The Whole Purpose of Redpill, Game, PUA, etc.

Swank writes:

A 48 year old woman cheated on him.

Oh no.

Who cares?

Why would he possibly care?

For 18 years of marriage, his wife was a cold fish in bed and refused to do anything even slightly kinky, either oral sex (giving or receiving).


And he didn’t always have status. The article states that he struggled financially for years.

But sure, the exception disproves the general rule I guess.

Hang on a second. Swank says all a man has to do is get some status, gain 20 pounds, gain 10 pounds of muscle and find someone with similar interests and then it’s home free and he can say and do whatever the Hell you want to.

Swank say this guy had no status.

He was a millionaire. He owned his own tech company. He lived in million dollar home. How is it that a millionaire living in a million dollar home is struggling financially? And he wasn’t struggling financially his whole life. His sex life sucked from the start. He simply did not turn on his wife. Why? She was turned on by other men instead, other than her husband. Why?

She was in league with a bunch of other cheating wives who were all cheating on their “lame husbands” with “studs.” Why did these women see their husbands as lame? What was wrong with them? What did the studs they were cheating on have that their husbands lacked? Why did these women see their harems of studs to cheat with as Alpha fucks and their husbands as Beta bucks? Here the dynamic is obviously working.

Swank cannot answer any of these questions.

Liberals cannot answer any of these questions.

Feminists cannot answer any of these questions.

All of them just mouth stupid platitudes.

Feminists say nice guys aren’t nice (not true), and that’s why women hate them. This is a flat-out lie and is an example of classic female self-deception that they have deceived themselves into believing is true.

Feminists say, hey incels, all you have to do is get some clean clothes, shower and bathe regularly, brush your teeth, practice good hygiene and have some halfway decent social skills and you are home free! The babes are just going to fall right into your damn lap. You think that’s going to work?

The whole purpose of Redpill, Game, PUA and all the other more or less evil bullshit is to try to figure out why the Hell this is happening. Why are the husbands seen as lame? What makes them lame? Why are these women not turned on by their husbands? What are the husbands lacking? What could the husbands do to make themselves more attractive? What did the studs they were cheating on have these these husband cucks did not have? What was it about their boytoys that turned these women on?

Are there other groups out there that offer men relationship advise on how to maximally meet their needs and desires in relationships with women while keeping things on as much of an even keel as possible much of the time and having a minimum amount of stress, drama, chaos, negativity and relationship downtime and crisis as possible that are maybe not as evil as the Game, PUA and Redpill? If so, fine, bring them on. A morally grounded relationship guide for men would be a great thing.

One problem is that the typical groups you go to about this stuff are full of women and feminist men and they give flat out horrible advise to men who are having relationship troubles.

Let me give you an example. In Reddit/relationships, a husband walks in on his wife down on her knees sucking two men’s cocks. The guy goes to R/relationships. What advise do the women and feminist men have? Get therapy.

Get therapy!

Does that sound like good advice in the circumstances? Come on.

I am having a hard time seeing why these movements are so evil. Why do the feminists hate them so much? Because it means we men are catching on to women’s bullshit and games and trying to outsmart them so they can’t con us, manipulate us and screw us over so much? Is that why? Because men are wising up, learning women’s tricks and how to beat them at their own game? Feminists are furious that we are catching on to women’s scammy manipulating bullshit, figuring out how to deal with it and coming up with a bunch of scammy manipulative bullshit of our own to throw their way so as to confuse them.

That’s really what it’s all about, isn’t it?

Oh no! The men are catching on! We can’t have that!

Before we women were fighting a ridiculous one-sided war against unarmed men who declared unilateral ceasefire. It was a massacre. The men were getting creamed. It was all good.

Now the men have walked away from the table, stockpiled weapons, broken all of our codes, completely infiltrated our forces with spies and double agents, and are now fighting back with some weapons that are so brand new we women can’t even figure out how they work!

Oh no! A fair fight!  A woman’s worst nightmare!

We Are All Gay Now


What do they mean half of all Britons say they are something other than heterosexual? If you are something other than straight, that means you are either gay or bisexual. Geez. I figured this nonsense was coming.








The trend is obvious. Homosexual behavior is on the increase among young British people. More and more are identifying as gay or bisexual and fewer are identifying as heterosexual. And the rate of pure homosexuals is also rising – it went up by 50

This shows that the Cultural Left is lying again when they say that whatever anyone’s sexual orientation is, they were simply born that way.

It also gives the lie to the PC lines coming out of the American Psychological Association saying, “No one chooses their sexual orientation.” Oh really now? If no one chooses it, then how in the Hell is the rate of gay and bisexual orientation increasing among young British? Is it something in the water? If they didn’t chose their orientation, then who did? God? The Borg? The Fairy Godmother? The Flying Purple Lizard Monster?

If the rate’s going up, it can’t be because they were born that way. What is this, an epidemic of birth defects?

And it can’t be because some mysterious force is choosing their orientation for them because no if anyone can choose such a thing, it’s you and you only.

Obviously the rate is going up because more and more young people are choosing gay and bisexual orientations probably because of Cultural Left propaganda that says being gay and bi is the greatest thing since whitewall tires.

For more on rates of male sexual orientation by the numbers and some thoughts about that, see here.

Sexual Orientation Ratios among Men, with a Discussion and Look to the Future

The only other sexual orientation survey I am aware of was done on medical students in Australia by a famous sexologist. An anonymous questionnaire was used, but later testing in the lab showed that people’s responses lined up very well with how they rated themselves. Using this scale:

100-0: Maximum heterosexual, minimum homosexual 90-10: Maximum heterosexual, incidental homosexual 80-20: Maximum heterosexual, significant homosexual 70-30: Maximum heterosexual, strong homosexual 60-40: Maximum heterosexual, very strong strong homosexual 50-50: Maximum heterosexual, maximal homosexual 40-60: Maximum homosexual, very strong heterosexual 30-70: Maximum homosexual, strong heterosexual 20-80: Maximum homosexual, significant heterosexual 10-90: Maximum homosexual, incidental heterosexual 0-100: Maximum homosexual, minimal heterosexual

The Australian survey showed that 62

50-50: Maximum heterosexual, maximal homosexual: 1 40-60: Maximum homosexual, very strong heterosexual: 1 30-70: Maximum homosexual, strong heterosexual: 1 20-80: Maximum homosexual, significant heterosexual: 1 10-90: Maximum homosexual, incidental heterosexual: 1 0-100: Maximum homosexual, minimal heterosexual: 2

Fully 94

100-0: Maximum heterosexual, minimum homosexual: 62 90-10: Maximum heterosexual, incidental homosexual: 17 80-20: Maximum heterosexual, significant homosexual: 12 70-30: Maximum heterosexual, strong homosexual: 6 60-40: Maximum heterosexual, very strong strong homosexual: 2 50-50: Maximum heterosexual, maximal homosexual: 1

Amazingly, only 1

This goes with reports we get out of the gay community that there are not many male full bisexuals. The same reports say that many young men in their 20’s identify as bisexual and may have a wife or a girlfriend, but they spend most of their socializing time in gay hangouts. The same people say that when they watch men in their 20’s who identify as bisexual over time, after several years, quite a few of them convert over to completely gay.

This stands to reason, as I have met some obviously bisexual men in their 20’s with girlfriends who struck me as completely gay.

Every time I was around them, there was a very strong sexual vibe (Arthur), and in one case (KL), the guy was constantly making weird gay insinuations (he was pretty much trying to fuck me 100

This is also typical of gay men – their insane persistence. The gay men that I have known who liked me pretty much never stopped trying to screw me the whole time I knew them. If they started out coming onto me, they simply never gave up no matter how many times I told them no or got mad at them. I think there is something wrong with these people. The only way to stop this behavior is to get very aggressive, threaten or menace them, and especially end the friendship altogether.

I have also heard from some of my straight friends that the gay men they befriended pretty much never quit after they started coming onto them. Once they start it up, they just can’t seem to knock it off. They don’t seem to have an off switch.

I wonder if this is behind a lot of gay-bashings? I am not advocating beating people up, but a gay man who can’t stop pestering a straight man is seriously asking for a knuckle sandwich. There was a commenter on here who insisted that attempted seductions were behind a lot of gay-bashings. What often happened was a gay man came on hard to a straight man, and the straight man took offense and assaulted the gay man. I don’t like to blame the victim, but…

I worked with Arthur, and I never saw him look at a woman once the whole time I worked there. We would be eating lunch in the lunchroom, a beautiful woman would walk in, and Arthur would not even look up at her. It was as if a ghost had walked into the room. She was simply not there at all.

My mother said that before she got married, she worked in San Fransisco, and there was a man in the office that no one could figure out. Finally the woman got it. My mother said, “He never looked at a woman, not even one time, ever.”

This follows.

I have known and worked with a number of gay men, and one surefire way to spot them is that they never look at women, ever. Women are either ghosts, or in the case of one gay boss, part of the furniture, carpet or ceiling.

With KL, I must say that I never heard him talk about women even one time for even one second, and he was constantly insinuating creepy upsetting gay bullshit. I used to go out on drives with him in his van and he never looked at a woman even one time.

Lessons? How to spot a gay man:

Gay men never look at women.


Gay men never talk about women.

Based on this, these two “bisexual” men in their late 20’s were simply closeted gay men with beard girlfriends. Which goes along with gay common wisdom above that many bisexual young men are simply closeted gay men who are afraid to come out all the way and are frankly just lying to themselves.

It is also interesting that the overwhelming majority of men who have sexual interest in men or who have some bisexual attraction lean straight, often very heavily straight.

100-0: Maximum heterosexual, minimum homosexual: 62 90-10: Maximum heterosexual, incidental homosexual: 17 80-20: Maximum heterosexual, significant homosexual: 12 70-30: Maximum heterosexual, strong homosexual: 6 60-40: Maximum heterosexual, very strong strong homosexual: 2 50-50: Maximum heterosexual, maximal homosexual: 1

What this shows is that men who lean gay are not common at all. No more than 6

Probably the vast majority of the 38

As you can see, 38

I honestly do not see what is so groovy about all of this. The gay and gay-leaning men who truly cannot help their orientation should be supported completely at least as far as their orientation goes. You can hardly hate a man for something he can’t help.

Nevertheless, homosexuality is bad for society, male homosexuality particularly so. If it’s kept to a minimum, society can easily cope with the dysfunctions, issues and costs of this group and really it is no big problem. Society can absorb it and move along. Encouraging and promoting homosexual behavior is encouraging and promoting something that is bad for society. What’s the point? Why do it? What’s the upside? The Cultural Left doesn’t make sense. Why are they trying to harm society?

“My Wife Was Addicted to Ashley Madison”


This man had good looks, very high status (owned his own tech company), a high income ($1 million/year), a great deal of wealth (millionaire, lived in $1 million home), much in common with his wife, and his marriage still turned to shit.

This guy needs Redpill or some sort of male self-help group’s advise. Actually, he did show up on Reddit Redpill soon after this story broke. A lot of the guys completely ripped him a new one, which I thought was pretty lousy. The man blames the whole thing on the (Jewish?) scumbag who ran Ashley Madison, who he calls a sociopath. Well, he is a sociopath. Of course he is. He also blames his wife’s mental illness for her behavior. She is either a Borderline or what Beatrix calls a “high-conflict woman” Cluster B type who displays Borderline traits but functions too well to be a Borderline.

The guys on Redpill thought it was stupid to blame the sociopathic website owner and his Borderline wife for the behavior. I do not know what to say to that.

For 18 years of marriage, his wife was a cold fish in bed and refused to do anything even slightly kinky, either oral sex (giving or receiving). She posted a dirty profile on Ashley Madison as a wild bitch down for all sorts of kinky fun (that she was denying her husband). He found her conversations on her cellphone with her group of married female friends who were all either cheating on their husbands or encouraging and egging on the others to cheat. One woman was passing around a photo of a huge cock of the guy she was cheating on her husband with, saying, “You girls could be having this right now instead of your lame husbands. Come join the fun!”

He caught her cheating previously last year and then when the scandal broke, he found her profile in the leaked data and caught her again. He has two boys who don’t know what their mother did. Apparently they are divorcing. When husbands catch wives cheating without permission, 95

There were 30 million male profiles on Ashley Madison and 5 million female profiles. A very close examination revealed only 1,500 real active females among that 5 million. 30 million men competing for 1,500 men. World’s biggest sausage fest?

The site was very sleazy. The very large number of the female profiles on the site were fakes created by Ashley Madison.When you join the site for free, you soon get profile visits, chat requests and mails from hot, horny looking babes. Usually of these women are either fakes being run by employees or computer programs, that is, not even real female humans at all. The purpose of this is to get you to pay to join the site. After you pay, all of the visits, mails and chat requests vanish. Attempts to respond to the female visitors, mailers and chat requesters all fail because the women are not even real. This is typical and most dating sites do this. There were a very few real women on the site, and apparently a few guys did well.

I do not have much at all to say about this matter. Feel free to comment.

Who Is This Man and Why Is He Famous?

Beast Ganon writes:

Frazer, James George. 1922. The Belief in Immortality and the Worship of the Dead, Vol. 2 (of 3): The Belief Among the Polynesians, Chapter III: The Belief in Immortality among the Samoans, § 1. The Samoan Islands, Footnote 24. McMillan and Co.Robert, did the author of the above book ever mention why those females in the Pacific Islands had so many children? There must be a reason why they got themselves pregnant over and again. I guess the females placed all of the blame on the men somehow.

A few questions.

Who is this man: James George Frazer? Why is he famous? What is his most famous book, written around the same time as the above: 1922? Did he personally witness the anthropological observations in the book?

25 Ways Feminists Systematically Oppress Men

Tulio writes:

Not that I’m saying you’re wrong per se, but can you list concrete examples of how men are systematically oppressed? While I don’t like feminism, I also don’t feel oppressed in any way as a man. I find feminists to be more of an annoyance than a threat.

Here is a list of 20. See if you can come up with more.

  1. Conflation of statutory rape and pedophilia created by feminists is causing a lot of harm to teenage boys and especially young men.
  2. Insane anti-rape laws in Sweden and the UK written by feminists that including rape definition creep expanding towards more and more traditional non-rapes.
  3. Anti-rape inquisitions created by feminists on campuses where a woman can file rape charges against you months to years after the fact, the man is considered guilty until proven innocent and the prosecution and judges are completely rigged against the man. For instance, a man was recently thrown out of a university back East on “rape” charges. What happened? The man was blacked out drunk, lying on his back on a bed, and a female student gave him a blowjob. She sucked his cock while he was blacked out. If anyone got raped, it might have been him. She feared for her reputation after the incident and the feminist dorm adviser suggested she file rape charges to preserve her reputation. Another man was thrown out of school for raping his own girlfriend. Charges were filed many months after they broke up and the court was a Kangaroo Court stacked with feminists.
  4. Rape rules on campus created by feminists requiring assent for each escalation of sex acts undertaken.
  5. Crazy campus rape rules created by feminists whereby a man can be accused of rape even if the woman never said no if she “thought no in her head.” In this case, the man can be accused of rape because he’s not a mindreader.
  6. Crazy rape law in Washington State written by feminists whereby a teacher was convicted of rape of a female student who was 18 years old, an adult, when it happened. The sex was 100
  7. Crazy rape laws written by feminists where sex with a drunken woman is “rape.”
  8. Fake campus rape crisis created by feminists whereby feminists make up lies like 20
  9. Fake “rape culture” crisis US created by feminists in the US, probably the most anti-rape culture on Earth, where all men are seen as potential rapists.
  10. Insane rape laws in the UK written by feminists whereby apparently there is no statute of limitations for rape, sexual assault and “pedophilia” whereby men are going down for grabbing a grown woman’s tits 45 years ago, feeling up a 14 year old girl’s ass 35 years ago and other lunacy.
  11. Feminists making up lies like “fake rape charges are very rare.” The figure of 8
  12. Insane sexual harassment rules in most employment locations whereby feminists are apparently trying to outlaw all heterosexual conduct in the workplace. I worked at a workplace where I was told that dating between coworkers was banned by the company’s sexual harassment policies.
  13. Sexual harassment madness on university campuses created by feminists whereby female students constantly file Title 9 complaints against male professions for every fake infraction in the book. One of the crimes is criticizing feminism or Women’s Studies Departments. Male teachers have had Title 9 complaints filed against them for doing just that.
  14. New laws in France and Germany created by feminists whereby men are forbidden from paternity testing their own babies.
  15. Pedophile Mass Hysteria promoted by feminists whereby any man who looks at a teenage girl is a “pedophile” and a “predator,” and men can’t even talk to any children of either sex anymore. Single men are particularly victimized by this. I have had single men tell me that all single White men past a certain age are automatically considered “pedophiles.” They also tell me how terrified they are of girls and how they take off every time they see one.
  16. Pedophile Mass Hysteria created by feminists causing men to be arrested for merely talking to teenage girls. A man was recently arrested and charged with “grooming” for talking to two 15 year old girls, apparently runaways, in a pet store in California. In California, this “anti-grooming” law is called “annoying or molesting a child.” Under this extremely vague offense, you can be charged with “grooming” for merely talking to a teenage girl.
  17. Pedophile Mass Hysteria caused by feminists resulting in men getting convicted of “child molesting” for having sex with underage girls who lied about their age and said they were 18-19, created Facebook pages with fake ages on them, and openly seduced older men. When people found out about it, the girls’ parents filed child molesting charges. The men had no idea the girls were underage. They were convicted and go on the Sex Offender Registry for life because a girl lied to them and they naively believed her lie.
  18. Pedophile Mass Hysteria caused by feminists expanding to adults -> a man recently told me online that if he saw a 50 year old man talking to a 20 year old woman, he would punch the man in the face. Recall how many women called Clinton a “pedophile” for having sex with 23 year old Monica.
  19. Pedophile Mass Hysteria created by feminists whereby evil girls mostly aged 9-13 are mass charging male teachers with child molesting under blatantly fake charges. A friend of mine had an entire classroom of evil 9 years old girls charge him with molesting them in a single day (!). The charge went into his record, parents threatened to beat him up, and he was not allowed to teach at that district ever again. My own father was charged with molesting a 13 year old Black girl for breaking up a fight between her and some other girl.
  20. Feminists making up lies like “children never lie about being molested” which result in mass fake molesting charges against men.
  21. Creep shaming created by feminists and women whereby many men are terrified to even approach females anywhere for fear of being called a creep.
  22. Crazy fake “street harassment” crisis created by feminists whereby selling hello to a woman on the street or trying to talk to a woman on a train is apparently “harassment.”
  23. Insane domestic violence laws written by feminists in the 1990’s whereby the woman gets to hit the man as much as she wants, but if the man hits back one time, he’s going to jail -> men are not allowed to fight back against women.
  24. Crazy domestic violence law written by feminists whereby if you hit a woman (even if you hit her back) in your own home which you own and she stays in as a perma-guest, even after you get out of jail, the woman can file a restraining order against you, continue to live in your home (!), and you will be homeless and banned from living in your own home while some leech lives there for free. You will have to find temporary lodging or go homeless.
  25. Crazy alimony laws written by feminists whereby the woman gets half your paycheck for years, maybe forever, no matter how high your check is and how much she really needs, even if she initiates the divorce.

Time of the Evilboys!

Jason Y writes:

RL: I dunno, I think we were just boys, age 9-13. Boys are EVIL, especially at a certain age. Didn’t you know that?

Jason Y: Boys and girls at that age are equally evil. At least that’s how it was in Korea, my experience in America wasn’t much different either. There are a few that are kind, but a lot of them aren’t. If you get on their bad side, they’ll crucify you. 😆

I enjoyed being an evil little boy. We were nice a lot too. We had friends, and we mostly treated them well.

Smear the Queer is just a game. You play it with your friends. It was the same as Kill the Man on the Hoppityhop. One guy gets on the hoppityhop and starts bouncing all around the yard, and he’s automatically the Queer. Everyone yells, “Look, he’s a queer! Smear the queer! Smear the queer! Hahahahaahahahaha!” Because, you know, queers have to be destroyed on sight, right?

The other guys jump on him and try to pull him off the hoppityhop, and he tries to throw them off and bounce away to escape. You climb on his back and hit him. You try to waste the guy on the hoppityhop and dislodge him from the ball. No one ever got hurt. We were 9 or 10 years old, and we engaged in continuous physical fighting. Boys that age can’t even hurt each other.

We had some designated victims who we relentlessly teased to try to provoke them into attacking us so we could have an excuse to waste them. They performed right on cue. But those designated victims were also our some of our friends. It all depended on the dynamics.

We also had Olive Wars and Dirt Clod Wars. We would split into two armies, and both sides would arm themselves with dirt clods or unripe olives. Then it would be a war. You would throw olives or clods at the other side and try to hit them. The olives were hard, and they hurt like Hell if they hit you.

Quite a few times, these wars would get seriously out of hand and people would get mad. I remember one time we went up to see our cousins, and we ended up in this huge evil Berry War, and the last thing I remember before driving off to the plane was them chasing after us at the airport screaming that they were going to kill us. Other times at home it was similar. The Olive War would disintegrate into a great big real fight, guys screaming at each other, calling names, trying to hit each other, running home.

There was this kid named RSJ, and he was called Dickie. His real name was Richard. He was on crutches for some birth defect. Nothing wrong with that, but he was mean as a snake for some reason. His older brother tormented him mercilessly, and even his own mother joined him and creamed him emotionally. They spoke to him in the most mocking, humiliating, degrading tones, ridiculed him with voices full of derision and contempt.

I am not sure what the dynamics were, but his family was mean and cruel to him, and then he was a vicious little shit himself. Both processes were driving each other somehow, but I am not sure who started it.

We called him Dogdoo Dickie and he hated that name so much! He saw red if you called him that! So of course we called him that constantly, and we tormented him mercilessly like mosquitoes on your skin. We would provoke him to get him to react and try to fight us. After we provoked him, he would come chasing after us with his crutches flying. He would try to hit you with his crutches! We would run away from him trying to avoid getting hit by his crutches and yelling names at him and laughing. He would come after us with his crutches swinging with the meanest, evillest look on his face. He was nasty!

Mostly we just got along though. Except for some designated victims who everyone bullied or other people bullied depending on the dynamics, all the rest of us got along and had all sorts of fun.

We did kill animals though. We started out killing insects like all boys. We would take magnifying glasses and set insects on fire on the sidewalk. We had garden pests, and instead of just killing them, we would slowly torture them to death. Like tomato worms. We hated those things, and when we caught them we would put them in this little “bullring” and they would be the “bull.” We would have “bullfights” with them. We would take big nails and throw them at the tomato worms yelling, “Picadors! Picadors!” and we would try to spear the tomato worms with the nails.

Also we had pillbugs, and they were serious pests. We soon tired of killing them in the ordinary way so we started devising all these new experimental ways of industrial pillbug murder. It was Pillbug Holocaust, and we were like Nazis. We tried every method under the sun to murder those bugs in all these new and experimental ways. We even did “surgery” on them where we would take them apart and examine their insides like scientists. We were Mengele!

My parents found out about our Pillbug Concentration Camps, and my father was disturbed. He said it was evil and ordered us to stop. He thought we were on the road to being serial killers.

We also killed snails in experimental ways. Salt is great. You pour salt on the snail, and it kills it in a horrible way. We also conducted biology experiments on snails where we would paint them with paint, release them and try to find them later to see how far they traveled.

We also killed fish, and I have to admit that was pretty damn evil. We fished at this place called The Smelt Place which was maybe 200 yards away from the beach. You could go there and catch maybe 100 smelt in a day. It got boring after a while, endlessly catching these moronic fish who were obviously too stupid to not get caught.

After a while, we would reel in a smelt and then cast the line with the smelt still on it onto some nearby rocks on the rocky shoreline. When we did this we would yell, “Acapulco cliff divers!” The smelt would land on the rocks and we would reel it in over the rocks. Pretty awful torture for the smelt, and the smelt would get killed pretty quickly. Then one time TM caught a smelt, kept it alive somehow and tied it to a rope on the back of his bike and dragged it on the way home for a bit until it died. That was hilarious!

Some of our girl cousins came to live with us for one year. Their family was falling apart badly, their mother was dying, diabolical divorce underway, and their father was an evil actual Nazi from Germany who we hated. Anyway, my mother’s side took those girls and shuttled them around to our relatives on their side of the family to keep them out of the father’s hands because we hated him so much. Those girls were 5, 7 and 9, and they were pure evil. They were driven crazy by all the family dynamics. They lived with us for a while when I was 10, and there were Boys Versus Girls fighting all the time. It was a kick!

My little brother went to kindergarten with one of my girl cousins. The first day, he came home and there had been some Black kids in the class somehow, don’t ask me how. My brother came home disgusted and said, “Black people sure are stupid! They’re dumb and loud!” 5 year old race realist! He had been exposed to almost no serious racism at home because my father was a liberal. I remember one time someone said nigger at the dinner table, and my Dad flipped and turned the whole dinner into an Antiracist Inquisition. We were not allowed to use that word around him.

We were also evil little thieves. I personally did not steal too much. Mostly we stole from the workmen who were working on new houses in the back. We would sneak back there at night and rip off nails, chisels, all sorts of construction materials. I have to admit thievery was pretty damn fun. I didn’t steal much other than from the workmen. I think my father found out we were thieving from the workmen, and once again he got disturbed and thought we were going to turn into criminals. I think he ordered us to take the stuff back. We lied and told him we returned everything, but really we never did, and even worse, we kept stealing more stuff!

The backyard was undeveloped, just bare ground, and we built these huge forts all over the yard. Then we had highways going all over the yard connecting one fort to the other. And we would drive trucks over these highways. We would fill the trucks up with the stolen construction materials and trade them with each other. I think a certain type of nail become “money” at some point and could be used to purchase things. There was a low spot in the yard where water collected from rain, and we called it Mud River. We built all these bridges over Mud River so you could walk across it on boards, but it was always this mysterious place with evil and frightening overtones. Mud River was sort of like Hell or Land of Evil.

We had army men, and we used to mess around with them. We took some of the army men and made them into POW’s and kept them in a “prisoner of war camp.” Then we took objects and totally mutilated these poor army men, wounded them all over their bodies, cut off arms and legs, decapitated them, and took red paint and painted blood all over them. It was ghoulish and brutal!

We did this because the POW camp was evil, and it was place where POW’s were tortured to death, not kept in safety. After we killed these poor guys, we called them “The Spooks,” because they were dead now. Then we buried them down under some dirt and leaves, apparently because they were dead and needed to be buried. But we kept digging them up so we could torture them some more even after death.

At one point we found some dogshit, and we smeared dogshit all over them just to make them even more evil. Then we reburied them. They symbolized Evil or Terror somehow. We were actually very scared of the Spooks because after we were done mutilating them and covering them with blood and dogshit, honestly they were pretty frightening looking.

I honestly really enjoyed being an aggressive, violent, diabolical and evil little boy. It was a barrel of ticks!

All the other boys were exactly the same as I was, and we all ended up OK. None of us turned into serial killers or even victimizing criminals, and we all stayed out of jail for the most part. A lot of us got arrested, but most of us no more than a handful of times, and we only served a few days here and there. Typical crimes were burglary, breaking and entering, possession of a deadly weapon, drug use, drug possession, possession of drugs for sale, resisting arrest, assaulting an officer, disturbing the peace, drunk driving, etc. I committed a number of these crimes myself and was arrested for five of those offenses and threatened with arrest for two more.

Kill Your Children Well

According to Stewart, in those parts of Hawaii to which the influence of the missionaries had not penetrated, two-thirds of the infants born were murdered by their parents within the age of two years. In Tahiti, three women questioned by Mr. Williams acknowledged that they had killed twenty-one of their children between them. Another at the point of death confessed to him in an anguish of remorse that she had destroyed sixteen of her children.

Frazer, James George. 1922. The Belief in Immortality and the Worship of the Dead, Vol. 2 (of 3): The Belief Among the Polynesians, Chapter III: The Belief in Immortality among the Samoans, § 1. The Samoan Islands, Footnote 24. McMillan and Co.


This is the typical life among those noble savages some folks on this blog cheer on. Hunter-gatherers had no birth control, so children came all the time. There’s just not enough food around for every woman to have 12-27 kids. It’s not going to work. And honestly, it’s better to kill one child who has barely seen life than to let the whole group die of starvation. The greater good and the lesser of two evils and all that.

Among the Ache of Paraguay, 100

Essentialists or Determinists, which include some psychoanalytic types, would say that certain things that a human experiences in life have inevitable damaging effects on the psyche. So if a child witnesses his mother murdering his toddler sibling, this will have an inevitable scarring effect on the psyche no matter what. Similarly, if a child is molested by an adult before some set age (which feminist crazies keep pushing upwards), there will be serious and inevitable damaging effects on the psyche of that child no matter what. Some things are just inherently damaging psychologically 100

Culturalists would take another approach and say that the psychological effects of certain experiences depend on the culture.

So while seeing one’s toddler sibling being murdered by your own mother is no doubt rather traumatizing, if you grow up in a culture where all children witness these scenes, it simply because one or the norms of growing up in that society, children simply accept it as normal behavior and there is little if any psychological damage.

Similarly, there are hunter-gatherer cultures where almost all of the children are molested by adults before age 12. Generally there is no physical damage. Culturalists would say that if you grow up in a culture where all the kids get molested by adults, you simply accept that as normal behavior and the acts cause little if any harm.

Where do you stand, with the Determinists or with the Culturalists? Are some experiences inherently damaging to the psyche or is it all culture-dependent based on what your culture defines as normal behavior?

Amazon Is Evil

I have been hating for a very long time now, and for some very good reasons. Be assured that they deserve every microgram of my hatred. They earned it well.

Anyway, I always knew that Amazon sucked. It’s a prime example of just how shitty your typical capitalist enterprise is. There’s nothing hip or groovy about tech or net capitalists. Actually the sad truth is that most of them are much worse capitalists than typical brick and mortar businesses which at least tend to have very well done and arranged stores, excellent customer service, a fair returns policy and products that are not blatant ripoffs or scams. Further, most brick and mortar joints are not actual criminal enterprises.

The sad truth is that tech and net businesses tend to have shit products, zero return policy, either zero or horrific customer service, and catastrophically arranged stores that look like they were put together by little children. As if that were not enough, a lot of them (dating sites for example) are simply out and out organized crime.

The number of businesses that are actually criminal enterprises is simply stunning. The fault of this lies 100

So next time you get fleeced by some crook, thank the nearest Tech Scum Libertard hipster! Aren’t techy hipsters cool? They’re helping criminals loot your bank account! Is that groovy and hip and tats and piercings or what?!

Anyway, Amazon has always sucked, mostly because their store is complete and utter shit, and they can’t be bothered to even fix the damn thing so it functions at all because, you know, if they had a functioning and working store, then they wouldn’t be able to sell to you so cheap! Nothing illustrates the depravity and sleaze of that mindset better than Amazon.

Welcome to Future Shit, where store owners won’t even bother to arrange their stores for you and you won’t be able to find anything! But hey, having a non-functioning store will be so hipster and groovy and techy and future because you will get your products really cheap dude! That is if you can find them!

So anyway, I have always known that Amazon blows, to put it mildly. But it’s actually much worse than that.

It turns out that Amazon is much worse than shitty.

They are actually stone evil.

Welcome to the Workplace of the Future, brought to you by your nearest groovy hipster, where cubicle farms resemble the factories of the 1890’s! Back to the Future!

Really, Amazon is to business as Roosh is to PUA. Roosh is Amazon. Amazon is Roosh. They’re both sociopathic. They both suck. They’re both evil. They are both widely loved by fools who worship psychopaths as the rock stars of the new millennium.

They’re the Future.

Roosh is the Future of Dating.


Amazon is the Future of Business.

I don’t have much more to say except maybe pray you don’t live long enough to see much of this World O’Shit. I’ll be checking out in 30 years if I’m lucky, and I’ll see you all later then. I won’t be missing this damn planet for one second, thank you very much!

Are Arabs Usually in a State of War?

RL: Most people in the region have been living in peacetime most of the time since independence.

Swank: Seems to detail a different picture here…

There has not been a war fought on Moroccan territory. Morocco has been at peace 100

Algeria fought a civil war from 1991-2000.  That is 10 years out of 53.

There has not been a war fought on Tunisian territory. Tunisia has been at peace 100

Libya fought a 4 day border war with Egypt in 1977. There was an on and off war in Chad for 8 years between 1978-1987. There has been civil war since the overthrow of Ghaddafi. That is 12 years of war out of 63 years. Libya has been at peace 93

Egypt was involved in several wars with Israel, but they didn’t last long. The total adds up to maybe 2 years at most. That’s 2 years of war out of 93 years.

Indeed, Palestine has been embroiled war almost all the time since 1947.

Jordan has only fought some wars with Israel. Maybe 2 years of war out of the last 66 years.

Syria fought several wars with Israel, but the combined total only lasted two years. They fought a war with the Muslim Brotherhood that went on perhaps 1 year. There has been a civil war since 2012. That is 6 years of war out of 64 years.

Saudi Arabia has not been in any wars since 1920 that I am aware of. However, there was an internal civil war that lasted a few years recently, but it was a very low level war. Saudi Arabia was briefly targeted in the Gulf War but that was only for a year. That’s 3 years out of 95.

Oman has not been in any wars since 1920 that I am aware of. Oman has been at peace 100

Bahrain has not been in any wars since 1920 that I am aware of. Bahrain has been at peace 100

UAE has not been in any wars since 1920 that I am aware of. UAE has been at peace 100

Qatar has not been in any wars since 1920 that I am aware of. Qatar has been at peace 100

Kuwait has been at war only with Iraq and that was only for a few weeks. That is 1 month out of 95 years.

Yemen did fight a civil war that lasted maybe 8 years. This resulted in a split in the country. There has been an internal war against Al Qaeda for maybe 4 years now. That’s 12 years out of 54.

Iraq fought a brief war with the British in 1941, but it only lasted one month. There was civil war in Mosul in 1959, but it lasted no more than a week. Iraq fought a number of wars with Israel, but those amounted to no more than 2 years. The Iran-Iraq War lasted 8 years. The Gulf War was over in less than a year and was by an internal civil war on 6 months. Iraq has been at war since the Iraq War in 2003, 11 years. Since 1932, Iraq has been at war for 22 years. That is 22 out of 83.

Lebanon fought a few wars against Israel, adding up to no more than 2 years. There was a brief civil war in 1958 lasting no more than one month. There was a major civil war in Lebanon for 15 years, from 1975-1990. Hezbollah fought a 1 month war with Israel in 2006. There was a brief civil war in 2007 with the Lebanese army fought a 4 month civil war against Fatah-al-Islam. In 2008, Hezbollah fought a 1 week war with the government. The Syrian Civil War has spilled over into Lebanon for the last year. Lebanon has been at war for 19 out of 70 years.

Conclusion: Most countries in the Arab World have been at peace most of the time since Independence.

Never Cry in Front of a Woman You Sleep With

Over in Reddit/relationships, a woman posted about how her husband just lost a very good job. He wandered around for a couple of days and didn’t tell her. Then on the third day, he broke down and cried in front of her, completely losing it. Apparently she let him cry on her shoulder. She posted that she felt utter disgust and contempt for him seeing him cry like that. She made the post saying, “Why do I feel this way?” (once again, women have no idea why they do things) and, “Is it ok for me to feel this way?” The commenters, mostly other women, piled on her, saying, “You’re in this for the long haul,” or “This is your marriage – you took a vow,” or “This is the time when he needs you most and you are not there.”

The thread got cross-posted to Redpill and the guys had a field day with it. The profoundly depressing truth was, “Never cry in front of your girlfriend or wife or in front of any woman for that matter.” They also said that men are allowed to cry only a few times – when a loved one dies, when your dog dies and when your wife has a baby. And that’s it.

However, the Redpillers had nothing against men crying in principle. They said if you need to cry, go find some of your male friends that it’s ok to cry in front of and cry in front of them over some drinks. Another man said that when it all gets to be too much, he rents a soundproof room across town. He goes there and drinks, yells, screams, laughs, shouts, cries, you name it. He gets it all out of his system and goes back to society feeling better. The Redpillers were all supportive of this.

A few of the men said, “You know what? This sucks. We should be able to feel and cry more.” The response was, “Well maybe so, but this is the world women have set up for us, so you have to deal it.”

Another pointed that women are always saying that men need to cry more. This is a classic case of women being self-contradictory. I had a girlfriend once who said, “You’re not much of a man,” and then later she jumped all over me because I said I never cried. As you can see, she is totally contradicting herself, but she can’t see it. Women do this all the time.

Some averred that there may be some women who really do want their men to cry more often, but they said it’s almost impossible to tell if your woman is one of them.

I also have some personal experiences in this area.

Last year a woman I know well told me, “Men should cry more! Men don’t cry enough!” Then she told me how her husband of many decades had cried once (over a death).

I happened to know this fellow and I assure you that he cried more than once because I was good friends with one of his sons. He wasn’t a crybaby at all, but he did break down sometimes, often due to family crises such as wild fights and wars with his kids (his relationships with his sons were full of heavy duty conflict). Sometimes he would start crying, his voice would start breaking, and then he would catch himself.

I pointed out to this woman how I knew for a fact that her husband had cried more than once because I knew her sons. She then became quite insistent that he had only cried once in decades of marriage, and worse, she seemed quite proud of the fact that he had only cried once. See the contradiction here? This woman just completely contradicted herself.

Here is the contradiction:

  1. Idealized view of men “Men need to cry more! They don’t cry enough!”
  2. Real view of men “My husband only cried once in decades of marriage!” in prideful tone.

Let’s make this easier. Look at the contradiction below:

“Men need to cry more! They don’t cry enough!”


“I am so proud of my husband because he is so manly that he only cried once in decades of marriage!”

That doesn’t make any sort of sense. What does she really believe about men crying? Who knows? How the Hell can you tell? Maybe she’s ok with it, maybe she’s not. Now her son told her husband had cried and started to cry in front her on multiple occasions and she was fine with it, but if we didn’t know that we would have to go by her personal statements which make no sense at all.

In the thread, two men told about how they broke down and cried in front of their women. One lost it in front of his wife; the other in front of his girlfriend. In both cases, the women never treated the man the same ever again, and the women left both men soon afterwards.

It is starting to look like:

Cry in front of your wife or girlfriend -> Your marriage or relationship is over.

Two other men said that they had cried in front of female friends once, and those female friends never treated them the same again.

Other Redpillers averred that when women say, “Men need to cry more! Men don’t cry enough!” that’s actually a shit test, the “worst shit test of them all,” as they put it. In other words, on some level (that most women are probably not even aware of) when women say that, it is nothing but a shit test to weed out the Alphas from the Betas. In other words, if you agree with her, “Yes! Men should cry more! I cry a lot myself!” the woman might sympathize deeply with you (notice the contradiction), but she also learns that you are a Beta, and she tosses you on the reject pile! And if you answer, “Hell no! I never cry! Men don’t cry!” she might get angry at you (notice the contradiction), but you also passed at least one of her “Alpha shit tests.”

Feel free to comment on men crying, women’s opinion of it or anything along those lines.

Men Know What Sadness Is

Personally, I went through a phase maybe 25-30 years ago where I was fighting back tears and felt sad all the time. I may have been depressed, I am not sure. I was working teaching school at the time, so I was functioning, but I felt this overwhelming sadness much of the time, and if you looked at me, you might see my eyes were wet, though I was never actually crying. The people who treated me worst of all during this phase were all women. Hispanic and Black women were the worst of all, because both of these types of women demand extreme masculinity from men. In contrast, most men were pretty good to me. Perhaps some were bad; I do not recall. A lot of men were actually quite sympathetic and it was not uncommon for a man, often middle aged, to “mirror” my sadness and become sad himself. It’s pretty much ok to look sad in ManWorld. You can’t look depressed and of course you can’t cry, but a lot of men look pretty sad, especially as they get older. It dawned on my recently that men (usually at least middle aged) are ok with male sadness because older men have figured out that life is pretty damn sad a lot of the time. In one sentence, men know that life is sad.

I must say though that it’s pretty pitiful of women that men were actually more sympathetic of a sad man than women were, and women treated me much worse than men did. Whatever happened to nurturing and empathy and all that female crap?

Diversity Makes You Taller and Smarter


Well at least there is something good about diversity. Not sure how this works, but in animals, you usually want a lot of genetic diversity in a species. Species that have low genetic diversity are often endangered species and the low diversity is considered to be something that can make the species extinct. In any species of animal, the more genetic diversity, in general the less likely it is to go extinct.

Why Feminists and the MRA’s Are Both Wrong

Something finally dawned on me. I was talking to a feminist the other day (you really don’t need to know who that was), and I mentioned MRA’s, or Men’s Rights Activists. She saw red and became absolutely furious at the very mention of the phrase. Apparently MRA’s are simply evil, or wrong, or assholes, or something. Anyway, she made it clear that MRA’s suck. This is the attitude of almost all feminists: that MRA’s are evil, it is a misogynistic, wicked movement, etc.

However, the more time I have spent around MRA’s, the more I noticed that they are just like feminists. MRA’s are the other side of the feminist mirror. Turn a feminist around, make her into the exact same thing as a feminist except her direct opposite, and wa-lah! You have an MRA. Now, I happen to think feminists suck. As a man, I have good reason to think that, as feminists are pretty much the enemies of the men. Now this feminist may well believe that MRA’s are the enemies of the women. And sad to say, that is exactly how some of them come off.


Feminists are the enemies of the men,


MRA’s are the enemies of the women.

See what I mean? You are just turning the mirror around. It’s the same person. Turn an MRA around, and you have a feminut. Turn a feminist around, and you have an MRA kook. Get it? They’re the same damn people! One type is just the mirror and completely opposite image of the other side’s kookery.

Personally, I think if women ought to fight for their equal rights, then feminism is justified (at least the equal rights type).

But why must only females fight for their rights? Don’t males have a right to fight for their equal rights too? Well of course they do. Then MRA’s are justified at least as a movement that fights for equal rights for men.

Now feminists will counter this with an interesting argument that bears listening to (not all feminist arguments are crazy): Feminists simply argue that women have to fight for their rights because they are oppressed or slaves, while males are on top and already have all the rights they need, so they don’t need to fight for their rights, and indeed, Men’s Rights just means giving oppressors or slaveowners more rights. Obviously only slaves need liberation. Surely slave owners do not need liberation too! We took that argument out in 1865.

However, this argument is problematic because with the coming of Female Rule (an Oppressive Matriarchy that openly assaults men), it is becoming increasingly obvious that men are definitely in need of equal rights as women take away more and more of our rights and oppress us more and more, which has honestly been the result of feminism political power in the West.

So probably in the West women and men are both systematically oppressed either by society or law, and both are in need of equal rights, so both feminism and MRM are justified on an equity basis.

But then I observed something else. This feminist absolutely hates misogynists and misogyny. There is literally nothing worse than a man who hates women. That is just pure, sheer evil. Now misogynists are pretty nasty creatures, let’s face it. It’s an ugly philosophy, and women have a right to dislike their haters. But this feminist also completely rejects the argument that men who have lots of bad experiences with women have a right to be misogynists. Fair enough.

And yet…and yet…

I have brought up women who hate men to this feminist before, and she has always tried to justify them. “Well, she had a lot of bad experiences with men,” or “Yes, Simone Beauvoir was a man-hater, but Sartre was her husband and he didn’t treat her very well.”

In other words, feminists justify women who hate men on the basis that men treated them badly but then refuse to justify men who hate women on the basis that women treated them badly.

Rational? Of course not.

Now MRA’s are the same way. MRA’s are always railing against misandry and women who are man-haters, and for good reason. These are some pretty damn nasty creatures. On the other hand, one major theme of the MRM is that misogyny in men is completely justified.

Ok, now how can these views possibly make sense? How can this feminist possibly believe that women being man-haters due to bad treatment by men is understandable and even laudable, while men being woman-haters due to bad treatment by women is the ultimate in evil? This cannot be reasonable. Or can it?

In a proper moral philosophy, either:

1. Women who hate men due to bad treatment by men and men who hate women due to bad treatment by women are both acceptable,


2. Women who hate men due to bad treatment by women and men who hate women due to bad treatment by women are both unacceptable.

Either they’re both ok, as we figure damaged people are understandably haters, or they are both no good, as we figure that no matter what you go through, you don’t turn into a bigot.


But what you can’t have is a universe where one is ok and the other is not (the worlds of the feminists and the MRA’s).


Such a universe,

where misandrists are understandable and even laudable and misogynists are Satanic,


misogynists are understandable and even rational while misandrists are wicked,

can only be true under one condition:

And that condition is that the other side is Evil.

Now let us examine what feminists and MRA’s are really saying.

When a feminist says female misandry is understandable and even a good thing, while male misogyny is wrong and despicable, what she is saying is this:

Female misandry is acceptable because Men are Evil. Male misogyny is wrong because Women are Good. Surely it is correct to laud those who hate Evil and despise those who hate Good, correct?

And of course, on the other hand, when an MRA says male misogyny is understandable and even logical while female misandry is deplorable and disgusting, what he is saying this is:

Male misogyny is acceptable because Women are Evil. Female misandry is wrong because Men are Good. Once again, we are back at Square One of Moral Philosophy, that those who hate evil are proper and even heroic while those who hate Good are wrong and even malevolent.

Once again, we see the same person switching genders and reversing the mirror, no?

Do you follow me here?

“We Don’t Fight Enough”

I was just over at Reddit and I read how a husband said his wife was complaining that her marriage was lousy because “we don’t fight enough.” Yeah. “We don’t fight enough.” How crazy is that? The Redpillers then jumped in to say that yep, if you agree with everything she says, pretty soon your woman will start hating you or at least find you unattractive.

So this is what women want out relationships. Lots of fights. Make sure there are lots of fights. Can’t have too many fights you know. Gotta keep things stirred up. We can’t be getting all peaceful and shit.

What the Hell? “We don’t fight enough” In what possible world does that even make sense?

What’s really got me terrified is I am wondering how many women think this way – “We don’t fight enough.”

I am reminded of one particularly unpleasant memory of a girlfriend. She told me she hated fighting and if it was up to her, she would never fight ever if she could help it. If could have a relationship with minimal to no fighting, that would be her dream.

Now comes the inevitable female self-contradiction. I mean how can you have females without having self-contradiction, right? Self-contradiction is one of the primary essences of the female nature.

You guessed it.

This idiotic woman actually went out and picked fights with me on a regular basis. She insulted my masculinity. She told me I wasn’t much of a man. She threatened to deliberately cuckold in front of my face with a Black man of all people. When I tripped in the living room, she laughed at me, cackling like a witch.

And this idiot female never wanted to fight, ever.

Except when she was picking fights for no reason.

“We don’t fight enough.” Wtf. You see why men think women are insane?

PUA/Game: Some Powerful Violations of Red Pill

According to Red Pill philosophy, everything is down to masculinity. It took me a while to figure this out, but this is how I see it:

Alphas: The most masculine of all.

Betas, etc.: Much less masculine.

Omegas: The least masculine of all by far.

If you study Red Pill philosophy it is all about masculinity, masculinity, masculinity! “Don’t be Beta” just means don’t be a pussy, a faggot, a bitch, a wimp. Everything is down to how masculine you are.

Now it took me a long time to figure out the sad truth that so many place such an extreme value on masculinity, though virtually none of them will admit it, even those who elevate it to the most extreme level. This is because the nature of women is to blind themselves to what they are doing and why they are doing it.

The problem is that there are multiple violations of Red Pill philosophy that elevates hypermasculinity above all other values.

First of all, exhibit A: David Bowie.

Let’s get real now, certain at the height of his fame in the 1970’s, David Bowie wasn’t exactly the height of masculinity. In fact, if you see pictures of him from that era, he is an out and out androgyne, and an extreme one at that. He is a complete violation of the Red Pill command to be ubermasculine.

The problem is that Bowie was sexy as Hell back in the day and maybe even afterwards. You can chalk it up to being famous, but I think it goes way beyond that. Iggy Pop lived with him for a while in Berlin, and Iggy said he never saw a man who got as much pussy as Bowie. “From heiresses to waitresses, he got them all,” Iggy said.

If you go look at Bowie’s videos on Youtube, you see many women and girls of all ages swooning over him and say how bad they want to fuck him. There is no way on Earth that you can chalk all that up to fame. There are also many men on there swooning over him too and saying how badly they want him. So he’s heavily desired by both sexes. But if what women really want is hypermasculinity, David Bowie completely violates this theorem. And Bowie is Alpha as fuck; let’s get real here. Some women have said, “Well, Bowie is sexy.”

Total red pill violation: But this makes no sense either, as Red Pill says sexy = Alpha = ultramasculine. Bowie is an outrageous violation of Red Pill.

I can give you some other examples too.

DN, one of my best friends, who was a complete sissyboy, somehow got masculinized on the way to manhood. This is actually what happens to almost all heterosexual sissyboys. Research has been done on sissyboys. It turns out that 75

Anyway, even though he masculinized, people continued to call him gay everywhere he went. I have no idea why dipshits did this because he wasn’t even 1

Most straight people are also so retarded that they think all soft men, or men with soft voices, are gay. Actually the overwhelming majority of soft men and soft voiced men are completely heterosexual. Many straight people are also so retarded that they think that any men who is pretty or has a feminine face is gay. Now I have no idea why some men have pretty faces. But how on Earth does having a pretty face make you gay? Is it some sort of mysterious process?

Anyway, I was friends with him and I never for one second thought he was gay because faggots don’t hang out with me, period. Or if they do make friends with me, they start flirting with me and trying to fuck me the instant they meet me and they never stop until you end the friendship. So if a guy is my friend and he didn’t try to fuck me on first meeting, of course I assume he’s not gay. Why in Hell would a gay man hang out with me anyway? What on Earth for?

Well, during this entire phase that he was a young adult and the whole world was insisting that he was gay, he was fucking a small army of women. I have no idea who many women and girls this guy fucked, but I’ve hardly seen one man screw so many females in so short a time. He was simply incredible. A guy who the whole world insists is a faggot is fucking half the females in town. Makes no sense.

Total red pill violation: Red pill says Alpha = ultramasculine and DN  was basically an androgyne or at least a very soft guy. He wasn’t effeminate at all, but he wasn’t all that masculine either. DN is an utter refutation of Red Pill.

Another friend of mine was named DJ. DJ was almost worse than DN in that DN was not a wimp, but DJ was pretty damn wimpy. Once again, many people insisted he was gay, and they would never believe you if you said he wasn’t. He had a very soft voice, was extremely pretty and was quite sensitive. He was also a great big wimp. Nevertheless, I was amazed at how damn well he did with women and girls. And they were often quite good-looking too.

Total red pill violation: Red pill says all wimps are Betas if not Omegas, and it also says that success with women = masculine. The less masculine you, the less well you do with women. DJ is a total violation of Red Pill.

I could give you some more examples but you get the picture. When I was in Hollywood, I met a couple of men who were frankly just total faggots. They were both extremely good looking, and of course they both came onto me very hard the instant they met me (that’s the “gay test”).

One I met in a nightclub. DJ and I had free tickets to record company promo show where all the drinks were free. There were two couples at a table, and DJ and I sat down. The queer immediately leaned across the table and asked, “Can I buy you a drink?” to me in a very effeminate voice. His gorgeous blond girlfriend giggled.

Apparently she found his homosexuality hilarious. You will find this is the case with a lot of gorgeous women hooked up with faggoty guys. They think it is cute and very funny whenever their boyfriends try to screw guys and they can’t stop giggling at it. Anyway, this very good-looking young blond-haired man had a total knockout blond with him. Go figure.

Another one was at my work. He wasn’t effeminate as much as he was an extreme wimp. Of course, the vast majority of wimpy men are completely heterosexual. I meet a wimpy guy and I think “straight” immediately. However, some gay men are not so much effeminate as they are wimpy.

But the difference is that the wimpy gay men often take wimpiness to the most wild extreme. The first time you meet them, you almost fall out of your chair thinking, “Jesus Christ! This is the wimpiest man I have ever met!” They are extremely passive, display extreme aversion to aggression and violence, are incredibly picky and finicky, and often have such tiny wimpy voices that you almost can’t even hear them.

This guy’s name was Arthur. When he first met me, he acted like he had seen a Greek God and he stopped frozen in his tracks and said, “Hi there,” in this stunned and ultra-wimpy voice. I immediately got extremely suspicious of him. After a while, I started to really hate him because he wouldn’t leave me the Hell alone. He was sort terrified of me because I was a quite menacing (during this era, people often told me how frightening I looked) looking punk rocker who wore leather, spikes and a snarl all the time, but that didn’t stop him. Maybe he liked it rough?

He was also my married bosses’ best friend (!?), so I couldn’t exactly tell him to go to Hell. I went to a New Years Party at my bosses’ house though, and there was Arthur, with the most beautiful blonde you have ever seen. Once again, this knockout was giggling away, apparently because she found his fagginess to be amusing.

Total red pill violation: Both of these men violate Red Pill in the most extreme way. They were not only not masculine, but they were out and out gay in a very faggoty, effeminate way. Red pill says only Alphas get the girls, and Alphas are masculine as Hell. These guys were so unmasculine they were out and out effeminate and girlish. And each of them had one of the most beautiful blonds I have ever seen. If they were effeminate and straight it would be one thing. But these guys are seriously queer and apparently they were both actively fucking men, possibly with their girlfriends’ knowledge.

I could give you some more examples, but I think you get the picture. The main point here is that the Red Pill formulation of Alpha = extreme masculinity seems to be wrong. Sure there is a lot to it, but some Alphas are not very masculine at all, others are wimps and there are out and out girly faggots with the most beautiful women you have ever seen.

I think that Alpha = masculine, Beta = less masculine, and Omega = least masculine simply doesn’t explain the whole picture.

Clearly there is more to being sexy than masculinity, and some unmasculine, androgynous and even out and out faggoty men can do outrageously well with women.

I would point out that all of these men were extremely good-looking. They all had very pretty faces, and I believe all of them were also blond. According to one theory, what women most value is looks. They simply want a good-looking man. Masculinity takes a back seat to looks. The best looking 20

So maybe if you are not ultramasculine, you still might do all right as long as you are Chad. This also shows that some women could care less about masculinity or are even perfectly happy with quite unmasculine men so the Red Pill formulation that female sexuality is all about masculinity has to be rewritten. It’s clearly not true in many cases.

“Look! He’s Crying! Beat Him Up!”

One of my best friends was named DN. He was a real sissy-boy as a young boy, crying all the time. So of course all the rest of us boys gleefully beat him up every time he did that. I remember it now in 5th and 6th grade: “Look! He’s crying! Beat him up!” and we would all run over to him and beat him for crying in public like that. We never questioned why a boy who burst into tears all the time needed to get his ass kicked. We just did it.

Of course now I understand that this was simple male socialization, or I should say heterosexual male socialization. Masculinity is to some extent constructed in males. Boys don’t pop into he world as he-men and all boys cry. Most of us pretty much get the tears beaten out of his one way or another. This is how boys become men – it’s a process.

Self-Delusion: The World of the Female

Most women don’t have the faintest idea what they are even doing half the time, and they certainly don’t know why they are doing it. If you ask them to explain themselves, you just get this wild hamstering and a whole bunch of outrageously contradictory statements, self-delusion and out and out lies. Which proves that they don’t have the faintest idea what they are doing or why they are doing it.

With most women, there is a vast disconnect between:

What they think they are doing (idealized worldview of special snowflake).

What they are actually doing (rather ugly truth and a lot of things not accepted by society, like being completely disreputable).

Why they think they are doing things (for the most elevated and pure motives).

Why they are actually doing things (often for base, animalistic, low, uncivilized, gutter or even evil motives).

This sort of craziness is lurking in many women, and it is why you often see such wildly contradictory statements and behaviors emanating from them.

The Reality of Being on Disability in the US

Jason Y says:

Disability checks are very low anyways. If they’re giving away money they should at least give away a lot. I’m assuming the low amount is incentive for people to work.

Actually, though I heard it’s hard to get on disability. Since it’s hard to get on it, then why all the hate on those who get it?

I have some friends and family on disability and also I have had a number of counseling clients on it, so I know how it works.

I know people on disability who do not work, but I also know some who work every chance they get. I know a few people on disability who are trying to get work every single day. Every time I see them, they ask me if I know how they could make some money.

The problem is that most people on disability want to work under the table, but many jobs don’t pay under the table. They don’t want to work over the table because when you do, they take too much of the money away, and it’s hardly even worth it. Also if you make any sort of decent money at all, pretty soon they will probably call you in for an evaluation to see if you should be kicked off disability or not.

I don’t really think people should be kicked off. For instance, I know people on SSDI who told me that they are on for life due to a genetic lifetime condition. They said if they ever make a lot of money in a month, then they might just get a check for zero dollars. But the main thing is that even with a $0 check, they still get medical care (Medicaid). This is really the way it ought to be. Most people on disability ought to stay on as long as they are disabled at all. If they do happen to luck into some work, then just reduce the check as low as need be all the way down to $0, but keep them on medical care for as long as they are significantly disabled.

I know people who are on disability, but they do not want to go off because if they go off and take a job, they will lose their medical care, yet most jobs probably won’t give you medical.

A lot of people on disability can work somewhat at certain jobs. But most of them are basically unemployable. That’s just the reality of it. They would be last on any employer’s hiring list.

A lot of them could work, but not full-time and especially not for a stranger. They could probably work part-time, but not for a stranger. They could work part-time for a friend or family and probably only on a very flexible schedule. For instance, maybe 2 hours today, 4 hours tomorrow, one hour the next day, 5 hours after that, but then two days when they couldn’t come in at all. No employer is going to hire a stranger to work a crazy schedule like that.

The Latest Outrage from the Feminist Enemy

Feminists are outlawing paternity testing.

France has actually made it illegal for a man to do paternity testing on the kid that his wife had. Incredible. And it is de facto illegal in Germany. In France, you need the woman’s approval to do paternity testing (!?) and good luck getting it! I can’t believe how insane this is.

This is exactly where women will go if you let them. Everything for the woman, nothing, or less than nothing, for the man.

In fact, there is a significant feminist movement in favor of “social parenting rather than genetic parenting.” That means you are on the hook for child support even if the kid that your cheating whore wife bore isn’t even yours! WTF.

There is a reason why male cheating has traditionally been more tolerated than female cheating. Female cheating is hated so much that the male victims of it are typically shamed or humiliated as “cuckolds.” If you read Shakespeare you will see many references to cuckolding. At that time, the worst insult you can say to a man would be to accuse him of being a cuckold. In fact, the word “horny” comes from the cuckolding concept. So does the idea of creeping up behind a man and putting a peace sign over his head. When you hold up two fingers over a man’s head, those are “horns.” It means he is wearing horns, that is, he is cuckolded, and this is where the word “horny” comes from.

The concept is also seen in the Spanish language, where cabron is the worst thing you can say to a man, and will often get you punched or even killed. Men in Latin America will kill over that insult. To call a man a cabron is to call him a male goat. Male goats have horns. If a man is “wearing horns” he has been cuckolded.

Let’s face it, no matter how much a woman’s partner cheats, when she has a baby, she can be assured that it is her child. This is very important – ownership of the child is very important. If a woman cheats on her man and has a baby, the man has no idea whatsoever whether that kid is his or not. He cannot be assured that that is his child (see above for women always being assured of ownership).

So when a woman cheats, her man is not sure of ownership of the child, and when the man cheats, she is at least sure that she owns any children that come out of her. Owing a child is very important. If a man is not sure that his child is his, he ends up raising another man’s child born by his woman. That is the last thing on Earth any man wants to do. Biologically, any male would consider raising another man’s child unknowingly to be a complete waste of time and resources.

This is why women’s cheating is so much more serious. In order to discourage women from cheating, men who got cheated on by their women were utterly humiliated by all of society. The fear that a man had of being humiliated in this way was enough to make sure he kept his wife on a tight leash all the time.

It also gave rise to the common reaction when a man catches his woman in bed with another man. It is quite common in such a case for the wronged man to kill both his woman and her boyfriend. In addition, many patriarchal societies simply murder women who are caught cheating. It’s right there in there social structure. This is probably another reason female sexuality was kept on such a tight leash by societies the world over. It needed to be controlled because otherwise you would have women cheating all over the place and paternity and jealousy issues with the attendant humiliation and homicide. In order to prevent these bad things, societies considered female sexuality a wild animal that needed to be kept in a very secure cage.

New Interview with Me Up

Warning! This interview is definitely NSFW! A lot of discussion of explicit sex acts in this interview, so be warned!


Robert Stark Interviews Robert Lindsay About the Alternative Left, Immigration & Cultural Leftist Insanity

Topics include:

Topics include: Proposal for an Alternative Left Robert Lindsay as the Left Wing of the Alternative Right Why it’s hard to be politically homeless in American politics How the Establishment Left is a fusion of neoliberal capitalism and cultural leftism Why Robert Lindsay rejects the term “Cultural Marxism” The Alternative Left’s stance on immigration, trade, the environment, and social issues. The corporate push for open borders and the Mainstream Left’s collusion The Progressive Case for Reducing Immigration Progressive UC Davis Prof Endorses Trump Immigration Plan Donald Trump’s stances on immigration and trade When It Comes To Sex, Nothing Is Too Perverted for the Cultural Left How society has become more degenerate in general while at the same time becoming puritanical about certain issues

How Does Weimar Germany Validate the Theory of Cultural Marxism?

Ben Steigmann writes:

I found this to be interesting:

Yes, but during that era, there were not any Marxist Jews in Germany preaching decadence and depravity for the German Gentiles in order to facilitate a Communist Revolution! This is what the crazy Cultural Marxist theory would suggest.

Yes, there were Jews who formed a short-lived Communist government in Bavaria in 1920 which was quickly overthrown. There was also the Communist Party of Germany the German Social Democratic Party. The Communists and the socialists despised each other and often fought in the streets. Strangely enough, proto-fascists were also very active politically during this time, and they also fought with both parties of the Left in the streets all the time. And government itself was basically paralyzed.

Neither the Communists nor the Social Democrats nor certainly the Fascists had anything to do with the mass cultural and sexual depravity of the decade. Surely the fascists and the Communists opposed it, as both tend to be puritanical, and I doubt if the Social Democrats had much to say about it either, as this was before the Left became a Cultural Left. Back then, socialists didn’t have much to say about culture as they tended to form all of their analysis around class based economics and felt that any other analysis was not productive.

First of all, Cultural Marxist theory starts with the Frankfurt School Jews after WW2. These decadent Jews were German Jews during the 1920’s. Yes, this era during which there was heavy Jewish influence was characterized by extreme cultural degeneration and depravity, but the Jews were not doing it to weaken the Gentiles in order to facilitate Communist Revolution. The Jews themselves were succumbing as much to this degeneration and depravity as the Gentiles were.

How does the example of Weimar Germany elucidate the Theory of Cultural Marxism?

The Big Lie about “Cultural Marxism”

Latias writes:

“Cultural Marxism”? Why? Why not just cultural liberalism? I do not see anything about a class struggle there? It makes preferring bourgeois values (or their radical perversion) over traditional aristocratic values “Marxist”.

The Right calls the Cultural Left “Cultural Marxism.” It’s bullshit. It’s all based upon a nutty anti-Semitic conspiracy theory centered around Communist subversion and a bunch of postwar German Jews out of a school of thought called The Frankfurt School. Supposedly these Marxist Jews plotted and encouraged the total cultural degeneration of the West in order to weaken us to make us easy prey for Revolution. As far as I can tell, this is nothing but bullshit, but the Right, especially the Alt Right, the Hard Right and the Racist Right, won’t shut up about it.

Most Cultural Left types aren’t even all that Left on economics. Most of them seem to be pushing a combination of Cultural Left with neoliberal economics. No one in the Cultural Left is pushing any sort of real Revolution other than a Revolution of Depravity and Degeneracy.

The real Marxists in the Cultural Left are usually pushing social conservatism and puritanism – see Radical Feminism for instance. Their view is about as “libertarian” as Maoist China. Socialist feminism is not a whole lot different from radical feminism, with an emphasis on puritanism, celebration of political lesbianism and other forms of conservatism, insanity and idiocy.

Why Capitalists Are Always Suicidal

Dear Robert

The right is almost certainly wrong in their denial of the causal connection between CO2 emissions and global warming. However, they are right about one thing: decarbonization is going to be expensive. There is a reason why fossils fuels became the chief source of energy for mankind. They are very energy-dense, not very expensive to produce and can easily be stored. The enormous rise of prosperity among most humans since 1750 would not have been possible without fossil fuels.

The left often talks about other sources of energy as if they are an economic boon. They are nothing of the sort. If you have to replace your furnace for a green source of heating, then that is a cost, not a benefit to you. It may be a necessary cost, but let’s not pretend that it will make you richer. Similarly, if mankind has to abandon fossil fuels, this will be very costly.

The argument that green energy creates jobs is pathetic, not because there won’t be new jobs in that sector, but because we can’t only look at jobs that are being created but also have to look at jobs that are being destroyed. If coal mines, oil refineries, gas stations, etc all have to close, then that means job losses. This green argument is on the same level of stupidity as the argument that increased military expenditure is good for the economy because it creates jobs in the arms industry and the armed forces. Yes, and it destroys in the civilian sector.

Sooner or later, mankind will have to be weaned off fossil fuels, but let’s not pretend that it will be cheap and easy. regards. James


We have to go off fossil fuels no matter the economic costs. This is the insanity of capitalism. Capitalists that we have to blow up the whole damn planet in order to save the economy. In other words, if it’s a choice between a hit to the economy and destroying the planet, the capitalists say, fine, let’s destroy the planet.

Are you starting to see why we socialists hate capitalism so much?

Republicans Pivot on Climate Change


Acknowledge the science, but say fixing Climate change will be too expensive all renewables are bad for the environment.

This is so not going to work.

The Republitards are venturing into an area that they know nothing about (in fact they don’t even believe in it): science. So of course Carly Fiorina does nothing but step on rakes for all four minutes of her intardview.

Face it morans. Science is bad for capitalism. The truth is bad for capitalism.

Republicans are almost like SJW PCtards.

The Cultural Left hates science too. They call the science they hate “pseudoscience” while the Republicans call the science they hate “junk science,”but the mentality is the same.

Face it. The truth is bad for the PC Dream World, so they simply deny science and say the truth is evil, or racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic or whatever. Most people who figure out that the truth is evil simply can’t cope with that fact because it interferes with the Fantasyland they call Reality, so they simply say that the truth is false, the false is true, Reality is a lie, and Fantasyland is true. That’s the Cultural Left in a nutshell right there.

Republicans don’t say the truth is evil. They just say the truth is bad for capitalism, so therefore it isn’t true.

It’s truly pitiful that the Cultural Left has so much in common with the Teabagger Party. But as a friend of mine noted recently when I told him that I hated PC Commissars far more than Republicans, “Well, the PC people are similar to the Republicans. They both have contempt for the truth.”

Robert Stark interviews Dota about Oligarchy & National Capitalism

Dota and Bay Area Guy are former commenters at Robert Lindsay who went off to form their own site. May we spawn many more such Lindsaybabies! Many more! Forever more! I always liked Dota, even if he is more conservative than I am. You can’t expect everyone to be your political clone. Then you won’t have any friends. I don’t even know what national capitalism is. But if that’s what the Chinese are up to, I do not mind it at all actually.

I don’t really mind Paleocons. I will take a dozen Paleocons over one leftwing PC SJW. I am somewhat embarassed that American Conservative resonates with me. Nevertheless, I am not really a conservative in any way, shape or form. Even social conservatism doesn’t resonate with me in any  way, shape or form. Nor am I much on the Left anymore. Nor am I a mushy Centrist invertebrate. What am I? Alternative Left maybe?

Interview here.

Dota is a Canadian Paleoconservative of Indian origin. He blogs at Occident Invicta. Topics include:

Dota’s article Oligarchy 101 about how 5 banks rigged the foreign exchange market National Capitalism – A Third Alternative? Dota’s article America’s Tainted Democracy about how South Asians are beginning to use their wealth to buy political clout Resisting Our Cultural Marxist Elites – A Few Strategies To Consider

Flynn Gains Appear to Be Gains in Actual Intelligence, Not “Hollow Gains”

Ben Steigmann writes:


“When you analyze IQ gains over time, you often find that they do not constitute enhancement of these latent traits — they do not seem to be general intelligence gains, or quantitative factor gains, or verbal factor gains (Wicherts et al, in press). In the language of factor analysis, this means that IQ gains over time tend to display ‘measurement artifacts or cultural bias’. For a second time, we are driven to the conclusion that massive IQ gains are not intelligence gains or, indeed, any kind of significant cognitive gains.” – James R. Flynn

Yes, but he doesn’t really say that.

Flynn gains show major gains in abstract thinking. That is, humans have been getting better and better at abstract thinking and especially abstract verbal thinking via Flynn gains. The reason for this in that we engage in much more scientific thinking than we used to. Humans keep getting more and more scientific minded with each generation and this shows up on tests. A more scientific minded person is a more intelligent person than a less scientific person.

Flynn gains show major gains in the ability to solve new problems that we have never been confronted with before. We are better at problem solving ability due to Flynn gains. This may be due to the increased complexity of modern society.

Flynn gains show massive gains in visuospatial skills, particularly visuospatial analysis. We are simply more intelligent with regard to visuospatial analysis than we were before, possibly due to all of the gadgets that we use and the complex nature of modern society.

Let us go test by test to show what tests the Flynn gains are on.

Digit Span: This tests working memory. According to the results of this test, we have better working memory due to Flynn gains.

Coding: This is a test of raw processing speed. According to the results of this test, our brains are better at raw processing speed (they work faster than before) due to Flynn gains.

Block Design, Perceptual Reasoning, Picture Completion, Comprehension, and Similarities: The gains on Similarities are particularly striking. These are tests of verbal skills, primarily verbal analytical skills. According to the results of these tests, we are better at verbal analysis than due to Flynn gains.  This, particularly the Similarities gains, may be due to increased scientific thinking in day to day life. People are thinking much more scientifically than they used to be, hence they are more intelligent than they were before.

Picture Arrangement: This tests logical reasoning. According to the results of this test, we are better at pure logical thinking due to Flynn gains. Once again, I think the fact that we think more scientifically is the reason for this. Scientific thinking is based on logic and a more scientifically oriented person is more logical than a less scientific person.

Object Assembly: This is a test of visual analysis, synthesis and construction. According to the results of this test, we are better at visual thinking due to Flynn gains. We can analyze things visually better, we can synthesize visual input better with other visual input, and we can build and construct things visually better than before. These gains may be due to all of the tech gadgets that we increasingly use which are probably making us smarter in visual matters.

Digit Symbol: This is a test of raw processing speed like Coding above. It also tests visuomotor coordination. So now we have two tests that show that our brains are actually working faster due to Flynn gains. We are also better at visuomotor coordination due to Flynn gains. This seems like exactly the type of skill that would improve with all the computer, video game, TV remote control, cellphone, and smartphone use going on. All of those things would seem to require visuomotor coordination.

Block Design: This is a test of visuospatial motor skills somewhat similar to Digit Symbol above. This skill is excellent for those going into fields such as engineering and physics. This test is one of the best measures of visuospatial ability ever designed. People who excel at math and science due very well on this test. According to the results of this test, we are better at visuospatial motor skills of the type used in math and science fields due to Flynn gains.

Society is becoming increasingly scientific and also increasingly mathematical. Probably 50 years ago, most people did not need much in the way of math skills. Furthermore, mathematics teaching has dramatically improved in grade school over the last century. This is evidence that better mathematics teaching in elementary school causes actual growth in certain areas of the frontal lobe of the brain. Better math teaching actually gives you a better brain!

Similarities: This test shows perhaps the largest Flynn rise of them all. Similarities tests verbal comprehension, visual abstract processing and problem solving, particularly for brand new problems that the person has never encountered before (problem solving on the fly). According to the results of this test, we are better at comprehending verbal input, the processing of visual abstract thinking (also shown in other gains) and problem solving as a result of Flynn gains.

The suggestion is that the increased use of scientific thinking is possibly responsible for the huge gains on this test. Note that we are now better at problem solving on the fly for novel problems due to Flynn gains. This is why the “hollow gains” nonsense bothers me so much. Don’t you think that an improved ability to solve novel problems on the fly would come in handy at work and in life in general?

Comprehension: This is a test of the ability to deal with abstract social conventions, rules and expressions. I believe this is the test where they give you a saying and ask you to interpret it, like “People in glass houses should not throw stones.” According to the results of this test, we are better at figuring out abstract social conventions, rules and expressions in human society due to Flynn gains. Why we would become better at this is unknown, but the interpretation of sayings is probably due to improved logical and scientific thinking.

Picture Completion: This is a test of the ability to quickly perceive visual details. According to the results of this test, we can now see details in visual objects and scenes better as a result of Flynn gains. I would think that a society of people who spend so much time watching TV, on the Internet, at computers, playing videogames and using cellphones and smartphones would get better at quickly perceiving visual details in objects which you need to do to use any of these gadgets properly.

Picture Arrangement: This is a test of the ability to reason and the ability to understand the precursors and consequences of acts. According to the results of this test, we now have improved reasoning abilities and can understand the cause and effect relationship of things in life better as a result of Flynn gains. When I think “reasoning” and “cause and effect,” the first thing that comes to mind is scientific thinking. This once again may be a result of improved scientific thinking.

However, we have not improved at all on a number of tests, in particular on Vocabulary, Arithmetic and General Knowledge. That is, we know no more words, are no better at math and have no better general knowledge than people earlier in the last century. We have made no gains at all in these areas. The fact that we made no gains here, along with the fact that while we improved in one test of a battery but maybe did not improve in two others shows you the somewhat haphazard nature of the gains. It is true that we have not gained on “g” or general intelligence factor, but on the other hand, we are much more intelligent in certain areas and ways than we were before.

The phrase “hollow gains” is meaningless nonsense invented by Jensen to preserve his hard hereditarian beliefs.



Better Nutrition as a Possible Mechanism for the Flynn Effect


Developmental gains at age 0-2 mirror Flynn IQ rises. This rules out test-taking effect, education, etc. as causes and suggests better nutrition.

A high correlation was found between increased developmental gains in recent years and the Flynn Effect. In other words, the FE is already operating from ages 0-2. That is too early for education or many other environmental effects to take place and the only reasonable explanation for Flynn-like gains at such a very early age is better nutrition. Furthermore, education is ruled out as is test-taking or practice effects, as infants don’t practice taking tests. Better test-taking skills has been suggested as a reason for the FE, but there seems to be a lot of good evidence that this is not true. Furthermore, infants get no formal education, so education cannot be a possible source of these early gains.

Also the theory that the Flynn Effect represents “hollow gains” and not any real increase in intelligence is laid to rest here. Developmental gains means that children are reaching real developmental milestones faster and better than they were before. The only way that could possibly be interpreted is as an intelligence increase. It’s not a “hollow gain” to for an infant to reach developmental milestones faster and better than they did earlier. If children are reaching these milestones better and sooner than they were before, that can only be possible if they are definitely smarter.

I always thought there was nothing to this “hollow gains” nonsense, and this is more evidence of that.

Conclusion: The Flynn Effect is real and appears to represent an actual intelligence increase, possibly related to better nutrition. It seems reasonable that better nutrition would make better brains, and that may be what is occurring.

"Rodbusters," by Alpha Unit

For millenia humans have created structures out of concrete. The Romans preferred concrete to all other construction materials, and their unique formula is the reason so many of ancient Rome’s monuments are still standing. The concrete we use today, while different from Roman concrete, is an excellent building material but as strong as it is, it has almost no tensile strength: it can’t withstand much pulling or stretching. For that reason builders reinforce it with rebar.

These metal rods, which have spaced patterns of bumps or swirls to help the concrete grip them, allow concrete to bend and flex without cracking or breaking. Rodbusters, the ironworkers who install rebar, have one of the most physically demanding jobs in construction.

Rodbusters will tell you that their shoulders especially take a pounding. They do a lot of lifting, and routinely carry heavy rebar on their shoulders. During hot weather, shoulder burns from hoisting hot steel rods are common. Here’s how one rodbuster describes his work:

Your back is shot, shoulders are raped, you can’t walk from being in the SLDL position all day long, and you literally have no free time aside from our [mandated] breaks.

Another rodbuster has pretty much the same view:

It’s good clean work…but it’s hell on the body. Carrying 150-180 pounds of 30′ rods all day gives your lower back, shoulders, and legs a beating. Not to mention tying [rebar] all day long as well. Picture being in the SLDL start position for five minutes at a time.

SLDL stands for Stiff Legged Deadlift.

Once a rodbuster positions the rebar, he ties it together with wire. He has to wrap wire securely around any area with two or more rebar sections that intersect or overlap. Tied corners are weak, so he installs bent rebar at corners. A job might involve cutting or welding.

Tying rebar requires fast, repetitive hand and arm movements while applying a lot of force. When a rodbuster ties rebar at ground level, he typically works in a stooped position, with his body bent deeply forward. A rodbuster informs us:

For a career as a rodbuster, you’re always bunched forward. You can always tell a rodbuster by how he looks.

Ironworkers in the United States have been represented since 1896 by the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental, and Reinforcing Iron Workers. But throughout the country there are rodbusters working without a union contract.

Some non-union rodbusters have walked off the job to protest working conditions. They report making significantly less than the national average for reinforcing ironworkers. They say they can work 18-hour days sometimes, without warning. There are no health benefits, and if there is an accident, it might not get reported to OSHA. Such protests have taken place in Vancouver, Washington; in Houston, Texas; and in Manchester, Tennessee.

Union or non-union, if you can set and tie rebar, you have a skill that’s in demand. Some ironworkers say that in their line of work, the sooner you get in and get out, the better off you are. As one of them put it:

I was a rodbuster for over 30 years, and if you go that route you will find out GOD fucking hates you. The first two weeks every muscle in your body will fucking hate you. But remember this, you are not the only one that will do it or has been through it, and you will survive.


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)