners, in helping to develop a cadre of fighters who will alienate ISIL and Al-Nusra Islamic extremists, and take the fight directly to Bashar al-Assad,” Rubio said.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, a Democrat, said a similar funding request in the defense authorization bill received broad bipartisan support in his committee.
“In light of recent events in Iraq and Syria, this is appropriate spending,” Levin said

This shows the sheer insanity of US foreign policy. If something doesn’t work, double down on it!
Since ISIS rampaged through Northern Iraq in the past few weeks, there has been a lot of talk about exactly how this happened. The US has been accused of aiding and training ISIS. Actually, this is sort of a false accusation.
The truth is that the US probably did little in the way of training and aiding ISIS. However, US allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been shoveling money at them and Turkey has been giving them a home base inside Turkey. When ISIS attacked an Armenian town in northwest Turkey, Turkish artillery helped cover their assault on the town.
US and NATO advisors are present all over this part of Turkey where those shells come from, where ISIS is aided and trained and where their rearguard bases are. So while Washington is not directly aiding ISIS (except for a small group of them in Jordan) it is more correct to say that the US has been holding our nose and looking the other way while our allies have been aiding and training ISIS, Al-Nusra and the rest of the Islamists.
The US brainwash media Lie Machine is making it look like Obama is just now asking Congress to aid the Syrian rebels, whereas before we gave them nothing but nonlethal aid. It is indeed correct that officially the US has been giving the Syrian rebels nothing but nonlethal aid. However, all this time the CIA has been running a Black Budget campaign designed to arm and train the Syrian rebels. A lot of the training is taking place in Jordan.
It was often said that the CIA money was mostly going to the moderate Free Syrian Army rebels. This is probably true, but the FSA is now much diminished. 2/3 of the rebels are Islamists, and the FSA only makes up 1/3 of the armed opposition.
Many Left writers say that the FSA does not even exist anymore, but that does not seem to be the case. A lot of the arms given to the FSA somehow seem to have gotten into the hands of the Islamists, however. And the general mass aid flow to the Syrian rebels, either to the FSA or the Islamists, seems to have somehow in some way or other empowered the Islamists. So in some roundabout way all that aid pouring in to the Syrian rebels is in large part responsible for the growth of ISIS, Al-Nusra and the Islamic Front.
What is really happening here is Obama is taking the arming of the Syrian rebels out of the hands of the CIA and giving it to the State Department. It is going from an off-budget Black Budget secret CIA program to an official US government above board project.
But it won’t work any better this time than it did last time. Last time all it did was create and empower ISIS and the other radical Islamists, and this time it will do exactly the same thing.
So US foreign policy is truly insane.

  1. Syria: In effect, support ISIS and other Islamists to attack and destroy Syria and hopefully oust Assad. If Assad cannot be ousted, the destruction of Syria (an enemy state) will suffice.
  2. Iraq: Attack and destroy the very same ISIS and Islamists that are being created in Syria when they logically overrun much of Iraq.
  3. Support for ISIS in Syria will strengthen ISIS in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, where they will do nothing but cause problems for these countries.

Why the Western Left Is So Trotskyite

Third Eye writes:

In what world is the western left Trotskyist? Hell, not even the old Trotskyists are really Trotskyist anymore. The combine of academics, NGOs, bureaucrats, and lawyers that passes for the “left” amounts to a bunch of glorified lobbyists.

Most of the significant Marxist grouplets in the US (the ones with actual names and organizations) are Trots. The biggest Western Marxist websites (In Defense of Marxism and WSW) are Trot-run.
If that doesn’t satisfy you, you can head on over to Marxmail and see for yourself. Western Marxists often fulminate against the “Stalinist” Left. Any Marxist who goes on “Stalinism” is a Trot, no matter how much they try to deny it.
Furthermore, the obsessions with homosexuals, transsexuals and other oddbodies, women, minorities, immigrants, criminals, Muslims as “oppressed” groups in the West as opposed to lining up with the true oppressed of the 3rd World is a sign of the Trots. The whole Identity Politics thing in the 1960’s was a Trot project.
The people they call Stalinists always focused on economics and never cared about divisive identity politics all that much. That stuff just divides the working class anyway.
Set race against race, men against women, gay people against straights, oddbodies against normal bodies, Muslims against infidels, immigrants against natives, criminals against decent people – way to go!
Way to divide the working class!

"Russia's Western Frontier Has Become a Desert"

Another great piece from the Saker. He has an excellent point. It’s time to give up on the Ukies. They are determined to marry into the West and become the West’s newest colony. It will ruin them economically, but they don’t care. Ukraine no longer has any connection with Russia. There are no more two brother peoples. That’s all over. Time to let them go. They’re Nazis anyway. Let the Europeans have them!
He makes some excellent points about Western Ukraine. As you can see, every time Russia was invaded, the invaders came through the Western Ukraine. Since 1600, Western Ukraine was chopped off Russia by various Catholic Western powers to be used a foothold inside Russia and a base for attacking Russia.
This started around 1600 when it was conquered by the Polish-Ukrainian Commonwealth. Around this time, the Ukrainian branch of the Russian Orthodox Church split off and joined the Eastern Catholic rite, aligning themselves with Rome, the West and as we shall see, the perennial enemies and invaders of Russia. The Russians have never forgiven the Ukrainians for what they see as the heresy and treason of this schism.
Later Western, Catholic Napoleon moved into Russia via the Ukraine. Then the Austro-Hungarian Empire carved off the Western Ukraine and made it a part of that Western Catholic Empire. During WW1, the Ukrainians rounded up tens of thousands of Russians in their land and sent them to a concentration camp in Romania where many of them died.
This region and especially the Rusyn region to the south, has been the scene of many Russianizer-Russiaphobe battles since the last half of the 1800’s. One part of the population wanted to Russianize and maintain a close relationship with, or even annex themselves to, Russia and the other group saw themselves as Ukrainians and wanted to become an independent state.They spent a good part of the time from 1850-1921 persecuting each other.

In World War 2, once again, the Western Catholic invaders, this time the Germans again in the form of the Nazis, moved into Russia via the Ukraine. Many Western Ukrainians greeted them with flowers and gleefully assisted in the Jew- and Commie-killing. Their leader was a man named Bandera, who allied himself closely with the Nazis.
During WW2, there was a short-lived pro-Nazi Vichy-like regime in Western Ukraine. Bandera’s group not only killed many Jews, but they also slaughtered many Poles. The reason for this is uncertain but perhaps it was a Ukraine for Ukrainians thing. Bandera is still the hero of the Western Ukrainians who are also voracious anti-Semites. Many Western Ukrainian militias openly use Nazi memorabilia. During Western Ukrainian protests, Nazi graffiti often appears on the nearby buildings. Swastikas in particular are favored.
And with the birth of the Maidan, as we can see, once again the anti-Orthodox West has once again captured the Ukraine, installed another fanatical anti-Russian government, and had plans to use the Western Ukraine once again as a base to attack Holy Mother Russia. So you can see why Russians are alarmed, to put it mildly.

Russia’s Western Frontier Has Become a Desert

Warning: the following is not an analysis, it is a “cri du coeur” !
Looking at the photo of the three stooges oh so proud of having “prevailed” over that evil Russia I have very mixed feelings. On one that, I have a sense of immense disgust. No, not for the the Eurobureaucrats or for Poroshenko – they are true to character.
No, my disgust is directed at that sorry pseudo-ethnicity called “the Ukrainians” and which now has fractured into two mutually exclusive groups: the real “Ukrainians” – the Russians from “core Russia” (which is the real meaning of the expressions “Malorossia” or “Small Russia”) who live on Russia’s western frontier (the real meaning of the word “u-krainy“) and the pseudo-Ukrainian ex-homo sovieticus (I call them Ukies) who mutated into pseudo-Europeans and who now fancy themselves as “Europeans” just because they volunteered to become the next Anglo-Zionist colony.
These are the folks who traded a 1000-year old history for the (imaginary) prize which the capitalists have been dangling in front of their collective noses like a carrot before a donkey. Two things characterize these folks: they are phenomenally ignorant of pretty much everything, but especially of their own history, and their credulity is quite literally infinite. In other words – they are terminally stupid. As for their spiritual or cultural values, they don’t extend beyond what is shown on a typical commercial on TV.
It is at this point my thinking that I move from disgust to relief. Relief that modern Russia will not have to deal with such a morally degenerate and spiritually corrupt population.
I am Russian. My family roots go far back into the Russian middle-ages and for me each phase in Russian history – whether good or bad – has its own spiritual significance.
From the birth of Russia at the baptism of Saint Vladimir, to the heroic resistance of Saint Alexander Nevsky, to the gradual formation of a new Russia under Ivan III, to the tragic period of Ivan IV, the Stoglav, the tragic Old Rite Schism, the spiritual desert of the reign of Peter I, to the rebirth of Russia through the times of Alexander II and Alexander III and to the martyrdom and final transition form an earthly empire to a spiritual reality under the Czar-Martyr Nicholas II – each of these moments in history can only be understood through spiritual eyes and not by means of materialistic categories.
And even though modern Russia is still spiritually sick, very sick, I clearly perceive the signs of a spiritual revival, or a gradual shedding of the materialistic delusions which had been imposed upon the Russian people during the 20th century.
What some (correctly) call a “clash of civilizations” between Russia and the West is a reality. Likewise, when the Ukrainian propaganda speaks of a “civilizational choice” it is inadvertently expressing a profound spiritual truth. Russia is barely standing up, still shaking and in many ways confused, but already it is resisting the capitalist rot which is corroding the western civilization and Russia is already (correctly) perceived as a threat by the western plutocracy. If this is what a weak and still confused Russia is capable of, just imagine what it could do if it fully recovered its true spiritual and cultural identity and strength!
So this for me is a crucial question: does the slowly healing Russia really need to live under the same cultural/civilizational roof with the kind of folks which brought Iatseniuk or Poroshenko to power? I say let Europe deal with them! In fact, the Ukies and the EU richly *deserve* each other.
Yes, I know, Kiev is the cradle of the entire Russian civilization, but did Christ Himself not say:

And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
(Matt. 5:29).

I don’t want Russia to perish for the Ukraine, much less for for the pseudo-Ukraine I call “Banderastan”.
The Pope’s Crusaders came from the West. Napoleon’s Masons came from the West. The German and Austro-Hungarian imperialists came from the West. Then the Nazis came from the West. Now the Anglo-Zionists are coming from the West. In the past, each time the “outer-Russians” (the correct translation of “Grand Russians”) came and saved the Ukraine from these invaders and they did that a a huge cost for Russia.
But at least in the past the real Ukrainians never confused the occupier and the liberator. Nowadays this has changed. In fact, the modern “Ukrainians” think that they are feeling a deep kinship with the invader, they even identify with him. I think that Russia should stop pretending that this is not happening and that these two are “brother” nations. Okay, maybe they were brothers in the past, but now all they share is the brotherhood of Cain and Abel.
There is no continuity between Saint Vladimir and Poroshenko and what we are observing in Kiev today is what the Scripture call the “the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place“. And the Ukies like it that way. They have no use for holiness. I say let them have it!
Yes, of course, there is Novorussia which Russia cannot and will not abandon. And Crimea will forever remain part of Russia. And there are still real Russians in Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Mariupol, Nikolaev, Odessa and even in Kiev. But these Russians either cannot or don’t want to fight to free their land from the current western occupier and they need to live with the consequences of this choice.
As for the rest of Russia, I hope to see it turn to the North and the East were its real future lies. Let the EU deal with Banderastan, let Banderastan deal with the EU and let them jointly enjoy their role as faithful servants of the plutocratic elite which administers the European Anglo-Zionist protectorate on behalf of the USA. Let the Ukies, the Balts and the East-Europeans all race each other to see who will get the title of “employee of the month” from Uncle Sam. Let them bask in their new-found pride to have finally become full members of the civilization of Walmart and McDonald’s.
And let them keep on digging a deep trench all along the Russian-Ukrainian border. While it is, of course, militarily useless (what in the world are the Ukie generals thinking?!) is a a fantastic symbol of what the ex-Ukraine now “EU-associated Banderastan has become”. Russian kids should be bussed in from their schools and shown this trench while their teachers explain to them what kind of people dug this trench and why.
Russia’s western frontier has become a desert. It is high time for Russia to accept this reality and act on it.

Why I Dislike the Word "Terrorism"

I do not like the words terror, terrorists and terrorism.
Those are stupid words that are only used by rightwingers. A terrorist is any guerrilla that the US and Israel do not like.
However, the word terrorist does have a definition. A terrorist is someone who wantonly kills civilians in order to sow terror, or for any other reason honestly. Setting off bombs in a market. The bombings of Dresden and Tokyo. My Lai. Etc.
An attack on a military target or anything that can be construed as a military target is never terrorism, ever.
Do you who invented that lousy word? The Jews. Those sickening, repulsive Israeli maggots invented that word in the mid-1970’s to characterize their opponents. Their opponents were in fact engaging in a lot of terrorism, but still…
The US-Israeli Deep State characterizes all non-state armed forces that are opposed to the US-Israeli World Dictatorship as terrorists.
Non-state armed forces supported by the US, in contrast (Syrian and Libyan rebels) are never terrorists. It’s a garbage, term, abused to Hell by the Right.
Are FARC, NPA and ELN terrorists? Are the rebels in East Ukraine terrorists?

Israel Blows Up Terrorist Car in Gaza

I do not like to use words like terrorist, but these guys are shooting rockets directly at civilian targets like towns full of nothing but civilians, hitting homes, farms, schools, factories, business districts, etc. That’s the definition of terrorism right there, sorry.
It’s amazing footage anyway. You get to see the car blown to smithereens. Not sure where the footage came from, apparently some sort of closed circuit system.

Red Army Choir Doing "Annie Laurie"

From 1963 at Albert Hall, London. That space was the only space in the UK large enough for the Choir. The acoustics in that arena are very bizarre such that the top levels hear the music some time after the conductor has moved his arms to indicate the movements. The recording spent a lot of time in the USSR, went on sale there, was then remastered in Russia and appears now for the first time. Amazing singing.

A CIA Director Speaks the Truth

In the early days of the Reagan Administration, William Colby, head of the CIA and director of the US’ Phoenix Program which tortured and murdered 20,000 Vietnamese civilians on suspicion of Viet Cong links, made a curious statement in a meeting with Reagan Administration officials.

We will know our disinformation program has succeeded when everything the American people believe is false.
William Colby, 1981, Washington DC.

In the early 1960’s, the CIA coined the term “conspiracy theory” and began a mass campaign to convince Americans that all conspiracy theories were lies by crazy people and that actual conspiracies never occurred. After the American people were brainwashed that conspiracies were not possible and all theories about such were the hallucinations of crazy people, the US Deep State was now free to conspire away to their heart’s content.
Around the same time, the CIA started Operation Mockingbird to put hundreds, if not thousands of US journalists, members of the Free Press (TM) on the CIA payroll. At one point, most of the top journalists in the US were effectively CIA agents. I understand that the program is ongoing.
Guess what fools? You’re being lied to!

The Salvador Option

Great video from The Guardian about the US implementation of The Salvador Option in Iraq. The problem was that a lot of Americans were getting killed in Iraq and the war was starting to look pretty bad. This caused a political problem for the Republican Party and the Bush Administration. Further, a lot of Iraqis were starting to turn against the US.
So the US implemented the Salvador Option in which the Iraqi National Police Chief, a decent man, was thrown out, and a hardline guy to run the new Death Squad Police took his place. The US sent a monster named James Steele, a soldier who worked for the Pentagon, in facilitate this change of plans. Steele had set up, trained and financed death squads in Central America, particularly El Salvador, in the 1980’s. The Pentagon and the US Embassy were deeply involved in the mass arrests, tortures and horrific murders that took place down there in that decade.
Many of the police were then replaced with members of Shia militias. The Shia militia-heavy police were then set loose on Sunni cities, in particular Samarra. There were mass arrests and mass tortures.At one point, the Golden Mosque, one of the most revered sites in Shia Islam, was blown up with expertly placed detonations. The saboteurs were wearing the uniforms of the Iraqi National Police. There is good evidence to believe that the US, acting with elements of the Iraqi police, were the ones who blew up the mosque as the operation would seem to have been beyond the abilities of the rebels.
After a while, mass arrests and tortures turned into mass killings. The Sectarian Civil War was on. The war had redirected Iraqi rage from the Iraqi hating Americans to the Iraqis hating each other. Instead of Americans fighting a losing war against rebels, the war had changed to the US as a caretaker role for a failing state riven with civil war which was no fault of the US. The redirect was complete.

Romanian As a Romance Language Outlier

Andrei writes:

As a native speaker of Romanian, I suspect that the closeness between Latin and Romanian is vastly overstated. First let’s start with the obvious fact that nobody really knows how Latin sounded. Second, even though the Romanian base vocabulary is very much Latin, the use of Latin words is highly non-standard.For example while all other Neo-Latin languages use a world similar to ‘terra‘ to express the idea of ‘earth’, in Romanian is ‘pamânt‘ – coming from ‘pavimentum‘ (paved road). So a radical change in meaning.
There are hundreds of such examples where in Romanian worlds of Latin origin have very surprising meanings, meanings which cannot be guessed at all by any other speaker of neo-Romance languages. For political and patriotic reasons, Romanians tend to overestimate their language’s closeness to Latin, Italian and so on, but the truth is that Romanian is the oddest neo-Romance language in Europe, and distinctly different from all the others.
Still, Romanian is an interesting language to learn for people with a passion for Romance languages, as it gives you a better understanding of how many language registers existed in Latin. The other major neo-Romance languages will only give you an incomplete image of Latin, as they represent a highly correlated evolution of vulgar Latin, in which major feature appeared or disappeared simultaneously (i.e the case system, the neutral gender etc.). Romanian is something else and you can notice that the moment you dwell in the language.

What an interesting language this is. I mess around with many Romance languages, including Portuguese, French, and Italian. I already speak Spanish pretty well. I have tried to mess with Romanian but it is too weird and written Romanian does not seem to make much sense.
Wow! Instead of earth meaning land as it does in most sane languages, earth means pavement! LOL! Where did Romanian evolve? Manhattan?

Want to Work in US Journalism? Try on Your Straightjacket First

I have a question.
If you are Communist and a Green Party member, are you of the Marxist-Leninist school of thought or the Trotskyite school of thought?
I myself am a centerish-rightwinger with a lot of far-left influence. Well actually I may not be a rightwinger at all, but the current bipartisan infestation of both parties by imperialism, Washingtonian federalism, political correctness, and economic irresponsibility makes me repulsed by both parties. The Dems and the G.O.P are merely polarized extremities of the same spectrum, and originated as a single party anyways.
I guess when I was about 7 or 8 I was a classical Objectivist Libertarian. My dad was a high level executive for Toyota and made a lot of money, so I was naturally greedy, following the immaturity of my prepubescent brain. When I moved to the United States in 2011, my dad began working as a stockbroker dealing in microstocks. I saw how he fucked people over daily and ruined a lot of lives.
By the time I was 12 I became sort of a hardcore communal Christianity type commie. I guess I was reviled by the actions of my father and started to feel sympathetic to the plight of the proletariat masses. I felt more in common with the ideologies of Mao Zedong rather than my former hero Chiang Kai-Shek. I also used to be enthralled at the prospect of ruling with an iron fist, and disposing of those who question your methods with a McCarthyism like demagogic appeal to the stereotypes the common people have of communism.
Well I guess now that I am not decided one way or another. I guess I still have a lot of time to think about it. I do wish to become a journalist when I grow up, but as a correspondent for what? Fox or CNN? Lib or Con?

You have had an interesting political evolution.
Really I am just a socialist as opposed to a real hardcore Commie. But I think the people the Trots call Stalinists a lot better than the Western Trots themselves, who are insane and represent everything wrong about the Western Left in general. Most of the Western Left is Trot or Trot inspired.
It doesn’t matter whether you are a conservative journo or a liberal one. There are plenty of jobs for both. But the liberal journos in the US are not very liberal. They are less liberal than Democratic Party liberals, who aren’t very liberal anyway.
You have to support the bipartisan foreign policy consensus and the bipartisan neoliberal economic consensus and it would help to support the PC Cultural Marxism which is all the rage (see the bipartisan support for amnesty). You must support US exceptionalism and US imperialism. If you do not support these things, you will be told very quickly to shape up or ship out and if you do not, you will be rapidly fired.
All US journalists have very strict limits on what they can report without being fired by their corporate masters and their attack dogs, the editors. The US press is a controlled propaganda institution that speaks with a single voice on the big questions of the day.
Look at the Iraq War. Name on large newspaper, newsmagazine, TV news or radio news station that opposed that war either in the run-up or in the months afterwards. Name one, one.
Name one large MSM outlet, right or left, that is taking Russia’s side on the Ukraine matter. Name one. See?
It is a state-controlled propaganda institution, like Pravda in the USSR.

Sykes-Picot: The Reason for the Chaos in Arabia

Arab nationalists are still mad about this one.
Not so much Bush invading Iraq or whatever the Hell Obama has done. All Obama has done is support bipartisan US foreign policy consensus that the Republicans themselves support, with the only variation being that Republicans want to double down on Barack’s machination. But all of this was just accelerating the inevitable.
Interesting how the British double-crossed the Emir of Arabia by promising support for an independent Arabia in the former Ottoman lands in 1915 and then going back on it later after they defeated Turkey. They backstabbed the Emir in typical British fashion. Recall US imperialism is very much like British imperialism as Americans are first and foremost a British people in genes and culture. After the war, they dissolved the Ottoman lands and instead of giving the Arabs freedom as they promised, they simply stole their lands from the Ottomans. The British, out of sheer coincidence, happened to donate to themselves exactly those lands where oil had just been found (Mesopotamia) and the Emir got a worthless (at that time) hunk of desert in the middle of the Arabian peninsula.
Syria and Lebanon were donated to the French for no particular reason, while the British stole Palestine (including Transjordan) and then promptly donated it to Lord Rothschild’s Jews who had demanded it as a bribe for financial support to help the British win the war.
The Kurds were screwed worst of all. There were many proposals to give them a state, but they were all ignored. The Kurds were chopped up into four countries – Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria, with a bit in Armenia (cool map at the link). They have been stateless ever since – the Kurds, who have existed as a nation in one form or another for possibly 3,000 years. Now, at long last, the West seems to be keen on giving the Kurds a new nation in northern Iraq, something they have been deathly opposed to for a century. Why the sudden change of heart? Color me suspicious! Imperialism never does anything decent out of the goodness of its heart. Never, ever.

What Language Is This?

ഹും കേരളത്തിൽ ഷെരിയത്തു നിയമം ആവാഞ്ഞത് ടീച്ചറുടെ ഭാഗ്യം
കല്ലെറിഞ്ഞു കൊല്ലാനുള്ള വകുപ്പല്ലേ കാട്ടിയത്!!
ബഹു: അബ്ദു റബ് മന്ത്രി വന്നപ്പോ ഗേറ്റ് അടച്ചു വെച്ചതും … മുഖം കേർവിച്ചു വെച്ചതും!!
രബ്ബണ്ണനും ഉമ്മച്ചനും കൂടെ ഉത്സാഹിച്ചാൽ വൈകാതെ ഈ കേരള കലവറയെ പച്ച കളർ അടിച്ച ഒരു മണിയറ ആക്കാൻ സാധിക്കും .. ആൾ ദി വെരി ബെസ്റ്റ് ഇവിടെ രാജവാഴ്ച അവസാനിച്ചു ജനാധിപത്യം ആയതു ബഹു: അബ്ദു റബ് അറിഞ്ഞില്ലെന്നു തോന്നുന്നു!

I put it into Google Translate on Detect Language and it told me it was English! Yeah right.
Anyway, you might guess it’s a language from India. Well, there’s a start for you. Go on now.

Russia Has Much Greater Freedom of the Press Than the US Does

Dr. Cruel wrote:

Of course the Russians reject American free market “greed.” It would interfere with Putin’s greed. And people who disagree with Putin have an unlucky propensity to getting their heads bashed in by Russian thugs – especially if they’re journalists.
The Russian people reject the American neoliberal model. I am not sure personally how much Putin has enriched himself.

There are many, many Putin critics all over Russia. They run many of the nation’s media outlets. Every day they are on TV, the radio, in papers and publications denouncing him in the strongest terms. And here in the US, we have a single corporate media with one and only one voice and message. The US media may as well be Pravda. Freedom of the press is defined by diversity of opinion. Where there is no diversity of opinion, there is no freedom of the press.
Russia has far more freedom of speech and freedom of the press than we do.

Aerosmith, "Cryin'"
Great music from very late in their career in 1993. I like the first four albums a lot, the self-titled first album, the second album, the great Toys in the Attic and maybe the best of all, Rocks. After that, they seemed to go downhill in my opinion. I had no idea that they were still making great music this late in the day. Tyler looks pretty old, but he’s still up there rockin’.
I always liked Tyler because he is very much an androgyne in the Iggy Pop – Mick Jagger style, but he is still very masculine as they are. And of course he was always heterosexual. Steve Perry seemed like a bit of an androgyne too, and boy did he have presence. It’s a great gender style for a guy!
They got into drugs really bad and sniffed up half of Peru, in Tyler’s words. Glad they got clean before they all died. Perry still looks great, healthy, charismatic and very good-looking at this late date. I know Tyler looks old, but he looks pretty damn good for an older guy. If I could look so good at that age.
Extra Lolita points for Tyler, at age 28, for snagging a 15, year old girl, (Julie Holcomb), making her into his girlfriend and then being so charming that the girl’s parents made him her legal guardian so she could live with him. Wow! He got to be her Dad and her boyfriend at the same time!

Julia Holcomb and Steve Tyler, 1970's. She was probably 17 years old when this photo was taken.
Julia Holcomb and Steve Tyler, 1970’s. She was probably 16 years old when this photo was taken.

And he pulled this off without being arrested! Good show, good show!
She got knocked up, and he convinced her to have an abortion. The abortion did a big number of both of their heads for some reason.
Then he started cheating on her with Bebe Buell. Many late night suicidal phone calls from Julie ensued.
She left him with nothing more than she had come to him with which was nothing. Later she married a man, had seven kids and at some point converted to Roman Catholicism. She is now very active in the pro-life movement.
Julia Holcomb, possibly 15 years old in this pic.
Julia Holcomb, possibly 15 years old in this pic.

Her story is here.

Two Major Types of Transsexualism

Blanchard did a review recently in which he concluded that there were two types:
1. Pure transsexualism. From a very early age or as far back as they can remember. Biological, developmental disorder.
2. A second type which is simply an extreme form of homosexuality.
I absolutely agree that quite a few of these folks are simply homosexuals. The women want to turn into guys so they can fuck women as a guy, and the guys want to turn into chicks so they can fuck men as a woman. Get it? This type looks more like a mental illness to me. There have been some complete cures with this type which implies that it is not developmental or biological.

You're a Christian – Where Do You Stand?

Christians! Where do you stand? It's time to line up for one side or the other. No fence sitting allowed!
Click to enlarge. Christians! Where do you stand? It’s time to line up for one side or the other. No fence sitting allowed!
American Christians! Where do you stand? With the real Christians or with the American Zionist Ayn Randist heretics? What would Jesus do? Think about it!

If You Love Jesus, You Must Be a Republican!

Jesus raids the Republican Convention.
Jesus raids the Republican Convention. Click to enlarge.

There is nothing on Earth more preposterous than a US Republican or conservative “Christian.” There really is nothing Christian about them. Instead, they are the antithesis of Christianity. Rather than serving Jesus, a good case can be made that instead they are the servants of the Evil One himself, Baal.


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)