Capitalism 101: Want a Loan? No Problem!

Loans are very easy to obtain in a free market system. The relationship between the lender and the borrower is a contract entered into voluntarily by two equals. LOL yeah right.
Loans are very easy to obtain in a free market system. The relationship between the lender and the borrower is a contract entered into voluntarily by two equals. LOL yeah right. Can you believe capitalists actually believe that crap?

Great system.

But really, have you seen the laws on usury in your state? I mean what laws? Payday loans anyone? Seen all those payday loan stores popping up everywhere? Isn’t capitalism grand? You would not believe the perfectly legal rates those scumbags are allowed to charge.

Many major religions forbade usury for a damn good reason. They weren’t just a bunch of uptight primitives. They had a good handle on universal moral philosophy.

Robert Stark interviews Luke Ford about Ann Coulter & the Jews

Robert Stark interviews my favorite Jew, Luke Ford. Topic is mainly Ann Coulter and her comments about Jews.

Superjews have a real problem when guys like me say that I love Jews like Luke Ford. The Superjew responds, “Yeah! You like some Jews! You like Jews who hate Jews! You’re still an antisemite!” They’ve actually said this to me. Lots of them. I am telling you, you just can’t win with these people.

As far as the Jews and I, I just pretty much want them to lay off, shut up and knock it off. And if they can’t go that, just go away and leave me the Hell alone. Other than that, I have no ill will or ill wishes towards most of them whatsoever, and I wish most of them good health and good luck in whatever they wish to pursue in life.

Sure, a lot of Jews deserve to be hated (as do countless non-Jews), but I don’t really have the energy for that anymore. I am more at the “please just go away and leave me alone” phase in my life. I guess this is what getting old is like. Sigh.

Anyway, I really think the yelling “antisemite!” think is a great big Jewish con. I really do think that the Jews want as many people as possible to hate them (hopefully not too much or too lethally). So when you hate Jews, you give these idiotic people exactly what they want. You go antisemite, and the Jew claps his hands and jumps up and down, “Yipee! Another antisemite! It’s a mitvah!” I wish I liked these people enough to give them that gift, but I really don’t. If you find these people incredibly annoying as so many do, you should maybe think before you start hating them. Antisemitism is just another Jewish trap. They want you to be antisemitic. Get it? You really want to fall for another one of their scams?

Here.

Topics include: Ann Coulter & the Jews How Ann Coulter’s Faux Pas Calls Attention to Jewish Influence The Jewish Reaction to Ann Coulter’s Tweet The Jewish Drive To Marginalize Ann Coulter Philip Weiss: Coulter’s point Is That Republicans Pander on Israel to Win Donors, Not Voters Ann Coulter’s book Adios, America which has a chapter praising Israel for it’s immigration policies Whether Ann Coulter will survive this incident, and if she does, it will further expand the Overton Window Roosh Triggers ADL Cyber Police Investigation for stating Israel’s border walls work How Jewish organizations in the diaspora oppose nationalism for non-Jews Donald Trump & the Jews How Donald Trump symbolizes a resurgence of nationalism and populism How like Coulter, Trump is also pro-Israel but is opposed by Jewish activists for fear of a revival of nationalism Orthodox Jews for Trump Jewish Organizations Supporting Muslim Migrants into the West Luke Ford’s interview with Roger Devlin about his book “Sexual Utopia in Power” How Luke often has “Beta male” characteristics in relationships How when Luke showed his vulnerable side, that was often seen as a sign of weakness The affects of promiscuity on women How the more people lack bonds, the more likely they are to engage in reckless behavior When Beta Males Go on a Shooting Spree and how Luke views the key issue as a lack of social bonds How narcissists seek attention as a substitute for attachment JSwipe Vs Tinder relationships How when Luke showed his vulnerable side that was often seen as a sign of weakness The affects of promiscuity on women How the more people lack bonds the more likely they are to engage in reckless behavior When Beta Males Go On A Shooting Spree and how Luke views the key issue as a lack of social bonds How Narcissist seek attention as a substitute for attachment JSwipe vs Tinder

Eric Margolis on Russia and Syria

Here.

Fantastic radio show, unfortunately from a Libertarian-aligned station, Scott Horton, but oh well, beggars can’t be choosers.

So I will just ignore this guy’s retarded Libertarianism and focus on the positive.

Margolis says many an interesting thing in this broadcast. I can vouch for most of it except:

Israeli support for ISIS: unverified.

Qatari support for ISIS: unverified.

Saudi support for ISIS: formerly true, at the moment uncertain.

NATO instigators that exploded the early Syrian protests, probably with sniper rifles: unverified, but I’ve heard the rumors.

US, French and UK special forces on the ground in Syria carrying out attacks on Assad’s army: unverified, but shocking if true.

All the rest is pretty much straight up true. Why is Russia enemy #1? They would not roll over and obey the US. Instead they declared their independence from America. So Russia’s got to be taken out for that uppity behavior.

Why are we so nuts about getting rid of Assad?

Because from the US’ POV,  the whole anti-Assad, Syrian Civil War project is about taking out Iran. Get rid of Syria and screw Iran by getting rid of one of her main allies.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, and Jordan apparently all want to either sock a blow to Iran or just take out Assad because he’s Shia.

Turkey probably wants him out because he’s Shia; I am not sure if they care about Iran.

France and the UK are probably on the blow to Iran side.

Israel surely wants to take out one of its worst enemies and also smash Iran by taking out Syria. Keep in mind that the Axis of Resistance is: Hezbollah, Lebanon, Syria, the Palestinians and Iran. All of the rest of the Arabs surrendered to Israel a long time ago. Since 9-11, Israel’s been whispering in our Presidents’ ears, telling us to take out their enemies. And so we have, in Iraq and Libya and now working on Syria.

The lunatic multinational invasion of Yemen is all about crush Iran. Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Sudan and Egypt are all in on the smash Iran Yemeni project.

Anyway if you want to figure out what’s going on in the world, this great interview is a good place to start.

If You’re Not Highly Tolerant of Lousy Views and Behavior, You Probably Won’t Have Any Friends

A long time ago, I took a look at my friends and decided that every single one of them had something about them that I thought was just awful if not horrific. It was usually some political-type view of theirs. And I assume that I had some political views that most folks found abhorrent also.

At that point I realized that humans were extremely flawed creatures, and you can’t really expect them to be perfect or even all that good for that matter. I decided that as long as their views were not too horrible, I would keep my friends around. Mostly I just wanted them to treat me well. At the end of the day, that’s all that matters.

So I have some friends who are White nationalists, various species of fascists, anti-Semites, Nazis, anti-Black racists, severe misogynists, feminists, feminazis, anti-abortion loons, anti-drug kooks, Libertarians, fanatical Republican partisans, dittoheads, government haters, welfare haters, pot haters, extreme Muslims, homophobes, cop-haters, hardcore dopers, drug addicts, drunks, mentally ill of all sorts of varieties, suidicals, homicidals, and all sorts of other nasty things.

But really I figured at that time way back then that if I got rid of everyone I knew who had some awful view that I probably wouldn’t have any more  friends. So I decided that I would keep people around as long at their politics or behavior were not too horrific. If I don’t like their politics or behavior, I just try not to talk about it.

Everybody sort of sucks at least a little bit, including probably me. Consider yourself lucky if your friends only suck a little bit! It could be worse! You have to pretty much cut your losses with human beings if you want to be social at all. Just focus on the things that you like about the person and try to ignore all the rest.

Ann Coulter Blasted As an Antisemite for Telling the Truth about Jews

True hardcore antisemites definitely exist, that’s for sure. But Ann Coulter is not one of them. She is the opposite, a Judeophile. But even Judeophiles are often exasperated by the way Jews endlessly and hyperaggressively push the envelope.

The latest fake outrage concerns one of the biggest Judeophiles on Earth, Ann Coulter. But according to the Jews, even their best friends are secret haters. I guess everybody hates the Jews then! Fine! Now that we all agree, can we stop talking about it?

Coulter simply remarked in exasperation that Republican candidates seem to spend more time talking about what Israel wants and not what America wants. Well, of course this is exactly what all of the Republican candidates do. America doesn’t even matter anymore to most politicians. They care everything about Israel and nothing about America. Everything for Israel, nothing for America. That’s US politics in a nutshell. They would gladly sell the nation down the tubes forever just to sate their lust for the Jewish state.

Why the entire political spectrum kisses Israeli ass is a difficult question to answer, although there are many theories. One reason perhaps is the nuclear missile the Jews launch at you if you stop kissing their butt.

“Ann Coulter made appalling, anti-Jewish remarks which evoked the classic, anti-Semitic trope about Jewish manipulation of America for the purpose of supporting Israel at America’s expense,” said the ‘self-denying’ Klein.

The problem is that this classic anti-Semitic trope is “classic,” meaning it’s been around forever, exactly because it’s true! This exactly what Jews do everywhere they go. They try to get ahold of the levers of power for the nation in order to promote the tribe or at least avoid harm to it. And in the US, of course American Jews manipulate the political process to support Israel at America’s expense! That’s as obvious as the nose on my face.

If that’s anti-Semitism, then apparently the truth is anti-Semitic. I guess the only way not to be an anti-Semite is to lie. If the truth is anti-Semitic, then I am a proud anti-Semite.

And you should be true. We should all support the truth. If believing in the truth makes us “racist,” we should welcome the charge with open arms.

An Explanation for (Most) Antisemitism

Jews give off the impression of a group of people who is trying to push everyone else to or even past their limits. At some point, Jews have just pushed too far for many people, and even their most die-hard supporters throw up their hands in exasperation.

Then the Jews start in with their usual disgusting and despicable screaming,

“You hate us! You hate us! You hate us! You hate us! You hate us! You hate us! You hate us! You hate us! You hate us! You hate us! You hate us! You hate us! You hate us! You hate us! You hate us! You hate us! You hate us! You hate us! You hate us! You hate us! You hate us! You hate us!”

That is so annoying!

I have no idea if most people hate Jews or if they do, why. But I think that one thing that angers people more than anything else about Jews is their endlessly yelling and screaming about anti-Semitism. People really get tired of paranoids bellowing “You hate us!” 500 times a day. It gets old. At first you throw up your hands, but after a while, you start to get mad.

What would you think of your neighbor if he stood outside his apartment for hours a day pointing at people walking by and screaming,

“You hate me! You hate me! You hate me! You hate me! You hate me! You hate me! You hate me!”

You’d think he was nuts, right?

Would you want to kill him? Probably not. You might want to shove a muzzle over his mouth to shut him up, and it might be nice if someone could haul him off on disturbing the peace charges or especially to get his head checked out. It’s a little hard to hate a lunatic. Well, that’s what Jews are like. They are like your crazy neighbor, except they’ve been acting that way for thousands of years.

Which is why it’s a bit hard to hate the Jews, an ethnic group that seems to nearly if not actually suffer from one or more actual DSM Axis 1 or even 2 diagnoses. The Jews are nuts. Fine. How long have they been nuts? Forever. Read your history. They only survived because they had a mass paranoid psychosis for 2,000 years.

How Antisemitism Unfolds

The usual Jewish behavior pattern goes something like this:

Jews act horrible, often in a blatant, outrageous and shameless way as if they are defying you to do something about it. “What are you gonna do about it?!”

Gentiles complain about Jewish horrible behavior. The most moderate complaint is something like,

“Hey, you know what? You Jews are acting pretty awful. And you know what? That sucks, man. Screw you. Screw you, Jews. Knock it off, shut up, go away and leave me alone, dammit.”

The more belligerent critics? You don’t want to know what they say.

Jews hyper-react with wild, near homicidal aggression to people naturally and normally complaining about their awful behavior. The reaction is usually like this:

“You hate us! You hate us! You hate us! You hate us! You hate us! You hate us! You hate us! You hate us! You hate us! You hate us! You hate us! You hate us! You hate us! You hate us! You hate us! You hate us! You hate us! You hate us! You hate us! You hate us! You hate us! You hate us!”

That would be annoying enough, but you might be able to blow it off as lunatics simply doing what crazies do. But then the Jews up the ante and actually declare all-out war against everyone who properly complained about their atrocious behavior. This is accompanied by all sorts of threats of job loss, running you out of business, turning you into the government or police on false charges, making up fake stories about you to ruin your reputation, all the way to actual death threats and even attempts to kill you. For instance, the Jews tried to kill Henry Ford by running his car off the road in the 1930’s. He nearly died in the accident.

There’s the basis for most anti-Semitism right there in a nutshell.

Of course there are many other reasons for anti-Semitism, some of which are very unfair to the Jews. Not all Jews act bad. A lot do, but not all of them. Many Jews are goodhearted people who try to live good, moral lives. Ann Frank comes to mind, among countless others. Anti-Semites target these innocents with aggression and even violence leading up to murder. That’s an outrage and a crime worse than most any obnoxious thing Jews do.

The Races of China and Japan

Pretty cool old anthropology article on the Chinese and Japanese races. It’s wrong in some ways, but it still has a lot that should be of value. Obviously such an article could not appear in any anthropology journal today, which is pitiful. Blame PC for that.

The Races of China and Japan

by Harry Paxton Howard

The China Weekly Review, Vol. 60 (12 March 1932), pp. 48–50

The Chinese and Japanese are two separate and distinct peoples, as separate and distinct as is the southern Italian from the Norwegian taken in the mass. There is no scientific basis for the assertion that they are of the same race, and indeed anyone at all familiar with the two peoples is readily able to distinguish between the general type. There is the lesser height of the Japanese (due mainly to shorter legs), the more rugged features, the sharper, longer, and narrower eyes (usually black as compared with the typical Chinese brown), the more brownish skin-color, the much greater frequency of beard.

On the other hand, there are certain sub-types which both peoples possess and which make it possible for thousands of Japanese in this country to pass as Chinese, while there are many pure Chinese who may be mistaken for Japanese. The reason for this is that each people is a mixture of different elements. Some of the elements are common to both peoples. Some elements one people possesses but not the other.

Chinese Racial Origins

Many anthropologists have devoted themselves to analyzing and distinguishing the racial elements in the two countries. Buxton, Li Chi, Shirokogoroff and some others have given special study to the Chinese people, and all distinguish different types among the population, as do also Haddon, Morant and others.

The most complete study to date is that made by Dr. Stevenson of the P.U.M.C. at Peiping, in his ‘Collected Anthropometric Data on the Chinese,’ showing at least two distinct types, though Stevenson is too cautious a scientist to state any definite conclusions as yet. And as regards racial origins in the North, the data given in Black’s study of skulls from prehistoric sites in Kansu and Honan suggest answers to some long-debated problems when considered in connection with some physical types already distinguished by different anthropologists.

First of all there is a Chinese type which is also found among the Manchus and by students is regarded as the fundamental ‘Manchu’ type. It is of short or medium stature, with broad head, low orbits (apparently associate with a long and narrow eye-slit), narrow nose often aquiline, frequently fair and ruddy skin. This type exists in Manchuria and in North China today, and is found further south as well.

Secondly, there is a type which, if placed side by side with the foregoing, will show marked differences. It is taller, with longer skull, wider forehead, higher orbits (‘rounder’ and more open eye), broader nose. It is frequent in North China, but is found to be predominant and characteristic among the Kham Tibetans of the territory adjoining Kansu.

The Primitive Mixture

The study of prehistoric skulls referred to above indicates the existence of these very types in the China of four thousand years ago. The earliest skulls, from Neolithic cities in Kansu and Honan, present ‘several suggestive similarities to Kham Tibetans’ though differing from more recent North China skulls in being longer, ‘with somewhat wide foreheads and longer skull bases, and slightly broader palates and lower orbits.’

The aspects in which these Neolithic skulls differ from the Kham Tibetans, however, are very significant. In addition to the Tibetan type, they include a type with broader head, narrow nose, and lower orbits. Such features are characteristic of the Manchu type referred to above, which fact leaves little doubt that the Neolithic people were a mixture of these Kham Tibetan and ‘Manchu’ types.

Judging from their later distribution, it is probable that the ‘Manchu’ type was more characteristic of the Honan communities, the Kham Tibetan type of those in Kansu, but the study referred to above, unfortunately, does not distinguish between the two localities, grouping them all together as ‘Yang Shao’ (Neolithic).

The Turkish Element

Others of these prehistoric communities, evidently later in date and showing the use of bronze in addition to stone, show the addition of another type which, combined with the previous ones, makes up a mixture hardly distinguishable from the Northern Chinese of more recent times. As previously stated, the primitive mixture differed from the more recent by its narrower skull, broader foreheads, and lower orbits. The new type evidently possessed a broader skull, with relatively narrower forehead and higher orbits.

These features are characteristic of the Turki, with their broad skull, long oval face, and generally non-Mongolian eyes. From the study mentioned…it would appear that the lower orbits are generally an Oriental characteristic. They are apparently associated with the longer, narrower eye. No other race in this part of the world seems to possess just these characteristics, and we know that the early home of the Turkish peoples was somewhere in the interior of Asia. It is an interesting confirmation of the theory held by many historical students (e.g., Hirth), on different grounds, that the Turkish element is present and is of some significance in China.

[It should be understood that the word Turki here refers not to the tribe, but to the racial stock. This stock is predominant among the Turkish peoples, though now apparently mixed with other elements.]

This element, indeed, would explain the presence of the occasional ‘hairy’ type among the Chinese. Most Chinese, like Mongolian peoples as a whole, have little hair either on face on body. The Turki, however, possess a plentiful beard, and a fair supply of hair on the body as well, in distinct contrast to the Mongolian peoples. We find some Chinese possess beards and growth of hair on the body, and the Turkish element would account for this. Hairiness, indeed, is a distinguishing feature of Chinese Moslems, who quite clearly have a strong non-Mongolian element in them.

Four Types

This Turkish element seems to have come in together with bronze in the legendary period just preceding more definite history. The early Hsiung-nu (on the plains to the north of the Yellow River in ancient China) appear to have been Turkish, and Hirth believes that the Chou Dynasty was of Turkish origin. It was apparently in the second millennium B.C. that this element became mixed with the Kham Tibetans and Manchu types referred to above, producing a mixture similar to that of North China today.

There is, however, a fourth type, of the presence of which Chinese history leaves no doubt whatsoever – the Mongol. This type, distinguished from the mass of Chinese by the lowness of the Mongol head and breadth of the face and head, as well as the little flat nose and low stature, has apparently existed for long in the Chinese mixture. Its coming into China was during the historic period, with one invasion after another by Mongol peoples (as well as by others) during the past two thousand years.

There may be distinguished, therefore, four racial types of some importance in North China,— the Manchu, the Kham Tibetan, the Turki, and the Mongol. These four elements, with their combinations, seem to account for every type of any frequency in North China and are found further south as well.

It should be noted however, that three of the types, judging from their present-day representatives, possess certain essential characters of the Mongolian group – hair straight, black, and scanty on face and body; eyes usually relatively long and narrow, generally brown in color, and commonly with the characteristic Mongolian eye-fold; skin color varying from yellowish-white to yellow-brown, though there are fair and ruddy complexions also.

The Turki are closer to the Caucasian owing to their abundant hair on face and body, frequently if not typically wavy; eyes generally full and round (though often – apparently through admixture – with Mongolian fold); skin color from pinkish-white to brown.

The South

The above-named elements are characteristic of North China, but they extend into the South as well. Here, however, they come into contact with other types rarely found among natives of the North. First of all there is an element with wavy or even curly hair, open and round non-Mongolian eye, short stature but relatively long legs, long and narrow head, and broad nose. These characters, which set this type distinctly apart from the Mongolian races, belong to many southern aborigines as well as Chinese, distinguishing a race which Buxton and Haddon link up with the Indonesians or Nesiots.

There is still another element present in the South, a quite different race but now generally mixed with other types – the Negrito. This type is characterized by its woolly hair, very short stature, very dark skin and broad nose, and full or thick lips. Li Chi and other anthropologists have pointed out indications of such a type.

It appears indeed, that the occasionally curly-haired Chinese in the south is usually a cross between this woolly-haired type and either the wavy-haired Indonesian or straight-haired Mongolian element. And other Negroid characters such as prognathism, black skin, pigmentation of the eye, the full or even thick lips also occur. Negrito peoples still exist scattered over a considerable area in southeastern Asia and the adjoining islands, and probably at one time occupied a much greater part of southeastern Asia than at present.

Stevenson believes there is still another type present in the South which he terms Polynesian, rather similar to the Indonesian but with finer and more prominent features.

The Chinese Mixture

There are therefore several races or sub-races among the Chinese people. There is indeed little agreement among anthropologists as to what constitutes a race, some defining 19 or 20, others 40-60, among the peoples of the earth.

There is wide agreement among competent anthropologists, however, as to certain broad divisions of the human species, and Boas…recognizes two main divisions, the Caucasian-Mongolian and the Afro-Australian.

In the first division the Mongolians have straight black hair, flat or broad face, Mongolian eye-fold, frequently yellowish (though often fair, ruddy, or brown) skin color. The Caucasian hair is often wavy or curly and of lighter color, and the Mongolian eye-fold and yellowish skin color are ordinarily absent. The most fundamental distinction between the two however is the relative hairiness of the Caucasian and the hairlessness (on face and body) of the Mongolian.

The Blacks of the second division differ from both members of the first division by their woolly or frizzly hair, their black skin (with a degree of pigmentation which even affects the eye), their frequently thick and everted lips, and by actual bodily proportions, the Negro leg being differently formed from that of ‘White’ or ‘Yellow’ man. The most marked point of distinction between Negro and Australian is the relative hairiness of the latter and the fact that this hair is not woolly but curly or frizzly.

Of these four main physical divisions of mankind we find the Mongolian most common in China. The extent of the Caucasian element depends upon how the Indonesian and Turkish types are classified. Some group the Indonesians with Caucasians because of their wavy or curly hair and open, round, non-Mongolian eye. Elliott Smith groups them together with the Mediterranean peoples as the Brown Race. The Turki are also a people regarding whose classification there is a difference of opinion, their straight black hair making it possible to group them with the Mongolians, while its abundance and their lack of other specifically Mongolian characters marks them as Caucasian.

Besides the Mongolian and Caucasian elements in China, there is only the Negrito, which is slight. We find, therefore, six recognized types in China, three being Mongolian – the Mongol, Manchu, and Kham Tibetan (though Morant thinks the last-named type is not Mongolian at all – two being classifiable as ‘Caucasian – the Turki and the Indonesians – and one being Negrito. There are some other rather infrequent physical types not yet clearly defined and classified.

Japanese Racial Origins

The racial analysis of the Japanese is in some ways easier than that of the Chinese owing to their being concentrated in a very much smaller area and owing to their being a more recent mixture of which the various elements are still fairly distinct in many cases. Three thousand years ago the ‘North China’ type seems to have already been formed, with its Manchu, Tibetan, and Turkish elements, but nothing whatever is known of the Japanese at that period. In the next thousand years the Chinese penetrated into the south and mixed with the Indonesian and other non-Mongolian elements there, but still nothing is known of the Japanese.

There are indications however that while this continual push to the southward was taking place on the mainland, there were movements in a northerly direction off and along the coast. Just when this movement of a southern maritime people reached Kyushu, the big southern island of Japan, we do not know, but it was probably not much before the Christian era. The present distribution of physical types in Japan, however, and their outside associations permit us to outline roughly the development which took place there just as we have done for China.

The early natives of the Japanese islands were the short, fair-skinned, hairy, non-Mongolian people known as the Ainu, now found, in fairly pure form in their communities only in Hokkaido, the most northerly of the three big islands but probably occupying practically the whole of the main island (Hondo) two thousand years ago. This people, whose affinities are Caucasian and who indeed show much resemblance to certain Russian types, were steadily driven north by the invasion from the south, continuing for century after century.

Negritos and Malays

In Kyushu there may have been another element – Negrito – prior to the maritime invasion. The wide territory over which the Negritos are scattered and the probability that they formerly occupied a much greater area than at present has already been referred to. At the present time, as regards Japan, this type seems more common in Kyushu than elsewhere, though it is scattered through the islands, and clearly recognizable Negroid or specifically Negrito types can be noted, though generally mixed with other elements.

In speaking of the Japanese types, our task is simplified by the fact that most of the racial types have already been defined for China. When we speak of the Malays therefore we can state the general type by simply noting that anthropologists tend to regard this type as a mixture of the Indonesian peoples with a Mongolian element from the north. The Mongolian element is shown more specifically in the eyes; the Indonesian in the short stature and occasionally wavy hair. The Malays themselves therefore are an ancient mixture – how old we do not know, though perhaps more recent than the early North China mixture.

This brown Malay element is probably the most important type in Japan, but for fully two thousand years it has been mixed with the Negrito, and also with types from the Asiatic mainland via Korea. These mainland types are of interest here.

Manchus and Ainus

The earliest known center of civilization in Japan was at a point opposite Korea where certain types evidently came across from the mainland. Among these types there was the ‘Manchu’ type which has already been defined, and probably the ‘North China’ type which had already been formed from the mixture of different elements previously referred to. There are Malay and other elements in Korea also.

Of these elements, the Manchu-Korean appears to have left the widest traces in Japan. Though there was some Chinese migration both in prehistoric and historic times, this was not sufficient in quantity or contained too little of the tall Kham Tibetan type, to affect the short Malay physique to any extent. The ‘Chinese type’ however is distinctly present in Japan, though its proportion to the whole is apparently not great.

Far more important than the Chinese element was that of the White aborigines, the savage Ainu.

As the Japanese people (mainly Malay but mixed with Negrito, some Manchu-Korean, and a slighter Chinese element) advanced northward in their steady conquest of the islands, they exterminated, enslaved, or absorbed those of the natives who did not give war before them. They certainly absorbed a very large number of them, as is shown today by the frequency of individuals with Ainu characteristics among the Japanese.

Most recognizable is the Ainu hairiness. Some have estimated that the Japanese people of today are more than one-third Ainu, though this figure is probably too high.

The Japanese Mixture

When we consider the four main physical divisions of mankind already referred to we find the Japanese are a quite different mixture from the Chinese.

While the Malay element is apparently of most importance, this must itself be divided into Mongolian and Indonesian. Another Mongolian element is seen in the Manchu-Korean type and in the occasional ‘Chinese’ type (which includes however other elements). The Mongolian element is therefore the most important quantitatively speaking, though this includes much more of the Manchu type than is the case with the Chinese, as shown by the long, narrow eyes characteristic of the Japanese.

The extent of the Caucasian element depends partly on how the Indonesians are classified, but there is little doubt of the essentially Caucasian characters of the hairy Ainu. The importance of the Negrito element is considerable, much greater than in China.

We find, therefore, six recognizable types in Japan, three being Mongolian – the Manchu type, and the Mongolian elements in the Malays and Chinese – two being classifiable as ‘Caucasians’ – the Ainu and the Indonesians – and one being Negrito.

Through the different methods of combination in the Japanese and Chinese peoples, therefore, we can see some of the reasons for the physical differences between the two. There is little sign among the Japanese of the Kham Tibetan and Turkish types which add height to the Chinese (particularly the northern Chinese) as well as making for a rounder and more open eye. There is no sign among the Chinese of the Ainu type which gives the more frequent hairiness and more rugged features to the Japanese. And so we have two separate people, generally easily distinguishable but containing many individuals of similar types.

Other Differences

Probably more important than race, however, are other differences. For four thousand years and more, the Chinese people have been agricultural villagers, tillers of the soil, conquered by pastoral nomads from time to time but absorbing their conquerors.

But for most of this period, the Japanese were a maritime people, raiding their way north and in the islands of Japan conquering and absorbing a White native population even more savage than themselves. China’s age of military feudalism came to an end two thousand years ago, and though there have been relapses, the essential principles of private ownership and a peasantry free from feudal shackles have remained.

But at that time Japan had not yet emerged from the darkness of savagery, and when many centuries later the light of Chinese civilization shed its rays over the islands, it illuminated a primitive military feudalism which continued to exist down to two short generations ago. The inhabitants of the islands cultivate the soil, but the peasantry remained serfs under feudal masters until a little over half a century ago, and military feudalism remained the law of the land.

It is differences in psychology resulting from these things which are probably more vital and fundamental than the physical differences between the two peoples…

Is This Child Pornography?

Justin Y writes:

YouTube might ban the video cause they don’t want a bad image, but the movie and images aren’t illegal in the United States. In other words, videos like that are “bad for business”.RL: That video was illegal.

The video in question was discussed here in a previous post. A commenter posted it to Youtube and linked it to the comments section of this site, I was suspicious of it especially after his description, so I went to Youtube and looked at it. I watched the video, and then I reported it to Youtube as child pornography. I doubt if I had to do that, but I felt compelled to for some reason. Also I sort of wanted to protect myself for watching it to see what the content was. Youtube took it down within 24 hours.

Video was shot by a White American man with a taste for pubescent girls. He also liked older females and women. Whether he counts as a hebephile or not is not known, but his intense interest in Lolitas probably qualifies him as one alone, since honestly most older adult men are just not particularly interested in Lolis. It’s not true that they have no interest in them at all – studies show that normal men are attracted to 12-14, but only at a lesser rate than to mature females whom they prefer. The attitude of many men towards a girl that age is, yes, there is something to be attracted to there, but it’s not much, and the general POV is something like, “Meh.”

This man traveled around the world so he could have sex with 12-14 year old girls in countries around the world where no one cares about this stuff. He told me he met a lot of other men in these places who were doing the same thing as he was. He told me, “A lot of men will pay good money to have sex with a 12-14 year old girl.” That doesn’t surprise me at all, as I know my gender pretty well. But it’s not something that interests me now, that’s for sure.

The video was shot in the back of a bar in Colombia. The videographer had drunk half a bottle of hard liquor and was pretty loaded. Apparently he got a 12 year old girl to get up on a stage and do a striptease. Perhaps he paid her. I have no idea. Anyway, the video is an account of this striptease. Her sex drive has already come on (this is obvious – don’t ask me how I can tell) and she seems to be enjoying herself. The video is very lascivious with a lot of closeup shots of the genitalia.

Later she gets in the shower for a bit where she is joined by a boy who is maybe 14-16. The mess around a bit in the shower and then retire to a bed where they play around a bit sexually, but no sex occurs.

Is the video illegal?

It is indeed.

Child porn laws are completely nuts, and it often very had to tell if something is illegal or not. However many cases are clear-cut.

Simple nudity of minors is not illegal. There are photos of naked kids all over the Internet. These photos also include many pics of naked teenage girls, many of whom are underage. You can go look at them to your heart’s content – it’s completely legal. Those photos are all in the context of “nudist photos.” They are generally taken outdoors, the minors are often accompanied by other naked minors, and not uncommonly there are adults walking around too. Just kids and adults walking about naked in the outdoors in all sorts of scenes, often at beaches, near bodies of water, or in wooded areas.

That’s all completely legal because simple nudity of anyone of any age is not illegal. Nude pictures of minors are only illegal if there is some sort of lascivious sexual display involved.

It’s hard to say what that might be, but the video of the 12 year old girl doing a lascivious striptease, especially with all the closeups, clearly qualifies. It’s not that she’s naked, no one cares about that. It’s more how she is being naked. This is what is important.

When she’s in the shower, that’s probably legal. When the boy joins her in the shower, things get a bit dicier. See what I mean when I say it’s hard to figure out what’s legal and what’s not? When the two retire to the bed naked and play around, that’s probably illegal. You probably can’t show a minor couple aged 12-15 naked in a bed doing sexual things to each other even if they don’t have sex.

The video poses some important questions. First of all, no one gets hurt. The girl’s having a blast the whole time. The boy doesn’t get hurt either. He’s having a blast himself. If no one got hurt, why is it illegal? And I do think it should be illegal.

I think society is not so much bothered by what is going on in the video (which is just harmless fun) but by the idea that adult men are sitting around in front of computers with their dicks in their hands masturbating to this 12 year old girl doing a striptease. That’s really upsetting to people. Society thinks that men should not be able to have this sort of material as a masturbation aid. There’s something creepy and unseemly about it. I would have to agree with society on this point.

Nevertheless, there is nothing wrong with the video per se. Suppose the girl herself had the video and only watched it herself, with the boy, or with her friends?

Any harm? Nope.

Should it be illegal? Maybe not. Maybe minors can make sexual photos and videos of themselves and pass them around to their friends. I certainly don’t think it’s child porn. They don’t belong in jails or prisons for possessing this stuff. But society doesn’t seem to like it anyway. In that case, perhaps society ought to simply seize the material when they find it in the hands of the minors.

There may be other problems.

Some enterprising minors may take photography of themselves or their friends naked or having sex and then try to sell the videos on the market, especially to adults. Now these kids are pretty much manufacturing and selling child pornography. I don’t know what to do about them, but it shouldn’t be legal.

Here’s another one.

Suppose as a minor, you and your friends made and accessed a lot of sexual material of minors nude and having sex with other minors. You kept it around, and now you are an adult male. You continue to look at this old material from your teenage days as you age, to age 20 to 30 to 40. Now you have a 40 year old man masturbating to videos of what is legally child porn produced by his friends during his teen years. Now what?

I have not the faintest idea what to do here as it opens up a lot of interesting legal and philosophical issues.

Last Word on Phoenicians, Phonetics, Etc.

It looks like we finally got the answer to whether Phoenician and phonetic, phonology, phone, phoneme, etc. are related – they are not, but both are from Greek words. Phonetic, phone, phonology, phoneme, etc. are derived from Greek Phonein, which means quite logically “to sound.” Phoenician, on the other hand, derives from a Greek word Phoenikoi for the people and region, derived from the word Phoenix which originally meant a particular conch shell that yielded a nice purple dye and later acquired the meaning via legend of a bird that rises from the ashes after it dies. I am not sure what the Phoenikoi were named after – perhaps the conch shell?

Anyway, the roots have no relationship to each other, but it was a nice hypothesis anyway. “Scientists” always like to chortle with ridicule at the notion of a “bad hypothesis” but I think in many cases, most hypotheses that seem prima facie reasonable are not bad hypotheses. Furthermore, I dislike the very notion of bad hypotheses as it smacks of the horrific arrogance all of the sciences engage in these days, even the ridiculous fake social “sciences” like my own pitiful specialty, Linguistics.

Miville writes:

Phonein (to sound) should first be sounded as the ancient Athenians did: not phoney-in, but pf-hone-een (or pf-honey-an as the Spartans did): the important thing is to try to sound out an f not with the teeth against the upper lip but with both lips as gently as to let off a beautiful soap bubble instead of ordinary spittle.

The Romans despite being the new lords on the block felt they were no match for Greece however decadent and derelict so they made that effort to sound the Greek ph the Greek way rather than like their own f, at least so as to spit gracefully down upon their own people, hence the spelling we inherited from them despite the fact no longer any Roman nor Greek knows any other sound than our own vulgar present f.

Phonein in Greek is written with an Omega, which was sounded Oh like in OMG in Athens and like Awe or (Golden) Dawn in Sparta. Phoenicia is derived, as regards the Greek language, from Phoenix, which was written with the false diphthong (original simple sound lacking a proper letter in the alphabet and therefore written two ones) oi which bore but little relationship whatever with either simple o or Omega and was rather sounded œ as in German Goethe or u as in turn depending on the city. Phonein meant to sound, phoenix rather derives from a word meaning a conch, the particular one whence came a very precious dark red dye, purpur or purple.

It also meant a legendary bird capable of rebirth after having passed through burnt offering. The legend was common (and still is in works such as the One and Thousand Nights) to all Near and Middle Eastern countries and the red color also pictured the Rising Sun, the Orient, hence the name given to the mariners stemming from the land of the rising sun also most renowned for its production of purple dye from the conch and for having given to Greece the alphabet.

The Phoenicians themselves called their own language and nationality Cana’an, so the name we use is a pure Greek creation, like the name Greek which is a Roman appellation for a people who call themselves Hellenes. The letters, of Phoenician origin, meant sounds, or phonemata.

The conch could also be used as a sounding horn, as is the symbol of the primeval creating divine vibration in many cultures, apart from the fact that in many languages a telephone receiver can be called a conch (Muschel in German). The proximate sounds, however, prove no common etymology, even though they are marvelous for poetry.

The early Roman soldiers when it came to name the same people that had settled Carthage did not make the effort their betters made when trying to pronounce Greek names and sounded Phoenikoi like Punici, simplifying the very peculiar Greek ph into p rather than into f. By regressive derivation they likened the word to their own poena, a punishment, and to the verb punire, but there is no common etymology.

Phoenician Phonetics

As a linguist I should probably not even be asking this question, but as all Western alphabets are probably ultimately derived from the ancient Phoenician alphabet from the Levant, have you ever considered that the term “phonetic alphabet” may also be rooted in “Phoenician alphabet?” I am also wondering if such words as phonetics, phones, phonology, etc. are also derived from the word “Phoenician.” I suppose I could look it up, but I’m too lazy at the moment, so I will fob it off on one of you.

The Roots of the Alphabet(s)

Probably most of you do not know that we are all using a variant of the ancient Phoenician alphabet. Actually I am not sure if that is precisely true, as I think the Phoenician alphabet was preceded by an Assyrian one. But at any rate, our classic Western alphabets all came out of the Levant and Mesopotamia in some way or other. Indeed, it is even theorized that many of the syllabaries in use in Central, South and Southeast Asia are also rooted in this original alphabet from the Levant.

Of course, Chinese and consequently Korean and Japanese alphabets have another origin.

One might wish to throw the odd SE Asian orthographies such as Thai, Lao, Burmese, Vietnamese, Javanese, Sundanese and Khmer there, but my understanding is that all of those SE Asian orthographies were actually derived from syllabaries originally designed in India.

A few writing systems such as Georgian, Armenian and Cree may have been created de novo, but I might have to look that up. The only non-Middle Eastern derived orthography that immediately comes to my mind is the Chinese ideographs.

The origins of the Assyrian/Phoenician alphabet appear to have been ultimately in Egyptian hieroglyphics. So the ancient Egyptians really started it all when it comes to writing down words, at least for the West.

Chinese ideographs may date from even earlier. Chinese bone writing goes way back.

Very early European writing such as runic systems and similar systems in Asia such as the Turkic Orkhon inscriptions may not be related to the Phoenician system at all. The Yukaghir in Siberia and the Yi in South China may also have designed de novo systems.

Asian Woman Ratings Chart

All right all you rice kings out there with yellow fever, this is the chart you have all been waiting for. It rates 7 different types of Asian cuties on a variety of important factors such as attractiveness, horniness, sweetness, sex skills, cleanliness, etc. Japanese, Chinese, Pinays, Khmers, Indonesians, Thais and Vietnamese woman all rated. Make sure to keep this chart handy so you can pick the Asian cutie who’s best for you.

Chart rating Asian cuties on various factors. Handy for rice kings everywhere.
Chart rating Asian cuties on various factors. Handy for rice kings everywhere.

Obama Comes to His Senses on Syria?

From here.

This is very interesting stuff. Read closely.

Here is the face-saving formula used by US Secretary of State Kerry in London today to signal that the United States is finally jettisoning the absurd and Utopian demand that Syrian President Assad’s immediate removal from power be a precondition for negotiating a political settlement for Syria.

Kerry stated: “Our focus remains on destroying ISIL and also on a political settlement with respect to Syria, which we believe cannot be achieved with the long-term presence of Assad,” Mr. Kerry said. “But we’re looking for ways in which to try to find a common ground. Clearly, if you’re going to have a political settlement, which we’ve always argued is the best and only way to resolve Syria, you need to have conversations with people, and you need to find a common ground.” which we’ve always argued is the best and only way to resolve Syria, you need to have conversations with people, and you need to find a common ground.”[i]

If Assad must depart in the long term, this implies that his short-term and medium-term presence is feasible. This opens the space needed for serious diplomacy and negotiations, which Europe is demanding to stop the Syrian civil war, the driving force behind the refugee crisis. It is expected that a number of European nations will soon end economic sanctions against Syria, re-open their shuttered embassies, and begin cooperating with the legal Assad government.

“Privately, I’m told, Obama agreed to — and may have even encouraged — Putin’s increased support for the Assad regime, realizing it’s the only real hope of averting a Sunni-extremist victory. But publicly Obama senses that he can’t endorse this rational move. Thus, Obama, who has become practiced at speaking out of multiple sides of his mouth, joined in bashing Russia – sharing that stage with the usual suspects, including The New York Times’ editorial page.”[ii]

This suggests that Obama’s public posturing in regard to Putin may represent a charade or dog-and-pony show. The same may apply to Obama’s repeated refusals to meet with Putin on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in just over a week’s time. Obama may be using this issue as a way to dupe the warmonger Republican opposition.

Here we have a very interesting situation. Parry is excellent, and his sources are usually CIA, often dissident, anti-neocon CIA, so the referenced source may be US intelligence.

This actually makes a lot of sense. The US, Israel, Europe and the Sunni Arab states such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Jordan and Turkey have long been demanding the removal of Assad a precondition for ending the war. This doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Why does Assad have to go? Because so many Syrians love Al Qaeda and ISIS so much, so therefore Assad has no legitimacy? Who is to take his place? The only people who can take his place are Al Qaeda/ISIS types. The FSA types could take his place, but they only represent 10

Nobody in Syria much likes the opposition. The last poll taken showed that the rebels only had 10

The FSA is not much liked either. They are regarded as pro-US, pro-EU, pro-Israel dupes who will sell out Syria to the US, the West, Israel and the Gulf. In other words, they’re a bunch of traitors who are out to make Syria into one more US Sunni Arab colony like Morocco, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, and Bahrain. Most Syrians wouldn’t be too happy to be ruled by a bunch of traitors.

So there’s no one for Assad to negotiate with. Negotiating an end to the war means negotiating with Al Qaeda/ISIS. Good luck with that. The FSA has no legitimacy and no support.

Apparently the US/EU/Israel plan is to replace Assad with some FSA-type Sunni Arab dupe who could be easily controlled by the US/EU/Israel. This is a long-standing plan, hence the long-standing demand that “Assad must go.”

So as you can see, there’s nothing to negotiate. There’s no one to replace Assad. Anyway, in a free and fair election, Assad would win by a mile, so Assad is the choice of the majority of Syrians.

Apparently the US is finally caving on its longstanding demand that Assad must go. Now we say that Assad must go in the longterm. That means apparently that he can stay in the short-term and midterm. This is a very serious cave-in by the US.

The US doesn’t want to defeat ISIS in Syria at all at the moment. Perhaps we want to defeat them in Iraq, but sometimes I even wonder about that. Sure, we bomb them here and there, but it doesn’t amount to much.

I do think that the US might like to defeat ISIS in the longterm, but surely not now. For now, ISIS is very useful to put pressure on Assad. Probable US goals were:

  1. Take out Assad.
  2. Put in government of pro-US, pro-Israel Sunni Arab dupes.
  3. Possibly try to defeat ISIS.

Notice there’s nothing in that list about defeating Al Qaeda and their minions who along with ISIS make up 90

But the US has a longstanding habit of using various forces, arming and funding them and then turning around, selling them out and arming and funding their enemies to wage all-out war on them. We’ve been doing this crap forever. Just ask the Kurds. This bullshit is called “realpolitik.” Ask Henry Kissinger how that’s supposed to work.

Anyway, it looks there is a complete collapse in the US strategy of keeping ISIS alive enough to threaten Assad, arming and funding Al Qaeda and pals, and demanding Assad’s ouster. It looks like the game-changer was Russia entering the Syrian conflict in a huge way.

And apparently Obama has secretly given the go-ahead for Putin to go into Syria on the basis that US policy has collapsed, and Obama realizes that the best policy is to support Assad against the forces of medievalist terrorism.

However, Obama cannot come out and say this. The Republican Party is still full-throated committed to support for Al Qaeda (and even possibly ISIS) and overthrowing Assad with apparently no plan at all to deal with the Holocaust that would follow. The US “free press” is of course 100

So Obama can’t come out and say he is supporting Russia’s efforts to defeat terrorism and support Assad in Syria because the neocons in Neocon Central (the Republican Party) and the neocon-controlled press will massacre him.

So Obama cleverly gives Putin the go-ahead to go into Syria and do his stuff, while publicly he blasts away at Putin with the usual anti-Russian bluster that the neocons of him. As usual, observed reality as reported in the controlled press is not at all what is really happening behind the scenes. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain…

Naked 12 Year Old Girls Are Evil

If you ever want to see a naked 12 year old girl, here’s how to find one. Go look up the video of the scene with Brooke Shields in Pretty Baby. It’s on the Net. For some reason apparently it’s not child porn yet. Brooke is working or living in some whorehouse and someone walks in on her in the bath. She stands up and tries to cover herself up with a bath curtain.

This video scene is considered very underground and it’s much whispered about as some sort of “hard to believe it’s legal” shock video on the Net. But a funny thing happens if you go and watch it, which you can do, perfectly legally too I might add.

You watch it and you think, “Wow. Is that all it is? Why is everyone so excited about this. This is nothing. This is bullshit. This is stupid. Why would anyone get turned on by this?”

That’s because even though it’s Brooke Shields, yes, to any normal man who sees that video, it doesn’t look like much anything. You can’t see a whole lot and there’s not much to see anyway. She has no breasts. No body hair. Her body is shaped like a stick. The long legs are nice because that’s starting to look like a woman, but the rest is just a joke. It’s not exciting. It’s not a turn-on. It’s actually stupid. You watch it, shrug your shoulders and say, “Meh? What’s the fuss?” Because there’s nothing even slightly erotic about that video.

I will confess to something now. Some put a link to what has to be classed as “child porn” in my comments section. They uploaded it to Youtube and linked to the Youtube video on my site. I followed it to Youtube, was disturbed and wanted to check out just what this highly dubious and maybe illegal video was that this guy linked to. He said he shot the video in the back of a bar in Colombia, and the girl was 12 years old.

So I watched. It’s a 12 year old Colombian girl doing a striptease in the back of the bar. The camera angle is pretty lascivious, so that’s legally child porn. She seems to be enjoying herself as she is doing this striptease. She’s finally all the way naked, and there’s not much there. Her breasts are there, but they are so small it is ludicrous. Nothing attractive. Her body is stick-like. She has a little girl face, and she acts like a kid. She has a tiny bit of pubic hair, but they’re shaving that off now anyway.

After she does her little show, she gets in the shower and washes off. A teenage boy maybe 14 years old joins her in the shower. Later they retire to a bed where they mess around a bit but don’t have anything resembling sex.

I watched it and the whole time I was thinking, “This isn’t even erotic. This girl doesn’t even turn me on. Why would anyone get turned on by this?” and most importantly, “Why is this evil? Why is this horrible? Why is it sick, vile and diabolical?” because that is what everyone tells us “child porn” is.

The video is not sick, evil, diabolical, horrific or awful. Mostly it’s just boring. You’re lucky if you can stay awake.

But more importantly, there is absolutely nothing wrong with what this girl is doing. Yes, she is doing a striptease. At that age, her sex drive may well be coming on, and surely teenage girls probably like to do stripteases in their bedrooms? Or for their boyfriends? Or with their girlfriends? Is that evil? Why is a pubertal girl doing a striptease and obviously having a blast “evil?” How did she get harmed by doing this striptease? We need to know this because anti-CP folks insist that this girl was obviously “harmed” by this video. How did the video hurt her? How did the striptease hurt her? Was the striptease harmful in some way?

Why is it evil to show a 12 year old girl in a shower? 12 year old girls get in the shower every day, right? Is that evil or something? Is it sick? It’s “sick” for 12 year old girls to take showers? Why? Did this girl get hurt by taking a shower (because anti-CP folks say she got hurt by this filming so apparently the shower was harmful)?

Yes, she plays with the boy in the shower. A couple of pubertal kids having some sex fun.Yes, later they retire to the bed and mess around sexually a bit, like 12-14 year old’s do all over the damn world every single day. Is it “sick” for her and the boy to mess around in the shower? Is “sick, evil and horrible” for them to play around in bed? Why? Was she harmed by playing with the boy in the shower or the bed (because anti-CP folks say she got hurt)? How? How did messing with the boy hurt her horribly, perhaps irreparably?

Ok, so after I watched the video, what did I do? I reported it to Youtube as child pornography, as is my duty as a citizen. I checked back in a day, and it was gone.Then I banned the idiot who put that on my page and blasted him in the comments for putting CP on my website. He apologized profusely and soon circumvented the ban. I let him stay because he promised to be good.

But I was still disturbed. Yes I watched it, determined it was CP and turned it in, but did I break the law by doing just that? Once you see it, you break the law, right? Ok, so how is anyone supposed to turn this stuff in ever, considering that by merely seeing it they are committing a serious crime?

Are there not anti-CP groups who range around the net finding CP and reporting it? Indeed there are, and I have been to some of these pages where  you can sometimes follow their links to what they call “CP” (really just naked young girls). But everyone in that vigilante group had to look at that page in order to turn it in, right? Did they break the law by looking at the page, even though they had to in order to turn it in?

Society acts like a video of a naked 12 year old girl is the most evil thing on the planet, and anyone who sees one is a diabolical pedophile scum. We all must be shielded from the Satanic evil videos of naked 12 year old girls, the sickest, most vile, most disgusting and perverted and twisted photography on Earth!

Can someone explain to me why society is so freaked out about this sort of thing? There’s nothing to get excited about, there’s nothing even to get interested in, but if some man glimpses this ultimate abyss of boredom, we act like he needs to be shot on site, beaten to death or sentenced to 50 years in prison? What for? For looking at one of the least interesting things known to man? What’s wrong with people?

I do not think this sort of thing should be legal, but is is really sick, evil, horrific, monstrous, diabolical, and vile? Why? It’s a naked girl. So what? Is that a bad thing?

All of America Is Supporting Al Qaeda in Syria

Let’s start with the Jew York Times.

Here.

They’ve been supporting Syrian Al Qaeda from Day One. And why wouldn’t the dual loyalists who run the Times do just that?

The Jews* are supporting Syrian Al Qaeda.

The entire US mass media is supporting Syrian Al Qaeda.

The Republican Party is very strongly supporting Syrian Al Qaeda.

The Democratic Party is also supporting Syrian Al Qaeda, perhaps not as strongly as the Republicans, but still very much so.

The CIA is supporting Syrian Al Qaeda. 90

The Pentagon is apparently supporting Syrian Al Qaeda.

It looks like all of American society is supporting Al Qaeda in Syria, right? Are the American people really ok with this? Are they really down with this?

Israel is supporting Syrian Al Qaeda.

US allies Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and UAE are all supporting Syrian Al Qaeda to the hilt with massive infusions of weapons and cash.

In case you were wondering, US support for Syrian Al Qaeda is a longstanding neocon project.

The neocons have recently become ascendant and have now taken over the Obama Administration where they were sidelined previously.

The entire Republican Party has always been Neocon Central, and most of the US media appears to be run by the neocons.

There are strong neocon factions in the Pentagon but whether they control the Pentagon right now is uncertain, as there are also anti-neocon groups there.

The US SOCOM or Special Operations Command, to their eternal credit, has taken a pretty strong anti-neocon line lately. That is because SOCOM is mostly about fighting Al Qaeda and related groups, and the neocons partner with Al Qaeda more than they fight them. In fact, at the moment some Al Qaeda factions could almost be said to be in part neocon projects themselves.

SOCOM is probably the only entity in the entire US state that is taking a strong uncompromising anti-Al Qaeda and anti-ISIS line. That is more pitiful than anything else.

The CIA has been taken over by neocons lately, but there are definitely some anti-neocon factions in the Agency, though they appear to be a minority.

The neocons are the enemies of the America, and to a large degree, the neocons are the enemies of the world.

*”The Jews” means Israel. To me, the US Jews are synonymous with Israel. Israel? US Jews? Same thing. Someone show me how these are different entities. To the extent that they support Israel, the US Jews are Israel. When the US Jews stop their sleazy, fanatical support for Israel, I will quit marrying the two.

Vile and Repulsive: America Supports Sickening Illegal Invasion of Yemen

Here.

Absolutely sickening.

Yes many Arab countries have joined in on this invasion of a sovereign country. This invasion is not about anything so much as “Kill the Shia.” That’s all it is. All of the invaders are Sunnis. They are invading because a nominally Shia group called the Houthis overthrew the extremely unpopular Hadi government in Yemen.

70-80

Actually the Houthi have been the main group running Yemen since the Middle Ages. A middle aged Sunni man who runs the local market supports them, saying, “They are the only people who know how to run the country.” Sadly his sons are infected with lunatic sectarianism and hate the Houthi as “Iranian proxies.”

Really the Houthi have little to do with Iran. Yes, they support Iran and vice versa, but there is no good evidence that Iran has given them much more than moral support.

What is going on here is that Saudi Arabia, the most evil country in the region other than its close ally Israel, is angry because the Houthi Shia Hadi who supported Saudi Arabia was overthrown by the Houthi rebels who are not real keen on Saudi Arabia.

Bottom line is Yemen has been a Saudi colony forever. Yemen has never been allowed to pursue any policy at all that was not pre-approved by the Saudis. For all intents and purposes, it’s not even an independent country and is instead a colony of Saudi Arabia.

The Saudis and other Sunni states have repeatedly intervened in Yemen. The last time Egypt intervened, they got their asses handed to them in a very bad way, losing 50,000 men. I do not think these invaders will have things so easily. They have already destroyed most of the country with bombs. Bombs repeatedly fall on markets and civilian vehicles driving along highways.

The Houthis will not go down easily.

This war is also about Saudi, Qatari, UAE, and Bahraini support for their buddies called Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (Yemeni Al Qaeda). This is the remains of the original Al Qaeda from Saudi Arabia that relocated to Yemen after the crackdown in Saudi Arabia.

Yemeni Al Qaeda has been a Saudi and larger Gulf project from Day One. To the north in Syria, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are throwing their weight behind another Al Qaeda faction called Al Nusra. 90

So, in Syria: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, and Qatar are supporting Al Qaeda massively with weapons and cash.

In Yemen: Saudi Arabia is certainly supporting Al Qaeda as a major project. And by attacking Al Qaeda’s worst enemy, the Houthis, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE, Egypt, Sudan, and Qatar are supporting Al Qaeda to the maximum by attacking their worst enemy.

Indeed, Hadi, who is supported by the Sunni coalition, generally refused to attack Yemeni Al Qaeda and instead forged some sort of a truce with them. Yemeni Al Qaeda made serious gains under the Hadi government. And since the invasion, Yemeni Al Qaeda has continued to make major gains.

Note that the Sunni coalition has not dropped one single bomb on Yemeni Al Qaeda, and instead has waged all; out war on Al Qaeda’s worst enemy!

All of this sheer lunacy is wrapped up in ridiculous Iran-paranoia and Shia-paranoia. The Sunnis have always ruled the Arab world with an iron fist, and the Shia have been downtrodden from Day One. Sunnis have staged repeated mass slaughters bordering on genocides of the Shia since the very earliest days of the Sunni-Shia split. In the Arab World, the Sunnis are the crackers, and the Shia are the niggers. Sunnis saying “the Shia are out to get us” are like Hitler saying “the Jews are trying to genoide us!” or the crackers saying, “The niggers are trying to kill us all!”

It’s insane nonsense. The typical case of the bully screaming that the victim is trying to massacre him as he beats the victim to a pulp. If you understand human psychology, this is precisely how bullies operate. The bully is always “defending himself” against the “aggression” of the victim. In geopolitical terms, the victim is usually just getting ready to genocide the bully : “They’re going to kill us all!” Most genocides actually start out just like this. Go research some genocides and get back to me. It always goes like this.

So it goes with the madness of the Sunni Arab Idiocracy and their Shia and Iran paranoia. Talk to most any Sunni Arab, and you will hear the most ridiculous idiocy: how Iran is getting ready to conquer the Arab world, how Iran has to be stopped before they conquer us all, about how Iran is going to conquer the Arab world and force all the Sunnis to convert to Shiism, on and on. As insane as this psychotic babble is, a large majority of Sunni Arabs actually believe this nonsense.

Bottom line is that Iran hasn’t invaded another country in hundreds of years, and I can assure you that Iran does not want to conquer one inch of Sunni Arab soil. The last thing Iran needs is a bunch of rabidly enraged Sunni Arabs living under its rule. I am sure that Iran would prefer to rule over as few Sunni Arabs as possible. 2

In other words, Iran paranoia is a bunch of insane bullshit. And that’s what’s driving this whole ridiculous invasion.

In a fight where there’s good guys and bad guys, generally speaking the US can be counted on to support the bad guys, and of course that is what we are doing here. We are providing a lot of support to the Sunni invading states, apparently because the US is going to support whatever insane thing Saudi Arabia decides to do. We have also bought into idiotic line of the Israelis and Sunni Arabs that “Iran is the real enemy.”

So the US is helping the Sunnis pound Al Qaeda’s worst enemy in Yemen. The US is helping the massive expansion of Yemeni Al Qaeda by refusing to lay one finger on them and by pounding their enemies.

None of this makes any real sense from a geopolitical point of view except that US Mideast foreign policy is Israeli foreign policy. In the Middle East, we simply do whatever our Israeli masters tell us to do. And the Israelis’ worst enemy is Iran. If that means helping ISIS and Al Qaeda fight “Iran” in Syria, then Israel will do just that, and indeed, Israel is giving serious support to Syrian Al Qaeda, including providing air support for their battles by bombing the Syrian Army and taking wounded Al Qaeda fighters to Israel for treatment.

Yeah.

Israel is supporting Al Qaeda. Is that nuts or what?

So, the US attacks Al Qaeda in a few places like Somalia, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

On the other hand, the US gives all out support to Al Qaeda in Syria and Yemen.

The lunatic hand of the US neocons is behind all of this idiocy, and the American people could care less.

“Hey did you hear? America supports Al Qaeda!

Yawn. “What’s on TV?”

Republican Propaganda Analyzed: “After 1995, Welfare Rolls Crashed, and Disability Payments Soared”

From here.

Figures. Whenever you hear these horrific stories from conservatives that make you want to abandon liberalism altogether, it’s almost always some sort of a lie. That’s why I banned a lot of rightwing commenters on here. For one thing, conservatives are bizarre. I can’t imagine a liberal going to a conservative forum just to fight the wingnuts. Most of think think that would be like taking a swim in a sewer, and that’s pretty much what it would in fact be.

However, conservatives are just weird. They love to fight, and they love to fight their liberal enemies. Now why this is I am not sure, but I can guess. I get why they like to fight. Authoritarian types love conflict and hate peace. But why do they fight us? Well, they think they are Good and we are Evil. They actually believe that liberalism is pure 100

Conservatives also love to proselytize, while most liberals don’t bother as we consider most conservatives too hopeless to convert, and we don’t like fighting anyway. I get the impression that conservatives simply cannot fathom how any sane human being could ever believe in liberalism. Many conservatives have told me that conservatism is rational, logical, and reasonable: it’s just common sense. Many others say that conservative positions are actually empirically proven to be correct.

Never mind that hardly any politics can ever be empirically proven to be correct – how will you do it? Test it out in a lab under controlled double blind conditions and then run multivariate analysis on it?

Anyway, they think conservatism is commonsensical scientifically provable fact, like saying the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. To conservatives, liberals are like folks who are argue that black is white and 2+2 = 5. They simply cannot fathom how any sane person, given the proper facts, would not be a conservative. In other words, we baffle them.

Really there is no such thing as empirical politics.

Rightwinger: After the 1995 changes to welfare (and many of those changes were good, though not all), the number of people on welfare dropped–and the number of people receiving disability payments went up, up, up.

Leftwinger: Welfare rolls plunged, and poverty soared. They plunged because welfare was no longer an entitlement. Since it was no longer an entitlement, one might or might not be able to get any help, regardless of how great that person’s need, and counties put limits on caseloads. If, say, the their caseload limit was 100, and you were the 101th person to apply, you could not get aid. Strict time limits were imposed, regardless of circumstances. Desperately poor people are, indeed, simply dumped off on the streets. Caseloads fell because cases were closed and new cases were denied.

Poverty grew. What we always called welfare is gone. There is no general assistance or AFDC. TANF is a marginally subsidized, time limited work program (only for those with minor children).

Now, on disability: This is fairly complex (much info and links at ssa.gov). When one applies for disability, it takes a minimum of a year, as long as 3 years, between the day you submit your application and the day your case is decided. Before you can even submit your application, you must obtain your medical records dating back many years, and official medical documentation confirming not simply that you have a disability (having a disability in itself does not make you eligible for disability aid), but that the disability is so severe that gainful employment impossible.

Only a doctor (not the SSA) can make that decision. All of this said: Many on welfare were the seriously ill and disabled who were not able to manage the (extremely complex, difficult) disability application process. They survived on GA welfare. (The bottom line was that it was simply cheaper to keep them on GA.) When welfare was ended, county agencies had to scramble to find a way to keep the truly disabled/seriously ill from being dumped out on the streets.

This resulted in a temporary surge of of cases being transferred from welfare offices to the SSA. (Nope. No fraud was involved — just saving lives.) One must have a medical (psychiatric) diagnosis of suffering from legitimate mental illness that is so severe as to make it impossible to maintain gainful employment.

What Is the Basis for Our Political Opinions?

The truth of course is that almost no politics is empirically proven to be right, wrong or even indifferent. Different proposals are simply different ideas about how society should be run and as such are outside of the realm of science.

And honestly, almost everyone’s politics is “I take Position A over Position B because Position A makes me feel good, and Position B makes me feel bad.” That’s how 90

Now a lot also take positions on a moral basis. For a lot of my positions I simply feel that Positions B that I reject are out and out immoral, while Positions A that I take are much more moral choices.

A lot of politics is also taken for selfish reasons. I am not here to knock that, as I do this myself. Many Positions B that I reject are rejected simply because I feel these positions would be very bad for me personally in some way. This stuff hits close to home. So I choose Position A which will not harm me over Position B which will harm me. Most other people and even entities like corporations base most of their politics on similar egotistical and yes, of course, selfish politics.

The Big Lie is that everyone says, “I take Positions A because those are the ones that really work, and I reject Positions B because those policies simply do not work.”

Now I might take that position in a few cases. Say if someone proposed to tear down all the prisons (there are far Left types who advocate this), I would reject it on grounds that it just would not work and further would probably harm a lot of innocent people. Prisons are horrific, but they work better than setting what amounts to wild animals loose on our streets. Animals belong in cages!

But most people do indeed take positions based on what makes them feel good, what they think is morally correct and what is better for them on a very selfish level. Almost no one will admit this because to do so makes them seem petty, vain, shallow and narcissistic and although this describes most humans, hardly any of us want to face up to our petty, shallow and callous inner cores.

Democrats Voted to Wipe Out Food Stamps?

Here.

With our attention now on the 2016 elections, Democrats have confirmed their priorities by virtually ending food stamps to the elderly poor and the disabled.

The latest atrocity from the Dempublican Wing of the Democratic Party. Long ago, I figured that almost no reactionary proposal was too low for the DNC Wing of the party, but this has to be a new low. Why do they even call themselves Democrats? Why don’t they all just switch parties if this is how they feel?

On the other hand, this is the first I have heard of this outrage. Can someone clue me in on this?

Hillary Sucks Part 1,495

Here.

Hillary has been attacking Sanders on the grounds that he is a “socialist.” And just recently she attacked him by connecting him with the “evil” Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Good God. Is Hillary really a Democrat? She sounds like a Republican. Switch parties already, Hillary!

Hillary is so awful.

On the other hand, Bernie is leading Hitlery in New Hampshire and Iowa. So the way to beat Bernie’s lead is…to attack him from the Right? I always knewK Killary was foolish, but apparently she’s also stupid. What’s the point of attacking Sanders as a Leftist when Sanders is leading her? What’s the strategy?

I do have my worries about Sanders, mostly that he is unelectable. And of course I would vote for Hitlery myself over a Republican because stupid beats evil any day.

What Language Is This?

Nai to katalava pos einai moyfa metafrash. Apo xiliometra, alla oxi. An den thn poyn thn malakia toys oi papares tha tous gyrisoyn se aimoroides. Papares. Sta diala me sinxisan. Kai tora proseje. Tha kanoyn sinomilia mas kai epidh den exoyn tipota pio simantiko na kanoyn sthn pathetic zoi toys. Na to metafrasoyn Askopa fysika. Astous re pairnoun apo metafrasi kai nomizoun oti taponoun! O allos o malakas pire apo metafrasi kai antegrapse tin kathareuousa grafo gia na min katalavoun oi malakes apo panw ti grafo kai to peksoun eksipnoi me tin metafrasi.

Was Chavez Poisoned by the US?

Here.

Bernie Sanders revealed his phony populism by shamelessly bashing the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez – murdered by Obama, either poisoned or infected with incurable cancer causing substances.

Four surgeries in 18 months couldn’t save him. At the time, then acting (now current) President Nicholas Maduro said he “was poisoned by dark forces in order to hit at the Venezuelan people and Latin America.”

Bottom line is they never proved it. It’s just an unproven theory. It is rather interesting that several of the New Left Latin American leaders all came down with cancer around the same time, but that in and of itself doesn’t prove anything. Plus there’s no good, hard evidence that you can give someone cancer via poisoning or infection. Perhaps you can, but it’s not proven yet.

Down with Bernie Sanders

Here.

Sanders calls Hugo Chavez a “dead Communist dictator.” That might shock you, but it shouldn’t. As great as Bernie is on US domestic policy, he is horrific on foreign policy, as are all US politicians. Suffice to say that Bernie gives full throated supported to US imperialism. That’s all you need to know. I looked at his despicable record on foreign policy. Just awful.

Of course, Hitlery Clinton is probably even worse. Sanders was responding to one of Killary’s emails to supporters linking Sanders with Chavez as if that is a terrible thing! Hilliary is just the worst. She is typical of what passes for a “liberal Democrat” these days, and is one of the main reasons I say liberal Democrats suck. Liberal Democrats are just awful. They’re barely even better than Republicans.

Elegy for the Latin American Left

I had an Argentine girlfriend once. She knew I was a leftwinger. She used to tease me about it a lot. It’s sort of “normal.” Normal in the sense that when you meet a White American, they tell you they are a conservative Republican. It’s a normal, everyday thing, you hear it all the time. On the other hand, in the US, when you tell people you are a Leftist, that is a pretty freaky thing to say. A lot of people’s eyes bug out of their heads.

In Latin America, it’s not necessarily bad to be a leftwinger. There have always been plenty of leftwingers. Sure, it’s often been a pretty dangerous ideology to hold, but it’s not uncommon at all for intellectuals, people with advanced degrees, writers, artists, etc. It often shocks people a bit because they think it is way too ballsy, and you are a bit of a dangerous character in that you might have alliances with some armed group, but it’s not considered unusual or strange. It’s sort of an everyday thing.

Argentina went through a terrible time from 1978-1983 when the state formed a dictatorship and killed 30,000 Argentines in a counterinsurgency campaign. Sure the Left was armed, and they had been carrying out armed actions for some time, but they were not as Commie as you might think.

Quite a few were Peronists fighting for a socialism, nationalism and Catholicism, which sounds pretty cool by me. Sort of like Argentine Chavistas.

What happened was that the state attacked the guerrillas and their support network. The support network were mostly idealistic young people who were apparently unarmed. Students, teachers, labor organizers, community workers, Catholic lay workers, radical priests, you get the picture.

Security would raid their hangouts, arrest them, and then take them off and murder them. These people were probably not innocent of any crimes, but most were unarmed.

It’s hard to argue that law enforcement should arrest people then take them out and shoot them. Nor should the army detain enemy suspects and then shoot them in the head. It’s illegal to kill POW’s. It’s pretty hard to justify that, but that’s Standard US Counterinsurgency Theory as taught at the School of the Americas in Fort Benning, Georgia. In Argentina, they call it The Dirty War.

Oh, and of course you can already guess how the US was involved. The US supported the Argentine junta to the hilt the whole time. You can thank Henry Kissinger for that. He was the main one responsible.

My girlfriend wasn’t a Leftist, but she was sympathetic to the Argentine guerrilla, and in particular she thought the government’s slaughter was outrageous and horrible. She came from a moneyed family that worked in real estate, and she formerly lived in an upscale part of Bogota called Belgrado before coming to the US. She started talking about The Dirty War, and then she became philosophical.

“The Latin American Left dreamed of a better world,” she said in Spanish. “And in Latin America, that is a dangerous thing.”

And with that we leave you with an elegy for the Latin American Left.

In the Female, Sexual Consciousness Trumps Class Consciousness

In other words, when it comes down to tingles versus cash, tingles tends to win.

One time I knew a woman from Colombia. We used to talk online a lot. I called her on the phone a few times, and her upper class Bogota Colombian Spanish accent was one of the sexiest damn accents you have heard in your life. It almost sounded like French or Catalan in its cadence.

She ran with a rich crowd who spent half their time in Spain. A lot of rich Latin Americans are like that. It’s not uncommon for them to spend 2-6 months out of the year in Spain. They’re practically transplanted Spaniards, culturally anyway.

Her brother was an artist who painted very good paintings which he sold for $3,000-5,000/each, which I suppose is a small fortune in Colombia. They were always going off to Spain to sell paintings or go to art shows, etc.

I talked to her, her sister and I think a man there a few times, and they were some of the classiest, most polite people you have ever met in your life. You meet Colombians and it’s often like that. You think, “These are the nicest people on Earth. Why have they spent the last 65 years slaughtering each other?”

She claimed that she hated the Colombian guerrillas, but I don’t think she hated them all that much. A lot of rich Colombians pay war taxes to the guerrillas. There are serious consequences if you don’t pay. You drive outside of Bogota, meet some guerrilla guy at some pre-organized place, and hand over that year’s war tax. It’s not a tiny amount, but it won’t break the bank either. It’s easily payable. So a lot of Colombian rich have guerrilla connections anyway in one way or another.

Despite this woman’s hatred of the guerrilla, she confided in me that in her crowd of rich artsy Bogotans, there were quite a few FARC supporters, many more than you would ever think. The artsy crowd are always a funny type of rich. In a lot of revolutionary situations, quite a few artsy rich go over to the Revolution. They don’t have the class consciousness of a typical rich person.

At that time, I was working for a guerrilla group called the ELN translating some of their statements from Spanish into English.

Whoops! I wasn’t doing that at all! Because that would violate anti-terrorist laws!

Well anyway, I told her about it, and I expected her to scream at me, call me a Commie and never talk to me again, but instead she started teasing me in a really sexy, flirty, dirty voice, “Ohhhhhhhhhhh. Man of dangerrrrrrrrrrrr (hombre de peligro).”

It sounds a bit funny in English, but that’s the translation. I guess down there being a guerrilla supporter or working for the guerrilla is sort of like running Ultimate Bad Boy Game. I suppose you could even grab some rich women that way. In the female, class consciousness easily gives way to sexual consciousness. The lure of the Bad Boy transcends class interest.

Proposal for a Supportable Feminism and MRA

I think we should support any non-misandric feminism. That is, any feminism that is just about obtaining rights for women and not about hating men or persecuting men should be supported. And I am sure that there are females out there who feel this way. The much-discussed Liberal Feminism is along these lines, but I do not like the conservative to Libertarian overtones of Liberal Feminism.

I think we should support any non-misogynistic MRA movement. Of course the existing MRA’s are for the most part wildly misogynistic, but I do not see why it has to be that way. An MRA movement should be about obtaining rights for men, not hating women. Anyway, it is the feminists who are persecuting us, not women in general.

Remember there are two kinds of women:

Gender feminists

Real women

We have nothing whatsoever against Liberal Feminists and real women. It’s the gender feminists that we have a beef with, which honestly is most of them. All major feminist organizations are Gender Feminist-based and most prominent feminists are Gender Feminists.

Who Is Behind Pedophile Mass Hysteria (Criminalization of Teenage Female Sexuality)?

Hasbrudal writes:

Good point. Parents are the primary reason for a lot of these laws. Parents don’t want their 16 year old daughters having sex with anyone. Parents more than feminists are why a 24 year old gets convicted for having sex with a 16 year old.

Sure but if parents have always opposed such things why are we seeing such a crazed breakout of Pedophile Mass Hysteria, which boils down to little more than the criminalization of the sexuality of teenage girls? So why the sudden explosion in this? Society was actually saner on this question in the past, even in the 70’s and 80’s when I was growing up.

What’s different now is feminism. There was hardly any feminist movement before, so these laws were relatively sane. My articles get linked fairly often to feminist forums, and male and female feminists both are absolutely insane on the subject of Jailbait sexuality, especially Jailbaits having sex with adult men. Nothing drives them more bonkers.

Feminism is Puritanism. Both male and female feminists are flat out Puritans.

And it’s not “parents.” Generally speaking, it is the father and the father only who is trying to protect his daughter from the evil men and boys out to molest his special little snowflake. I have no idea why fathers are so bonkers on this question. It’s like the girl is their property or something.

The mothers, on the other hand, were all teenage girls themselves so know how insanely horny most teenage girls are. Mothers get it. Usually the daughter will start having sex, confide in the mother, and Mom will help keep daughter supplied with birth control pills and whatnot. Then the girl and Mom make a silence pact to keep the dirty little secret from Dad.

Source: I have known many women with teenage daughters, and they pretty much all had this attitude. Also I knew a lot of teenage girls back in the day, and generally the mother was hip to the girl’s sexual activity and silently supporting her in some way or another while also urging her to be cautious.

How I Flirt with Women

I do not use openers. I do not do cold approaches. I cannot think of anything more retarded than a cold approach. A cold approach means you walk up to some woman who is showing no interest in you whatsoever and make some sort of a Game-style approach. I am not sure exactly what the approach involves. I generally don’t do this. If a woman is ignoring me, I assure you she’s doing it for a reason. Sometimes I talk to them anyway for some reason, but 90

I figure this is about where cold approach is going to get you.

The only time I would ever approach a woman is if she gave me some sort of Indication of Interest. I know exactly what these look like, and truth is, I don’t get them a lot anymore, but I sure used to.

Once you get a good, solid IOI, you can of course approach her, but even then, you need to be careful. I have no idea why, but even some women who give you some pretty blatant IOI’s will sort of blow you off once you actually do approach them. In the case where a woman gave me an IOI, I approached her and then she sort of gave me a cold shoulder, I just wrap up the conversation right away and take off. If she wants me to stick around and talk then she needs to act like it. Also it is very awkward to continue talking to a woman who is giving you signals that say in one way or another “not interested.”

In addition, even I have been called creep or something along those lines more times than I can count, and it’s done a number on my confidence to the point where I am almost paranoid-cautious around women. Really the definition of creep is just:

Creep: A man who I am not attracted to is trying to engage me sexually in some way with looks, conversation, etc.

That’s pretty much all it is. Sure, there are some men who act awful and really do act like creeps, but that’s only maybe 10

In terms of actual flirtation, I just start off talking about ordinary, day to day things. To start off the actual flirting, you can always just tell her how beautiful she is or how pretty she is. That’s usually what I do. This goes over pretty well.

But the truth is that I generally do not start flirting with women. I play “Innocent Little Boy” and simply sit back and engage in casual conversation while throwing out the occasional “lure” that can’t really be proven to be a sexual comment. I see if she bites at the lures. Then I do this thing I call “opening the door.” I make the woman feel as comfortable as possible with saying anything sexual to me. The attitude is, “It’s ok to be a total slut with me because I love sluts.” Slut-shaming doesn’t work. You are trying to seduce this woman, and you are a slut-shamer? How is that going to work now?

Then I just sit back and wait. Usually after not too long of a time, maybe an hour or two at most, it seems like they get frustrated that I am not making a move on them. Sometimes they blurt out sexual stuff out of what looks like exasperation. I remember one who said out of the blue for no reason at all, “But Bob! You’re so cute!” So there’s your green light right there.

Most of the time, they will simply start talking about sexual things in general like their sex lives, the latest guy they are fucking, what he’s like in bed, that some particular food is an aphrodisiac, that they write erotic articles online under an assumed name, on and on.

Really any time a woman starts talking to you about sex for no reason at all she is giving you a huge green light. A woman who just wants to be friends should never start blatantly talking about sexual things with her male friend because whenever a woman does that, she is pretty much greenlighting the guy. So women, if you do not want to greenlight men, don’t start talking about obviously sexual topics with them.

Then when I get that green light, I open up and start talking about sex stuff with her. However, I do so cautiously at first. Then both parties start flirting away, and I am very good at flirting.

Men Arrested for Having Sex with Underage Dolls

I wrote about this insanity earlier. I told you that feminists were already working to try to ban sex dolls. Now it turns out they are already doing it.

Two men, one in Canada and one in Australia, have been arrested and charged with possession of child pornography for owning dolls that are shaped like 12-14 year old Lolis.

Yep, you read that right. Two men were arrested for owning underage dolls. That’s so stupid it’s not even real. You see, underage dolls are harmed when men own them and use them for sex because while adult dolls are capable of consent, underage dolls are simply not capable of consenting due to the immaturity of their plastic brains.

I am surprised they didn’t charge these guys with child molesting for fucking these ridiculous dolls. That’s probably coming next. Nothing’s too bizarre for Pedophile Mass Hysteria, brought to you by the feminists.

Both of these men are apparently going to get off because while child pornography laws are absolutely insane, they are not quite this insane yet. And yes, child pornography laws are insane. For instance, in some cases drawings of children having sex with adults are illegal.

The whole argument against child pornography is based on the notion that a child was harmed in making the images. The images show the commission of a crime along with a criminal perpetrator and a crime victim. By viewing these images (dubious argument) and certainly by collecting, trading and selling them for sexual gratification (better argument) you are re-victimizing the child. The girl who got molested at age 10 gets “molested” over and over again each time her images are collected, traded or sold. I suppose there is some sort of a rational argument in there somewhere. Anyway, true child pornography is so awful that society is completely within its means to ban the stuff.

But drawings? What’s the argument? The girl in the drawing got harmed? The girl in the drawing is a crime victim? The man in the drawing is a criminal? The drawing shows the commission of an actual crime which definitely occurred? Every time you collect, trade of sell that drawing, the poor little girl in that drawing is victimized over and over again?

What the Hell?

True pedophiles have an actual sexual orientation like homosexuality or heterosexuality. They can’t help their orientation any more than any of us can. I say let the pedos have their drawings, stories and dolls but now their images or actual humans being victimized. After all, they have a right to satisfy their sexual urges in some manner, do they not?

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)