Seduction Is Lying, Lying Is Seduction

A female commenter writes:

I know almost all young guys lied at least once in their life to a girl to sleep with her, but it’s a criminal act, just like take advantage on a drunken woman. The trivialization of this behavior in our society must stop. Lying is not an act of seduction, it’s predatory behavior.

A man can’t lie to a woman, make them believe they are someone they are not, to obtain a consent for a sexual relationship. We have a law about it here in Canada.

Oh no, I lied. I lied all the time to girls and women, of course.

You must understand that all womanizers lie. They do not lie all the time, but they lie a lot. I would say most of them lie a good part of the day.

If you want to be polygamous, I would not tell new women that, at least not at the start. Most women do not want a guy who is polygamous. People act like being polyamorous is this groovy new thing that everyone is cool with, but really it’s not. It’s fringe.

I could go on a dating site right now and make a profile that says I am polyamorous and it will get exactly zero hits. If I could someone get some women talking to me on that site and I mentioned that I was polyamorous, she would take off in a New York minute. Boom! Just like that! Bam! Gone! So you never put that in a dating site, and I can’t imagine telling women you are dating that you are polyamorous or polygamous or whatever. Most of them will just take off as soon as they hear that. If you want to be polyamorous or polygamous, that’s just fine, but you are going to have to lie a lot.

Every time you start dating a new woman, remember, you’re always completely single and you need to assure her she’s the only one.

I would not even bring up the subject about other women when you start dating someone. If they don’t bring it up, just don’t discuss it. Leave it off the table. If they bring it up, now you have to start thinking.

One thing I don’t do a lot is confess to women that I am single. I learned a long time ago that this is usually a complete catastrophe. Bottom line is if you are totally single and there is no woman in your life, that means no women want you. The woman you tell that to looks at you and thinks, “Ok, no woman wants this guy. Well, in that case, I don’t want him either!”

So if you’re totally single, you just lie and say that there is a woman or two floating around your life. I would say you are just dating around, but nothing serious. But don’t tell her that you have some main girlfriend. That’s a terrible idea and I will get to that below. So you can’t be totally single, and you can’t have a main girlfriend either. It’s a fine tightrope to walk.

You can say different things:

“Well, there are a couple of women in my life now, just casual dating.”

“Well right now, I guess you could say that I have a harem.”

“I don’t discuss my sex life, haha.”

“There are women in my life from time to time, yes.”

“Women come and go in my life. I can’t keep track of this stuff.”

“Just a few women here and there or now and then.”

“Why do you want to know? And why should I tell you? No I don’t have a major girlfriend, that would be correct.”

This last one is very important. If you tell her you have a girlfriend, a lot of women are going to take off right there.

First of all, it means they are going to be Woman #2.

A lot of women will tell you, “No way. I am strictly monogamous. When I have someone in my life, it’s just that person and that person only.”

Or they might get completely outraged if you say, “Hey, I have a girlfriend.” They might flip out, hang up the phone, cut short a date, tell you to leave, walk out the door, start screaming at you, etc. Then they will go tell their female friends (who might be your friends too) that you made tried to go out with her and then you told her you already had a girlfriend. A lot of women (and some men) think it that is a completely outrageous and assholey thing to do.

Bottom line is if you have one serious girlfriend and you looking for other ones to add to your collection, it’s really best to lie and say you don’t have a girlfriend. Sure you can be honest and straight up with them and tell them you have a main girlfriend, but most of them will just storm out as soon as you say that. So why do it? Why be honest? What for? Honesty is stupidity. If you’re honest, you’re just going to fail, so it’s really mandatory to lie if you want to have any success at all in this game.

But if once you start going out, a lot of times they start asking you if you have any other woman, and you have to lie and say you don’t. You have to tell them that you are monogamous.

“Oh no. You’re the only one.

“There’s no other woman in my life.”

“I wish there was another woman! I should be so lucky! But no, there’s only you.”

“No, I only date one woman at a time. That is very important to me. I hate dishonest men. That’s taking advantage, and I don’t do that. It’s so sleazy!”

“I would tell you if I had another woman. I don’t like to cheat.”

“I am only with one woman at a time. I don’t sleep around. There are so many diseases out there. It’s scary. You can’t be too careful.

Jews Created Libertarianism

These are the heroes of Libertarianism, and they are all Jews. The thing in the upper left is an entity called Ayn Rand. Supposedly it was human, but I doubt it. I believe the Henry Kissinger looking creature on the lower left is called Murray Rothbard. On the right, I have no idea. They look like a couple of Jews to me. Apparently these are two of the leading lights of Libertarianism,male "midwives" who birthed this monstrosity from the Devil's womb.
Another movement, another bunch of Jews. Yawn. These are the heroes of Libertarianism, and they are all Jews. The thing in the upper left is an entity called Ayn Rand. Supposedly it was human, but I doubt it. I believe the Henry Kissinger looking creature on the lower left is called Murray Rothbard. On the right, I have no idea. They just look like a couple of Jews to me. Apparently these are two of the leading lights of Libertarianism, male “midwives” who birthed this monstrosity from the Devil’s womb.

The rogue’s gallery of the fathers and mothers of Libertarianism. On the right are Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard. Bonus points for the Juden on the left.

Antisemites like to make a big deal out of this stuff. Jews created Communism. Ok. And then Jews created Libertarianism. Ok. And for that matter, they created a whole lot of other movements that are rather over the map. This is all apparently some part of some big planned out Jew Plot.

Supposedly there’s some sort of “Jewish reason” that Jews created Communism. And another “Jewish reason” that they created Libertarianism. And all these “Jewish reasons” that they created all these other movements. Well, God-damn. These Jews are creating a veritable Rube Goldberg contraption of movements!

Libertarianism is the exact opposite of Communism. Most Communists probably think anarcraps should be shot. I believe I concur. No, actually, I don’t think they should be shot. I just think they should be killed.

Libertarians say Commies are the enemy. And it is certainly an honor to be hated by such people.

True, both movements have attracted a lot of Jews, but Communism attracted more.

I am having a very hard time seeing the Jewy Plots and how they are all connected. It doesn’t seem to make any sense at all. Antisemites say this was all coordinated at Jew Central Control or someplace like that. What sense does that make?

None of this makes much sense. Sure I suppose typically there is something in it for the Jews but if Communism and Libertarianism are both great for the Jews, you have to figure that probably just about anything can be construed as good for the Jews.

I would just say “Jews create movements.” There is something messianic about these people that makes them want to run about and create political movements here and there. I suppose if you want to start a new political movement, just hire a bunch of Jews and pay them to put it together for you and get it off the ground.

Antisemites don’t make a lot of sense. There’s Jews here, Jews there, Jews everywhere. Look out! There’s one over there! He’s flying towards you! Duck, quick! There’s a Jew around the next corner, better watch your step! Whatever you do, don’t look under your bed. There’s a Jew there!

That type of conspiracy theory is just dumb.

Should Men Ever Hit Women?

I say we smack them if they attack us first with punches, kicks, spitting in your face, throwing water in your face. I don’t know about throwing objects. No women ever threw an object at me. I understand modern women throw objects around like Major League ballplayers these days though. I guess that’s what being “liberated” is all about. Now you get to act like a psycho, baby!

I’ve never hit one who didn’t physically assault me first. I guess I could hit a woman who just provoked me by words or behavior, but I never have. I definitely feel like killing them sometimes when they do that, but I don’t actually do much, and it depends on what they say or do. A lot of times I start cussing them out when they get evil on me. If a woman bitches me out real ugly, I just swear at her. I never attack anyone’s Achilles Heels when I fight with them, and actually I seldomr even get personal because that seems like dirty fighting. That’s a bitch way to fight, women fight dirty. If you fight dirty, you’re fighting like a bitch, like a little bitch. I am a man, and I feel that you should fight honorably. And that means not getting personal and pushing people’s buttons. Every now and then I push a woman’s buttons if I am really furious at her, but I don’t feel good about that and I should quit because that is a moral failing and it lowers me down to other’s level where I should be above them.

I especially like to call names. I call them every name in the book. Especially cunt. That’s my favorite because it pisses them off more than anything. They go absolutely stark raving bonkers furious nuts when you use that word on them, so it’s a cool weapon. I will say though that it usually doesn’t seem to work well. There may be some good longterm effects from going to war with them real crazy like that, but in the short-term it just escalates the battle. Where it was a battle, now it’s all out war, and it’s all because I started calling names. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but calling names is not a way to end a fight. All it does it make a small fight bigger.

I suppose I could hit a woman just on verbal or behavioral provocation, but I never have. Have I felt like hitting women based on outrageous verbal or behavioral provocation. Oh Hell yeah. You would keel over if I told you some of the provocative stuff women have done to me over the years. Sometimes I think they were daring me to hit them.

I think hitting a woman who has not attacked you first is a pretty low descent. I am not saying they don’t deserve it. I read about the way modern women act these days, and I think, “God-damn, these bitches need to be knocked across a room for that.” But then I never do it. I just think it. Actually I wish more of these modern women did get hit when they acted absolutely outrageous in the most insanely provocative way trying to push people 100 miles past their limits.

They’re pretty much trying to get you to hit them at that point. Probably other men should do the hitting though and not me. I will just stand on the sidelines and cheer on the rounds. Part of me fantasizes that if we started knocking them around a bit when they do what I call “trying to get murdered,” maybe these modern women would get scared, and the behavior would decrease.

But I doubt it.

Modern women don’t have any of the wisdom that the women of my mother’s generation did. None of it. Not 1%. I never thought I would have so much respect for that generation of women until I starting meeting way too many women in my own cohort, and I started realizing how much better the WW2 Generation women were.


That’s what this idiot is. They’re called anarcaps, but I call them anarcraps.

This Stefan Molyneux is an anarcrap. They’re supposed to be groovy and granola and health food and hipster and cool and with-it because they have “anarchist” in their names, but the vast majority of anarchists hate them and won’t even speak to them, which is the right plan.

Famous author Neal Stephenson is another anarcrap. That is why I refuse to read any of his “great literature.”

If I had my way, I’d put all the anarcraps in Hell. No wait, they already are there. In that case, set them on fire, ISIS-style.

You First, Stefan

Just do it, Steven. Trust me. You will not be missed!
Just do it, Stefan. Trust me. You will not be missed! What’s holding you back, Steve? I am so sorry that you can’t follow through on your words. If there’s anything I can do to help you commit suicide, please email me and I will see what I can do for you. Ok?

What do you know about Stefan Molyneux?

I thought he was very interesting at first because he’s so groovy and with-it nowadays, but this radical Libertarian website was linking to him, and I thought, “Whoa Nelly! Hold your horses!” I immediately became extremely suspicious of him, so I went to look at his videos and got even more confused and suspicious, so I went to Wikipedia. Turns out he is a very carefully hidden reactionary Libertarian fuck disguised a vegetarian, organic, holistic, New Age Leftist. He quotes Mao, Che Guevara, Bill Ayers, Micheal Aflaq, Enver Hoxha, and Saddam, and he’s about as rightwing as the Koch Brothers.

Clever, Stefan clever!

Just like the NDASP calling themselves “socialist” to trick progressive people into supporting a reactionary agenda! Way to co-opt.

He’s just another reactionary Libertarian just like all the rest of them. Why is this guy some special snowflake? Because he’s groovy and eats granola? Come on. Pull your head out, people.

Just Get Rid of Your Family, and Everything Will Be Fine

So says Steve Molyneux! And we all need to listen to him right now! Why? Because he’s famous, dude, come on. His every word is 24 carat. How could he be wrong?

He tells everyone to completely cut out your biological family from your life forever. Well, granted, people do this, and here in the US, apparently it’s almost a requirement. I live 33 miles away from my mother, and I keep getting told by lots of people that that means I still live with my Mom! Because in Amurika, if you life within driving distance of your folks, that means you still live at home.

You guys wonder why I hate people.

Look, independence is a good idea, but friends, even the so-called best ones who almost never are best friends because they’re not for life, come and go like the weather. Friends and girlfriends, especially the latter, drop me from their lives forever and ever as casually as taking out the trash, which is what I figure they are doing.

I am talking people I have known for years, like 10 years. Yeah. Just like that. Bam. It’s over.

In other words, guess what? Newsflash!  Friends and lovers come and go like the breeze! People who swear they will stay with you for life leave after a year or two, and that’s if they didn’t take off in several months.

Whatever. This is just the way it goes.

With no familial bonds, humans are simply free to cut off the deepest relationships without even a hint of afterthought.

Guilt? What’s that? A word in the dictionary? You miss someone? What the Hell does that mean?

Friends for life! Oh please. Get real. I have maybe two friends for life. Two. That’s exactly how many stuck with me through it all.

At the end of the day, only your Goddamn family is going to back you up forever in the long haul. And in my case, this even means extended family like aunts, whom I am very close to, as I am usually closer to women than men. Uncles are fine too, but they haven’t really backed me up. Cousins? Fair weather friends. Not really there when you need them.

Immediate family? Bingo. No matter what, you can always go home again.  They will try to get you out of any jam. No matter how bad you screw up, they always take you back with open arms, just like 0% of your friends and lovers.

Conclusion: Anyone who cuts out their supportive immediate family is stupider than Hell.

Wait. You are going to cut out the very people who will always be there for year, endless forgiveness, no grudges, always taking you back no matter what, for what now? For non-blood friends who come and go like the traffic and zero you out in an instant with barely a word of explanation? Great plan!

Why would anyone think this is a bright idea? Why the Hell would I do something so stupid? For my “psychological health?” So I can be an “adult?”

Blood’s thicker than water. Only your family will stick with you to the end. Things called “friends” and “lovers” are transitory entities who fly right out of your life like birds, never to be seen or heard from again.

Ever Been in a Fistfight or Other Physical Altercation with Another Man in Adulthood?

I have been in a number of fistfights, etc. with men, but you don’t need to know the details. Once I got beaten so badly I had to go to the hospital. I’ve been hit and beaten with objects all the way up to baseball bats.

If a guy hits me, he’s doomed because I will hit him back as hard as I can right away, and then a fight’s on. It goes on until it ends, usually quickly. Once I grabbed a guy and threw him down on a table, and the table broke into 100 pieces. He totally deserved it too because he came up to me at a party, insulted me to my face and started pouring his beer down the front of my shirt. I immediately punched him full force in the face, and the fight was on.

Even though I destroyed their table, the people who owned the table didn’t even care. They didn’t care that the table got destroyed because I kicked that guy’s ass, and everyone really hated him to the ultimate. For everyone at that party, that guy was on their list of Most Hated Persons on Earth so they felt that what I did was like a pubic service in some sense.

Anyway, I hate fistfights and avoid them at all costs because I perfectly well how strong and dangerous men are. Men are completely nuts and very powerful, and they can either beat the living shit out of you or even kill you just like that, in a heartbeat. I know that very well, and I am basically afraid of other men, so I try to completely kiss their asses when I am around them so they won’t try to hit me or kill me.

Now if you try to kill me, that’s another matter. If you try to kill me, I will try to kill you. It’s real simple. That’s already happened at least once.

As I noted, almost all of the time, I won’t hit someone until they get really physically aggressive with me first.

Only one time did I hit a guy who didn’t attack me. Two other guys and I had been sitting around drinking beers one evening, and I think we killed a case. Anyway, they started insulting me in these low level ways, laughing at me, making fun of me, etc. about halfway through the evening. I put up with it for some reason, but when they left, I grabbed one of the guys who had insulted me for a couple of hours, took a beer, threw it in his face and then punched him hard right in the face, both of which he deserved. Then I threw him out the door. So it’s only that once.

I don’t feel bad about any of these incidents. They all got what they deserved and then some. I sleep very well at night.

Ever Hit a Woman?

Note: The use of the word “bitch” has come under criticism. I do not like to use the word bitch to describe women in general. That is so misogynistic. What would you think of a woman who called all men “bastards” or “scumbags?” Well then we shouldn’t call all women bitches as a lot of these redpillers, MRA’s and PUA’s are doing. You’d call her a man-hater, and you wouldn’t like her one bit, would you? If we don’t like man-hating bitches then we shouldn’t act like misogynistic assholes. Right? We should not support that level of misogyny. It’s just wrong.

The women in the posts below are called bitches because they assaulted me physically. And I didn’t do a whole lot to provoke them other than maybe call names, and I only called names because they wouldn’t quit bitching me out. So they initiated physical violence against me every time.They were never fighting back against an abusive man, because I am not a domestic abuser. Yeah I’ll hit you. If you hit me first! Other than that, forget it.

Any woman initiates physical violence against me is a bitch, period. She’s a bitch at the time she did that. Now is she a bitch period? Well I don’t know. That depends. To be most fair, I would say she’s a bitch at the very time she hits you, but she’s not necessarily a bitch the rest of the time as long as she’s not hitting you.

But are women who assault men non-defensively bitches? At the time of the assault, yes they are.

There may be some exceptions. If you have pushed her past her limits on purpose, she might have an argument for assaulting you. And in the cases of longterm physical abuse in which the women killed their assaulters, I supported the women because that’s pretty much hitting back, and I always support hitting people back.

There, now I hope that is cleared up now.

I’ve hit some women, and they all richly deserved it, but every single time they either hit me, slapped me, spit in my face, or threw water at me at a dinner table. All of the women who hit me or threw water at me got punched immediately, and they all deserved it. If you throw water in my face, I will knock you across the room. Most of them didn’t get hurt when I hit them though. I am not sure why that is. There’s a possibility that I am such a damn pussy that my full-force punches don’t even hurt. Actually I have been told this a number of times.

One bitch hit me in an airport waiting room, and I didn’t even hit her back. I forget the details, but we were moving quickly around the waiting room, and she was swinging at me and kicking at me the whole time. Most people were shocked, but this old Black guy started tittering and laughing, and I thought that was cool of him to find humor in this situation because it was so actually pretty damn funny.

Finally I got sick and tired of being chased around the waiting room by the bitch, so I just BOOM I punched the bitch in the face as hard as I could, mostly just to stop her attacks. She got a bloody lip which she deserved, and it was a big huge scene. She kept trying to call the police to have me arrested on the feminists’ lunatic domestic violence laws (See why I hate feminists now?), but other people calmed her down. The one who threw water in my face and got pounded tried to call the police too, but others stopped her.

Once a bitch tried to hit me and spit in my face many times over a short period one night. I blocked most of the punches and most of the spit, but I did smack her good and hard in the shoulder when it first started, and once when I was blocking his spitting, I accidentally smacked her the bitch around the eye. She threatened to call the cops and have me arrested for the shoulder punch and the spit blocked eye shot, but she didn’t follow through.

Over the years, I have had bitches hit or try to hit me, spit in my face, kick me, or throw water in my face maybe 400 times. I only hit back 8 times.I hit back 8 times, and refused to hit back and just blocked hits 392 times. So I  blocked their attacks 98% of the time, and 2% of the time, I either punched them or pushed them down on the ground.

So as you can see, I am not really a violent person at all. Even when attacked, I almost always block the attack and don’t fight back.

Ever Fantasize about Killing Someone?

Jason Y writes:

So who is more disturbed, De Niro on Taxi Driver or Robert?

I am not that disturbed. I actually don’t really mind most people on an individual basis. Or at least I don’t hate them, let’s put it that way. I do not hate on an individual basis,the vast majority of people I meet. I have quite a few people I actually like, especially people I see on a regular basis. For instance, there is local corner store here, and everyone who works there totally loves me and acts like I’m they’re my best friend.

When I say I am homicidal, I don’t mean that seriously. I usually don’t want to kill any individual person. It’s more of a vague feeling directed at humanity in general. It’s hard to explain, and I know I would never do anything about it. I would have to hate people vastly more than I do now to go shoot up a mall, and even if I had that level of hatred, I still doubt if I would shoot up a mall because my massive inhibitions or guilt would stop me. I honestly do not think I will ever go postal. It’s just not going to happen, ever.

I have no guns, and I hate guns. I’ve never even tried kill someone except maybe someone who was trying to kill me. So really as long as you are not trying to kill me, I’m not going to try to kill you, so everyone needs to relax. That’s been my history for decades now, and I doubt if it will change. I guess I could use weapons other than guns, but I don’t even think about that, and I do not think I have ever used a handheld weapon against another person. I have used weapons, including very large knives, to threaten people before, and they deserved it, but never to attack someone. I’ve pulled knives on people before, but I’ve never stabbed anyone.

There are some old girlfriends about whom I say “I want to kill them to this very day,” and they richly deserve that feeling. It’s very vaguely true, but it’s something I almost never think about. And when I actually think of those women, I don’t like them very much, but I almost never think about killing them even in fantasy.

It’s just that some of the things that they said and did to me were absolutely unforgivable and completely warrant homicidal feelings towards them. But even then, it’s only when I think about that specific comment or action, my next thought is, “Goddamn I want to kill that bitch. She should be killed just for saying that/doing that to me.”

So most of the time I think about even those old girlfriends are fairly pleasant because I prefer to think about good things we did, and 99% of the time I am thinking about them, I am not feeling homicidal towards them. And this includes ones that I basically hate to this very day, and they deserve my hatred.

I think it is that I really do not like thinking about killing specific individual people because it bothers me on some level. And also something that happened long ago, I really should not still be all wrapped up in it.

Also there were a few guys who did stuff to me that pretty much warrants me killing them, and they would deserve it too for what they did to me. But even with them, when I imagine meeting them, the fantasy is more like I punch them in the face as hard as I can one time, which they would deserve, and walk away.

So I don’t really want to kill them either. I suppose I want to kill them in some vague sense, but it’s usually not even a fantasy because explicit homicidal fantasies about specific people bother me on some level.

I say vague because even if I met this guy who I really want to punch, I doubt if I would punch him. I have been in quite a few fistfights and physical altercations, but they always hit me or acted very physically aggressive towards me first.

Sure there’s a few guys I totally wanted to kill before, and they all deserved it. I did have homicidal fantasies about them even including plotting how I would do it. But the fantasies usually involve guns, and I don’t even have one, never have, and they terrify me. Also on some level, I know the fantasy will never happen.

That is because fantasy is different from thinking you really want to do something. A lot of evil fantasies involves things you know will never happen. So sure, I feel like killing them, and I even think about at times maybe, but I pretty much know it will never happen.

And there is one more thing. There were times when I was plotting how I would kill one of these guys, and I stopped myself because the thought process felt disturbing.

So I actually sat down and thought, “Hey wait a minute. Does this guy really deserve to die over what he did to me?” Almost always it comes back that even though what they did to me was horrific, monstrous and probably unforgivable, it doesn’t really warrant taking their lives. Actually killing them just seems wrong on some level.

When you think about what you are actually doing I mean what you are really, really, really, really doing, when you kill someone, you realize that true homicide is some very heavy shit. It’s about the heaviest shit you will ever deal with in your life. So if you kill or try to kill someone, you better have a damn good reason. The only time I ever actually tried to kill people was when they were trying to kill me.

I also start really worrying that I might get caught, and then that even if I did it and got away with it, I would have to walk around with that in my head for the rest of my life, and it might eat me up. Because killing someone who isn’t trying to kill you is so heavy that I’m not sure I could do it without being destroyed by guilt for the rest of my life.

Also when I get into these feelings about a specific person (which doesn’t happen too often), I usually only feel homicidal for 2-3 weeks. Then it just completely goes away for some reason (it sort of “burns out”), and I don’t miss it at all. It doesn’t seem healthy to stay in a homicidal frame about someone for a significant period of time. A few weeks, sure, but after that, it starts to feel disturbing, and I just want it gone.

I’m a Misanthrope

You should have figured that out by now.

Indeed I do hate all of humanity, but it’s for the reasons you might think. I hate people because they’re stupid, dumbass, brain-dead, boneheaded fucktards. That’s what it is all about. Nothing more, nothing less. I don’t think they’re bad or evil or anything like that, thought their idiocy sometimes makes them appear that way.

This has nothing to do with IQ. This is all about what I see as practical wisdom. Most humans just ain’t got it. The problem is most believe everything society tells them they have to believe. In order to be “normal” or a “normalfag” as the incel community puts it, there’s a long list of concepts about life and reality that you must incorporate. The problem is that probably half of them are out and out wrong. So probably 50% of the crap that’s needed to function socially is out and out pitiful lies. You either swallow the lies and function or reject them and you’re outside of society.

People simply are not wise at all.

I think part of the problem is humans are mentally handicapped. I can almost literally read your mind. That’s why I don’t get a whole lot of stuff wrong about people. I figure them out before I even talk to them if I’m around them long enough. I meet people and get a “reading” on them and figure out everything is really need to know about them via the usual nonverbal stuff. My skills as far as that goes are probably 100X better than your average person. I do not think most people can do this at all.

You either swallow all the BS and become one more fucktard, or you’re outside of society. But really outside of society is where you want to be.

So anyway, that’s the lowdown. I’m not really homicidal, except in fantasy. I don’t feel bad because I figure people deserve my homicidal fantasies. If you are starting to get worried, relax. I’ve been feeling this way since high school.

Anyway, I don’t believe in killing people just because you don’t like them, and even though people are so fucktarded that they are nearly useless, that’s not a capital offense. I’m not a Nazi. I don’t believe in euthanizing the mentally handicapped.

So anyway, other than the usual like police and army, what are job options for someone like me? Monastery? Night watchman?

I don’t feel good about this condition at all. In fact, I hate it. So every day I go out into the world determined to find some evidence against my misanthropy, and at the end of every day, I return disappointed. I’ve been getting worse for a long time now, and right now I am in a holding action and just playing defense.

Anyway, other than grabbing a rifle and climbing a tower, what are my options? Forget police and fire. Monastery?

It’s Always Darkest Before the Dawn?

People say that all the time, but there’s not much truth in it. Why, when you are at your low as it gets in the worst of all possible worlds, would that just happen to be the time when it’s morning in America and and you’re at the top of the world looking down on creation? So automatically it was the best of times and it was the worst of times are entities that literally turn into one another just like that?

What, is life inherently a manic-depressive psychosis? I mean the business cycle is. That’s as clear as air. But life itself? Get real.

More like, just when you thought things couldn’t get any worse, they do. That’s really terrible as I and all the rest of you can attest to, but it’s a lot more likely to happen than “it’s always darkest before the dawn.” Sad but true.

Instead of this “it’s always darkest before the dawn” BS, the truth instead is that “there literally is no bottom.” You know when people say “It can’t get any worse,” that’s wishful thinking. Well of course it can. Always and forever.

I am serious.

Now whether “there literally is no bottom” is better than “it’s always darkest before the dawn,” I’m not sure, but it can’t possibly be the slightest bit worse.

Oh Hell. It’s my party and I’ll cry if I want to, dammit.

Take to the Skies Tonight!

Sky Pilot by the Animals! One of the greatest bands of all time. Eric Burdon!

Angie Cohen just posted a list of Christian songs that you can listen to if you wish. But this was always one of my favorites. The video is about the Vietnam War, but I always thought this was a song about Christianity. Anyone know? Is it about Christianity or Nam?

If it’s a Christian song, it is one of the greatest Christian songs I have ever heard.

The prose that follows the video is my attempt at literary writing, in case you were wondering. This is what I call Flash Fiction. I write some flash fiction things now and again.

You’re welcome.

Sad Song

The rocket, if it was a rocket at all, raced across the sky towards the dawning hours away. The roar split the clouds. We thought the sky would fall down. In its wake, it’s only the two of us, you and me, shuddering in the screeching silence, and you know the the whole damn world can go right to Hell. When it all comes crashing down, we will still be standing here, you and me, shivering amidst the ruins.

How high can we fly?

Sky pilot!

Judy Collins, “Someday Soon”

Well anyway, even when there’s nothing left of anything else, I suppose there’s always music.

You retreat to your room and wall off the world. Make a little cave in there, under the covers. Turn the lights down low. And shut out everything else outside, forever, in the everlasting everness of ever.

Here we make our cocoon against the world.

In dreams, I walk with you!

In dreams I talk to you!

In dreams, you’re mine!

All of the time!

We’re together in dreams!

In dreams!

The years.

The long years.

The sadness of the years.

I Guess We Can Live Another Day Then

Just when you’re sure there’s nothing at all good anywhere anymore, and worst of all, you can scientifically prove it, a song comes drifting across the the night sky.

At there’s at least one reason to stick around one more day.

All is not lost, folks!

Always keep in that there is literally no bottom. No matter how low you think you are, no matter if you’re so low, you feel like you live at the Earth’s actual core, it can probably always be probably 100 times worse. That could be either depressing or heartening, but knowing it could always get worse has got to make any sane person breathe one more sigh of relief at least.

So comfort yourself, and sleep tight tonight, and sweet dreams, if you can abide.

Know Your Enemies! The Poor Walk among Us!

Remember that conservatives area all for incentives, which is why we all need to be conservatives. And never mind that the rich and the poor are equals. So say conservatives. Or do they?
Remember that conservatives are all for incentives, which is why we all need to be conservatives. And never mind that the rich and the poor are equals. So say conservatives. Or do they?

Recall that conservatives say that contracts entered into by the folks on the right and the folks on the left are “contracts between equals.” Hey, they’re fair contracts! Everyone signed on the dotted line, so everything’s legal and it’s all good. If you think this is preposterous as Hell, please join me.

Also keep in mind that as a Moronican, those humans on the left are the “good people” and those humans on the left are “bad people.” As proven by moral philosophy of course! So your contempt is all science-based, and now you can sleep well at night. It’s always proper to assume that our hatreds and loves are based on science (meaning it is a scientific fact that they are either good or evil). We need to scientifically prove that those we hate are bad and those we love are good, otherwise we can’t sleep.

Americanisms are many and varied. They are required if you want to reside here. Otherwise you are an America-hater. Along with this preposterous idea called “the most pitiful poor of all are my deadliest enemies” we have to follow along with the Jews and their amoral Talmud and agree “anything for a buck” and “all’s fair in love, war and business.”

Once you agree to these basic precepts, you are as American as Mom, apple pie, baseball and jello casserole.

God bless America! Thank you for your service!

Warning NSFW! Girlfriend Cheated on Man with 12 Black Men

Tl/DR version. Girlfriend cheated on him with maybe 12 different Black guys in a short period of time. She hid it from boyfriend, who later found out when pics got leaked to social media. Boyfriend freaked out and started threatening all the Black guys.

Ok, you’re the guy. What are your thoughts? List them by numbers.

  1. You go, girl! Girl power! Male feminism is all about female empowerment. I need to check my male privilege!
  2. You whore!
  3. I’m going to kill this bitch. She deserves it anyway.
  4. I’m a moron for not dumping this cheating ho who cucked me like this.
  5. She’s a modern young White woman. Of course she’s a whore! What else could she be? Why are you guys shocked? I should treasure her.
  6. I am going to go and beat up or kill all of those Black guys.
This got a lot of airplay in the Manosphere, Game and Redpill zones.
This got a lot of airplay in the Manosphere, Game and Redpill zones.

Myth: Latin Died a Long Time Ago

SD writes:

I presume you want an answer based on ‘raw’ knowledge, that is, without looking up on the internet. Latin has been a dead language for a long time. I think even during the Roman empire, classical Latin was a language that only the educated elite spoke, and even they probably spoke in their own dialects at home.

It really depends on where you want to draw the line between classical Latin and vulgar dialects, but classical Latin as we know it has not been spoken as a native language for at least 2000 years. I’m quite sure the language spoken in Roman marketplaces was quite different from what 19th century classics professors would present their obscure papers in.

This is a common myth, and like so many myths, it’s not even true.

but classical Latin as we know it has not been spoken as a native language for at least 2000 years.


Incredible as it sounds, Latin lived as a native language into the 20th Century! He was born in Budapest, Hungary about 100 years before, maybe in 1836 or thereabouts. He was born into a very upper class, elite family, possibly with connections to Royalty. His family actually spoke Latin and the principal language of the home! So he was raised speaking Latin. Latin was his first language, and while he did learn a couple of other languages, Hungarian and maybe German, but Latin was the language that he was always most comfortable in. He said that his situation was not unusual among the class that he was born into.

At that time, Latin was widely spoken at least as a 2nd language. In earlier post, I pointed out that Latin was actually the official language of the Croatian Parliament until 1846!

He later moved to the US where of course he become a Classics Professor who specialiazed in teaching Latin at one of America’s most elite universities, possibly Harvard or Yale.

He died in 1936. I found his obituary and I believe it said he died when he was around 100 years old.

Latin lived as a native language until the 1930’s!


Everyone Can Spare a Little Time

Jason Y writes:

Isn’t if funny that people with such a short life span, still had time to hate Jews and Gypsies.

Oh Jason! Please!

No matter how busy anyone is, there’s always time to hate Gypsies! No one, I mean no one, is too busy to hate Gypsies!

Dude, let me tell you something. No matter how busy, happy, preoccupied, or lost in fun I am, I always set aside at least a few minutes of every day to hate Gypsies.

I mean come on. It’s the least you can do, man.

A Bit of Judeophobia: Just the Way to Start a New Day

Jason Y writes:

Isn’t if funny that people with such a short life span, still had time to hate Jews and Gypsies.

One can surely do without antisemitism and still be normal and functional. While hardcore antisemitism leaves me cold, I do like a bit of antisemitism in my coffee every morning to get me focused on the new day. Not that hardcore stuff – that’s just awful. I am talking more the mild stuff like what I call “cocktail party antisemitism.” You know, like “that shitty little country.” Like that. You follow?

Just Wrote for 24 Hours Straight

I just spent 24 hours pretty much doing nothing but writing. Well to be precise, I was writing and reading – reading stuff to research for my writing, but it was all for the same project.

And I couldn’t be happier. I was happy as a clam the whole time. It wasn’t even work really. It was more like going on vacation or going off somewhere fun for the weekend. It’s pretty much of a joke to even call this work. It would be like having a job where you got paid for doing nothing but having fun.

Of course it was stressful in a sense (but I enjoy that sort of stress) because the sort of work I was doing was sort of like academic research that might go into a journal or an academic publication, something along those lines. So it’s scientific writing in a sense. One thing about doing scientific writing or any sort of scientific research is that you’re wrong.You’re wrong all of the time. And you’re always figuring out how you were wrong and going back and changing stuff. Eventually after however many revisions, you probably have something down that is more or less correct at least for now.

There is also a lot of reorganization going on for flow and structure and at the sentence level for typos and better structured and flowing sentences. Redundant material needs to be removed, all the time. You are always finding different parts of the paper that finally start matching up to each other, and you spent a lot of time marrying them.

Furthermore, your source material is often simply wrong or even unscientific.

I have to deal with nationalism a lot in my work, and nationalism is hardly ever rational, scientific or even correct. It’s just wrong, usually a good part of the time. Nationalist narrative for most any nationalist group tends to be an endless series of lies with a fair amount of correct material thrown in. But the correct material gets exaggerated or extended. Ethnic nationalist ideology boils down to

Our group is 100% good, and we love them, and all the other groups, especially the ones nearby who are more like us than any other groups on Earth, are 100% evil and tell nothing but lies.

Nationalist discourse is not only not rational or logical, it’s usually not even correct. Why not just read fairy tales instead?

Given that nationalist discourse is usually just an endless pack of lies, exhaltations and condemnations, it’s hard to see how any rational person could be taken in by it. But you will find in Europe that in any country you study, most any person you meet is some sort of an ethnic nationalist retard. This includes PhD students, full PhD professors, celebrities, noted scholars, etc. That these folks are said to be scientists is particularly shocking because they are so full of shit. However, they are social scientists, and most social scientists are not even practicing science anyway.

Why Most Social Sciences and Social Scientists are Pitiful, Laughable and Absurd

It seems cruel to say that most social sciences are jokes and most social scientists are clowns, but that’s really the sad and painful, even heartbreaking, truth.

Generally speaking, most social scientists are not even practicing science anyway. They just say they are. I do not know what they are practicing. Maybe politics, ideology or propaganda. Most social scientists are ideologues of some sort or another. It’s pretty hard to find a rational. And what is stunning about these social scientist retards is that they are always going on and on about,

“Our science has proved this! Our science has proved that! You’re anti-scientific!”

They are always accusing their ideological opponents of not practicing science. This is usually done by taking apart their opponents’ work in petty ways with a fine tooth comb and searching for any error that they might find.

All scholarship has errors or at least is saying things that are either false now or will be proven false later. And your typical scholar doesn’t know everything. He usually doesn’t even know everything about his own field, though your typical social scientist retard always claims he does. Because it’s pretty much impossible to even get a grasp on the totality of facts even in your own petty subfield, everyone’s scholarship is wrong in some way or another simply because it’s impossible to know everything about the subject.

So you have laughable nonscientists who claim to be practicing science screaming at their opponents that the opponents are not practicing science and therefore the opponents’ conclusions are wrong.

Pretty much two sets of morons, each practicing nonscience but calling it science, screaming at each other, claiming to be upholding science and screaming at their opponents for being incompetent, unreliable or unscientific. If one error is found in an opponent’s paper, this means we need to throw out the whole thing. You often hear people say about even widely published scholars,

“This guy is unreliable. I doubt if you will find even one factual sentence in anything he writes, even a 500-page book.”

In this way, they completely dismiss their opponents and often even refuse to read their work, effectively boycotting them.

Everyone who has not hyperspecialized is called a dilettante because you can only be a scholar on one idiotic hyperspecialized microfield. Beyond that, it’s assumed that you know nothing, and everything you say is wrong. The Renaissance Man is dead, buried long ago and no longer even mourned. Instead, absurdly, his death is celebrated as a victory for science and truth! The words dilettante and amateur get thrown around a lot at even widely published ideological opponents.

Everyone on one side of the debate will line up on one side and robotically recite all of the charges of his side, rarely if ever questioning even one of them because if you do, you are now not with us, the good guys, you are with our ideological opponents who are if not evil (and often they are called evil) are at least utterly incompetent and not even worthy of being read.

So there is profound ideological conformity on both sides. You have two groups of antiscientific ideological fucktards screaming at each other and accusing the other one of not practicing science, when honestly, probably neither side is practicing science, so any such charge is hypocritical.

Petty feuds are everywhere. Scholar A will not speak to scholar B and hates his guts. A good number of scholars probably hate each other, but they run around all the time pretending that they don’t because hatred is “unscientific.”

Unanswered emails are common, and so are unanswered phone calls are probably too, but I have not experienced that yet. Many scholars get a huge head, use the excuse of being busy all the time to ignore their emails and screen all their phone calls. There are quite a few scholars who simply cannot be reached ever for any reason short of finding out their office hours and showing up. Screening out all your calls and emails is the sign of an open mind, it is not?</sarcasm>.

Worst of all is that every field has a list of things that have been “proven as facts” in that field. In the real sciences, these facts have actually been proven so at least they are facts and at least true for now, I will grant them that. But then even in the real sciences, these sets of facts become set in stone and the question is considered to be conclusively answered for all of time, when really science doesn’t conclude much of anything for all of time, and pretty much everything is supposedly up for grabs, but that’s not really the way it works.

The reigning paradigm gets set in stone in a way, and everyone in the field rigorously or even ferociously defends the paradigm as if it is the proven set of facts for all of time instead just temporary facts as all science is.

Scholars, often in frightening lockstep unison, condemn all attacks on whatever the reigning paradigm is, and the reigning paradigm is often demonstrably and even laughably false anyway, but once a paradigm gets set, the fake open-minded scientist becomes as closed-minded as any religious fanatic.

New data challenging any reigning paradigm (the paradigms are treated nearly the same as revealed works are treated in religions) is viciously attacked or simply dismissed altogether. It is quite common for papers or data attacking a dominant paradigm to be viciously attacked all around the field, with many reviews showing how the conclusion is wrong. Yet few if any of the critics even try to work out the data or even test it out to see if the conclusion even true. They just yell,

“The conclusion is false!”

often without even examining the data in question. Persons challenging paradigms are called antiscientific and are accused of practicing pseudoscience, a word which pretty much has no meaning because scientists change the definition every month or so. Ideally it means conclusions that do not even follow the scientific method at all, but generally it is just means all of the arguments attacking whatever the stupid paradigm of the moment is. Pseudoscience is just the “paradigm-attacking stuff I don’t like.”

As I said, every field has paradigms. Physics envy and all that, but at least the real sciences have paradigms that are by now proved pretty well. But are they the end of the debate as science says every paradigm is? Well of course not! Nevertheless even in the real sciences, paradigms are defended with near-religious faith and a great deal of emotion.

The social sciences of course are so much worse because they aren’t even sciences in the first place! Every social science has a “set of facts” that everyone in the field has to believe. These are the paradigms of that particular field, and they are defended with all of the ferocity that an SJW defends their politics.You are not even allowed to work in that field if you reject one or more paradigms. It is said that that person “doesn’t even accept the basic facts of our field” and hence must be ignored.

There really is no alternative to accepting those paradigms. You might be able to do so quietly, but don’t try to publish anything attacking any of their often-moronic paradigms or you will be sorry.

Moronic is a harsh word. but it’s necessary when discussing social science paradigms. Many social science paradigms are simply (usually PC) “facts” that are accepted by everyone mostly because they are politically correct and not because they are grounded in any facts. Usually there is a grain of truth in there somewhere, but still the paradigms are more about ideology than science. If you examine a lot of these paradigms, they fall apart, often immediately and obviously, and really any commonsense Joe on the street would laugh and say,

“Of course that’s not true!”

The social scientists then yell that the man on the street knows nothing compared to the anointed scientists of the field. Social science often appropriates the real sciences, usually for political and emotional reasons. If any man on the street rejects whatever the latest stupid PC paradigm is, the social scientists will appropriate real science and argue, for instance, that no way does the man on the street know more about astronomy than astronomers.

But we aren’t talking about real sciences. We are talking about the PC fake sciences called social sciences. So you can see that social scientists throw themselves in with the real scientists and marry their field to the real scientists’ one whenever it is convenient for them.

Nevertheless, social scientists spend a good amount of time engaging in sheer nihilism. Since social sciences typically involve humans, the excuse is made that humans are endlessly variable, and there is no way to control for all of these variables, hence apparently no non-physical scientific conclusions can be made about humans at all! If you try to formulate one, social scientists will jump up and yell about the exceptions. Yet of course exceptions prove the rule even in the real sciences, say in medicine.

So the social scientist frequently answers most of the major questions someone might have about the field with either a regimented and evangelical recitation of whatever the typically unproven paradigms are, or for many questions, the social scientists simply utilizes nihilism and says that this is a question that cannot be answered by our field.

What’s a question that can’t be answered? Well, just about anything is! So when presented with a set of questions about what the field has proven about this or that, the social scientist simply spends a lot of time stating,

“There is no way to test that. There is no way to design such a test ever. But what about the exceptions – because of exceptions, we can never prove anything about anyone. All conclusions are based on averages and how do you know the average is even correct?  Maybe it is totally wrong!

Because you can never test out all humans on this question or that, everything disliked is thrown out by attacking sample size or method. And even if you could test out every human on Earth on this question or that, any conclusion that overthrew any paradigm would be tossed out anyway by attacking method.

Also it really doesn’t matter how rigorously you design your experiments and how carefully you your average out your conclusions because they will just attack study design anyway if it attacks a paradigm. The person being attacked then asks in exasperation,

“Well then how to we design such a study to test out this question?”

90% of the time, the social scientist simply falls back on nihilism and says this question cannot be answered ever by anyone or this is not a question that our field even deals with, and they toss it over to some other field like political science or sociology and tell them to answer the question.

Of course, asking sociologists or politicians to correctly answer any scientific question is a dubious endeavor, as most conclusions there are simply arrived via arbitrary, often nonsensical, hypocritical, ridiculous and ferociously antiscientific methods which are then explained away as “politics.” Well you know politics is mostly just people lying about one thing or another for ideological reasons, so the “political” conclusions arrived at are usually laughable because there is no science going on whatsoever. Instead there’s just emotionalism and bullshit.

Saying this question or that cannot be answered by our field (who ought to be the ones at least testing it out) is really just a big dodge.

As you can see, the field typically says that the question incredibly has no answer or they say even more wildly that it is a question that cannot even be tested in their first place! Of course, philosophically speaking, there are no questions that lack answers, so this is just another one of their lies. Sure, there are questions that don’t have answers yet that have been determined by humans, but I assure you that there is some scientific answer to the question, but it’s often one that is difficult for humans to figure out, so humans just throw up their hands and say,

“There is no way to determine this one way or other,”

which is something social scientists say a lot.

Emotions run wild in the social sciences. While scientists are supposed to be emotionally constrained at least in their published statements, social scientists seem to be a lot less controlled, and language in debates is often excessively harsh for proper scientific debate, but as no one is practicing science anyway, who cares!

As you can see, most social sciences are absurd endeavors because they don’t even bother to answer most of the important questions in the field which will be defended with,

“We don’t know. We can’t figure that out. There is no way to determine that,”

to half the questions in the field.

Still, I would argue that it’s possible to do some adequate scientific work in most social sciences, even if most of your colleagues accuse you of trying to answer unanswerable questions. Sure there are no hard facts as in physics or math, but there are a lot of things that are “more or less true” where some sort of a vague answer to the question seems to be the best explanation of the facts.

Croatia, 1846

There probably wasn’t really any such thing as “Croatia” back then, but anyway, let us discuss what was happening in the territory we currently refer to as the nation of Croatia.

  • What was the official language (Slavic)?
  • What were the two other languages that were widely spoken everyone or nearly everyone along with the official one (both Slavic)?
  • What was the language most commonly spoken by educated people, especially in cities? For instance, if you went into a bookstore in Zagreb, the books would mostly be in this language (non-Slavic)?
  • What was the language of science and the ultra-elites? As an example of how this language was used, what was the official language for the Croatian Parliament? (non-Slavic)?
  • What was the official religion?

Five questions, five whole questions, now hard could it be?

Have fun kids!

Alain Soral Indicted for a Drawing

Drawing in question.
Drawing in question.

This is the drawing for which Alain Soral was arrested. It appeared on the website of his organization, drawn by someone named Hugo. The drawing is a bit hard to figure out, but the tracks and building in the background are a World War 2 concentration camp where Jews were massacred and the train tracks leading to the camp. A woman stands on the track, dressed lewdly like a whore. She has Jewish stars of David over her breasts and holds coins in one hand.

Above the drawing it says: Pornographic Memorial. So instead of the memorial museums to the Holocaust that the Jews build in every city in the West, we have a memorial museum to pornography, money and the Jews.

The Jews represent money and porn. The drawing suggests that the Jews should build memorial museums to money and porn instead of the Holocaust.

That’s in pretty bad taste.

For one thing, it insults the memory of the Holocaust in which 6 million Jews were exterminated for no good reason. It ties the memory of the Holocaust in with money and porn, which it says the Jews are responsible for. So what we think of when we think of the Jews is money, porn and the Holocaust. That is sort of what I think of when I think of Jews, but I am not going to draw an insulting drawing to insult the memory of the dead and taint the martyrs with cheap, tawdry sex and easy money.

It’s not really Holocaust revisionism, but Soral and his crowd are very big on that too, so that may be in the back of their mind. But it definitely makes light of the Holocaust and cheapens and minimizes the horror of what happened.

All in all, a very sleazy, offensive and yes, antisemitic in the worst sense cartoon.

I don’t think people should go to jail for being antisemitic jackasses like this, but then the French have some bad memories that we don’t have. I generally object to all these crazy hate speech laws.

Jews, SJW’s, Left Pushing for Hate Speech Laws in the US

You might be aware that some rather nasty hate speech laws are in effect in much of the West. We have been spared for now at least due to the Bill of Rights, but that doesn’t mean there are not groups working feverishly to put laws in place to put people like me in jail for writing the stuff I do.

You know the Jews and the SJW’s are dying to put those laws in here in the US. If you want to get mad at Jews over something, get mad at them over these hate speech laws. They were the ones who put them in all over the West, including in Canada, and they are making a huge push now to put them in here in the US, but it’s going to be very hard to do with the First Amendment.

The SJW’s and the Cultural Left of course want these hate speech laws too. Apparently homosexuals have 3,000 sex partners while catching and spreading every disease known to mankind, transsexuals chopping their dicks off, torture sex, piss drinking, public gay sex, turning restrooms and rest stops into gay orgy parks, ad nauseum is all a-ok with these folks while at the same time they are in league with the feminists who are apparently trying to make heterosexuality illegal.

I guess if you’re gay, lez or tranny you can fuck anyone or anything you want and the SJW’s will just cheer you on; it’s that heterosexual sex that really pisses them off. Oh yeah and cissexuals. They hate us too, scum that we are. Die Cis Scum and all that.

SJW’s and the Cultural Left are very dangerous people, and they would love to join up with the Jews to make homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, antisemitic, bla bla speech illegal, while of course making sure it’s ok to hate White people, cissexuals, heteronormativity, and men. Misogyny will become illegal while misandry will rocket to the skies. You won’t be able to say racist things about Blacks or Mexicans, but if you want to hate Whites, by all means, make yourself at home and spout away.

The Jews don’t give a damn about any of the Cultural Left crap although most Jews are Cultural Left and SJW types. They just want to drag them along for the ride so they can make antisemitism illegal and put Ann Coulter in jail for her tweets.

The Jews have been pushing the envelope here in the US like they always do for a very long time, and as you can see with Coulter, people are starting to finally say they have had enough. This is pretty much what happens anywhere and anytime you get lots of Jews in a country. Expect to see more people making comments along the lines of Coulter’s tweets. As the “antisemitic” discourse (as long as it’s along the lines of what Coulter said, that type of talk is long overdue) picks up, expect the Jews to double down on the hate speech crusade.

Life is always interesting, and the near future looks to maybe be a bit of a bumpy ride, but if you like amusement park rides, it might be fun to observe from a distance anyway.

Here’s hoping we all stay alive, housed, fed and solvent.


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)