Game/PUA: Advice for Men: Don’t Cry around Your Girlfriends or Wives

A commenter: Crying is for MEN AND WOMEN. For centuries the patriarchy has stuffed us with bullshit where women are considered the weak that cry and men are MEN.

If a man crying will not be respected by the woman, it is most likely due to the fact the man has done some ‘manly’ thing, she is just not interested that much in him, or the woman is just too influenced by the patriarchy.

Advice from another man: Cry your eyes out, experience emotions, you are a brittle and sensitive human being.

You know what? Normally I would agree with you. On the other hand, I have known men who just cried too much. It was pussy, sissy, weak behavior. They were not gay but they were wimpy, and worse, they were male feminists who believed in rape culture and the rest of that nonsense.

I felt like you for many years. I finally gave up and caved in to the patriarchy. Women want toxic masculinity in men. IMHO, that’s pretty much all they want. I would be surprised to find a woman who would tolerate anything less in a man, especially nowadays. I’m a man who has had women troubles my whole life due to the fact that I seem soft. Women interpret that to mean pussy, gay, wimpy, weak, etc., and they get aggressive and try to dom me or bully me or they turn into bitches.

A lot of sadistic bitches deliberately hook up with what they see as weak men so they can kick their asses their whole lives. And some of these women may indeed love their men. It’s terrible to be in a relationship like that. The last thing you want to hear from other women is, “We don’t like the way she treats you! She is really mean to you, and we don’t like it!” It’s nice that they have your back, but it looks terrible. If you are out in public and she is bitching you out, people will look at you with disgust. Hispanics, both men and women, are by far the worst about this.

I used to call myself a pure androgyne along the lines of Bowie, the Dolls, or Mick Jagger. That worked back in the 70’s and early 80’s when everyone was like that and men had the freedom to act that way, but we no longer have that freedom.

Society has gone completely backwards in the way men are allowed to express ourselves. And this change has been enforced by women. Most toxic masculinity is enforced by women. Most men accept me as a perfectly masculine man because I walk the walk and talk the talk. But what works with men does not work with women. Women are far more demanding in terms of masculinity than men are. Further, they don’t understand the meaning of masculinity in the male world. They have a cartoon version of masculinity that does not line up at all with what men experience with other men.

I’ve basically given up and I act a lot more masculine now. I must say my life with women has gotten a lot better. I also cuss out girlfriends in the meanest way possible when they get out of line with me. Since I started doing this, I have never had such deep relationships with women. Women have loved me more than they ever did before.

I think women want a mean man. Not one who is mean all the time, but one is mean sometimes. All you have to be is mean sometimes. You can be a real nice guy all the rest of the time. But you can’t let her get away with shit, and you can’t let her get out of line. If she does, read her the riot act. It is also important that your woman be a bit afraid of you.

The more afraid of you she is, the less she will bitch you out. A woman who bitches you out a lot is often doing it because she’s not afraid of you. If she’s afraid of you and bitching you out, then she’s just a crazy, suicidal bitch. No woman should bitch out a scary man without a good reason, but they do it all the time. I call that “trying to get murdered.” Which, by the way, is also something women do all the time. Unsurprisingly, sometimes when women are trying to do this, they actually achieve their goal. That is, they get murdered.

If you are going to cry, cry around other men. Many men have said that it’s much easier to cry around other men than it is to cry around women. We men know how painful life is. All men know what sadness is and how sadness is an essential and important part of life.

Depression in ManWorld

We don’t talk about it, much, but we know it. You’re just not supposed to admit it. When I’m down, it’s obvious. The older man at the store will ask me how I am doing. If I am really down, I will shrug my shoulders. That’s means I’m down in ManWorld talk. You’re saying you’re depressed, but you are saying it in an acceptable way. Then he would say, “Hanging in there, huh?” or “Surviving, right?” I say, “That’s right.”

In ManWorld you can get depressed, but you almost have to be hanging in there and surviving. That is, coping. You’re not supposed to let depression knock you out of service. That’s not acceptable and it’s also cowardly. You probably should not stay too depressed for too long, either. I always try to keep my spirits up, even when I’m down. I usually say I’m ok or all right if people, even when I’m down.

Sometimes I will admit that things are not going well for me, and other men will respond by just cutting off contact with me. That’s what we men and even a lot of women do. Depression and bad vibes are contagious. Depressed people are depressing. They make you depressed. That’s why people avoid them. Depressed people also remind a lot of people that their lives are pretty depressing too, but they are denying and smiling their way out of it. Being around a depressed person reminds them of how fake their happiness is.

Defenses People Use Against Depression, with a Note on Narcissism

Defenses work best when they are relatively unconscious. The more conscious a defense is, the less well it works.

That’s why people get upset when you talk psychology. “Enough psychobabble!” These are usually extroverted Normies, usually men who are not too young. They are dealing with life by simply refusing to look inside of themselves and denying everything that is unpleasant down there. When you even mention the word psychology, you remind them of how fake their happiness and adjustment is and how it’s all based on mass forgetting and refusing to look at a whole lot of things inside of themselves. You remind them that there’s a creepy closet in their psyche full of all sorts of scary monsters who they are too scared to even look at, hence they are acting like scared little 7 year old boys.

A lot of people also think “depression is evil.” They think people choose to be miserable and by choosing this, they are making an immoral choice. They are sort of like criminals. They’re bad people! That’s a Hell of a way to feel about depressed people like that, but it’s not uncommon. Usually seen in a professional person of either sex aged ~30-40.

After 40, you’ve seen so much depression and probably experienced enough of your own that it’s hard to call depressed people evil anymore. It hits too close to home. Also, by 40, almost everyone has had about a million bad things happen to them, and most people simply don’t think that their shit doesn’t stink anymore. There is a humility that comes with middle age, even to the most arrogant people. The weight of time and life humbles us all.

Aging and the Narcissist

If a person past age 40 is still arrogant and highly narcissistic, something is badly wrong. A lot of times you are looking at Narcissistic Personality Disorder. That said, even the narcissist can only lie to himself for so long before even he has to admit it’s all a big fake job. Time and age is hard on the narcissist. Time not only heals all wounds, but it also wounds all heels, even narcissistic heels.

There is a decline in many functions and appearances with age, not the least of which is personal appearance. You can cover it up with makeup and even plastic surgery and a lot of extreme Denial so strong that you look right in the mirror and your mind literally distorts your own reflection. Yes, defenses can cause actual perceptual distortions.

But at some point, all the patching up isn’t going to work anymore, and the narcissist will have to deal with the painful reality that he is no longer so goodlooking or hot anymore, and in fact, he is now a homely aging or old person. This is very hard for the narcissist to take, and a lot of narcissists  become depressed in middle to old age. At some point all the defenses collapse and the whole structure comes tumbling down, leaving them dazed, bruised, and forced to look at the reality of their own personal wreckage.

A healthy person can be fairly ok with this. For example, I joke:

I think my looks are shot, but a lot of women still tell me I’m hot. I don’t get it.

Of course, I don’t really believe that, but it works pretty well as self-deprecating humor, and it’s the opposite of narcissism. And I’d be lying if I wasn’t fishing for compliments* when I say that.

The woman, even a young one – Hell, even an underage teenage girl, usually says:

“No way! You are handsome!”

To which I respond,

Really? Well, if you say so.”

Humility, fake or not, tends to go over pretty well as long as you don’t act like you hate yourself. If you have egotistical tendencies (and I do), it knocks you down to other people’s level, and people like it when you meet them on their level, whether it’s genuine or not.

I’m starting to think that no one cares how you really feel about them. Life is all about appearances, and appearances are by their very nature quite fake, at least in us showboating human egoists. Walk the walk and talk the talk and you’re done. Fake it til you make it.

Everyone acts like this is an immoral way to walk through life, except that people who say that are probably doing the exact same thing. In a sense, our interactions with other humans are best seen as a series of roles that we are playing in a drama with the other humans as co-actors. Shakespeare remarked on this. Yet it’s true. How many of us is truly genuine and why in the Hell would that be a good idea anyway?

Know one but you knows what is in your mind, so your thoughts are important to you only and are never important to anymore else until you verbalize them, which isn’t mandatory and is often a bad idea. Thoughts originate in your head and are often best kept right there. Thoughts aren’t illegal yet either; though don’t fret, the feminists and SJW’s are working real hard on it, and there should be some legislation to deal with thought crime soon.

In a way, the best social actors are those who can play a variety of roles. If you always play one role, fine. But in some cases, you may need to try on a new role. I’ve played all sorts of roles in life, and I like to try new ones all the time. It’s pretty fun and it’s an escape from egoism, narcissism, and solipsism because it gets you out of your damned head for once, and it also makes you realize that this thing called “you,” your actual identity, is in a way fake too, as fake as all these roles you are play. It’s manufactured, created or socially constructed as the postmodernists like to say.

Age is painful for us all, but healthier people, as the British like to say, “manage to muddle through anyway.” But here the narcissist is in trouble  because at a fundamental level, he is simply not healthy.

It is no secret that a lot of narcissists are very goodlooking, highly intelligent, or quite skilled at this or that. A lot of narcissists really are superior to most of the rest of us. Nevertheless, you’re not supposed to act like it. If you do, you will make everyone mad because no one likes to be talked down to.

*Supposedly fishing for compliments sucks, but you know what, readers? You all go ahead and fish for all the damned compliments you want. Life’s tough enough as it is. We all deserve a break and a pat on the back now and then.

What I’m Reading

Mostly just lots of short stories these days. They’re all considered classic literature. One book is a set of French short stories by writers who are considered to write classic literature.

The French book was published in 1960, so we are dealing with dated material here, all over 60 years old:

Charles Baudelaire: Paris Spleen (1869). “Prose poems or proems,” an odd literary form. Very nice. I have read The Flowers of Evil (both are books of poetry), and I cannot recommend them highly enough, especially Le Fleurs du Mal. French Symbolist literature, or more properly, Decadent literature, from the late 1800’s. He hung out with Paul Verlaine, Arthur Rimbaud and Stéphane Mallarmé, all of them haunting Parisian bars in drunken ecstasy.

He as actually straight, unlike some of those other guys who were homosexuals. He was sickly, nuts, erratic, a drug-addict, flake, dilettante, gambler, spendthrift, and heavy drinker who lived his whole life in poverty. He attempted suicide once. Dead at 46. Marcel Proust said Baudelaire was the greatest poet of the 19th Century. He was also praised by Edmund Wilson and T. S. Eliot, who actually referred to himself as a “Baudelarian.” He  was claimed by both conservatives and liberals. On the left, Walter Benjamin praised him.

Francois Mauriac: The Grand-Lebrun (1933). First thing I ever read by this guy. Has a James Joyce feel about it, especially Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man.

*********

In the other book, published in 1968, so these stories are all over 50 years old:

Anton Chekhov: Misery (1885) and Rothschild’s Fiddle (1894). These are better than either of the French stories. This is the first Chekhov I have read. He’s 19th Century Russia, so I warn you, these stories, like most Russian lit from that time, are depressing and gloomy as Hell. Someone either dies, has just died, or will soon die, or all three at once. Nevertheless, his style is truly amazing and heartrendingly beautiful and sad. He is said to be one of the masters of the short story.

Ernest Hemingway: Big Two-Hearted River (1925). This one also is almost perfect. Classic Hemingway understated yet perfect prose. He doesn’t waste a sentence or probably a word. His writing is based on the Iceberg Theory. I’ve also read a number of his novels A Farewell to Arms, For Whom the Bell Tolls, The Old Man and the Sea, and The Sun Also Rises. I also read Death in the Afternoon (nonfiction) along with In Our Time and Men without Women, short story collections.

William Faulkner: Dry September (1930). Nice little story, terrible subject matter. He catches the South in all of its casual brutality. I also read Light in August, and it is excellent. Can’t recommend it enough. It’s written a lot in stream of consciousness, so you have to pay attention to whose mind he is in and who’s talking at the time. Also a lot of it is in dialect.

Vladimir Nabokov: First Love (1943). This story is just gorgeous, but it’s not an easy read at all. He’s one of my favorite writers ever, truly one of the greats. However, he is not an easy read at all. Like Hemingway, his work is full of hidden details, references, clues, puns, on and on. I’m not sure if it’s possible for the non-intellectual to read his stuff on an entertainment level.

I’ve also read Lolita and Bend Sinister. Both are good, but Lolita, the story of a pedophile (or hebephile) child molester and relationship with the extremely precocious, gum-smacking 12 year old sexpot Lolita, is out of this world, one of the greatest books of the 20th Century. I do know that it can be read on different levels though, and even at a basic level, it is incredible. If you wish to go hunting for the endless Easter eggs peppered all through this symbolism-shot book, you can do that too. If you haven’t read it, do so. Don’t worry about the disturbing subject matter. It’s something we talk about all the time anyway. We just don’t talk about it like this.

Richard Wright: The Man Who Lived Underground (1944). This is the first I have read of this author, the famous Black writer of the classic Native Son, which I probably need to read sometime. He’s very angry and all of his writing is about racism and Whites’ unjust treatment of Blacks. His writing is cold, vicious, cruel, and often horribly violent. But if you can handle him, he’s quite good. And to be fair, Blacks were treated terribly back when he was writing.

Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.: EPICAC (1950) and Next Door (1955). Both of these were great! Both of them are as good as a Chekhov or Borges short story, and that’s the gold standard. There’s often a wild twist at the end.

I’ve read quite a few books of his. I’ve read Breakfast of Champions or Goodbye Blue Monday!; Cat’s Cradle; God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater or Pearls Before Swine; Happy Birthday, Wanda June; Mother Night; Player Piano; Sirens of Titan; Slaughterhouse-Five or The Children’s Crusade: A Duty-Dance with Death, all novels. I’ve also read Welcome to the Monkey House, a book of short stories (now rereading it). In addition, I read Wampeters, Foma and Granfalloons (Opinions), nonfiction.

Vonnegut is very nice. He’s quite simple and anyone can read him. But his work is nevertheless absolutely brilliant. Because it’s so simplistic, there’s a tendency to see him as overrated, until you read him again and you realize just how brilliant he really is. If you like easy reading, I’d recommend any of the books above. They’re entertaining and funny, too, often in a self-deprecatory way. As a person, he was a huge asshole to just about everyone, but again, that’s not unusual with these genius types. They’re out to lunch in a lot of ways, and socially can be one of them.

Carson McCullers: The Sojourner and The Jockey (both 1955). First I have read of her too. Interesting writer. Sort of Hemingway-like, understated stuff. Overtones of melancholy.

James Allen McPherson: On Trains (1961). I had never even heard of this author before and at first I thought it was just the author trying to be antiracist by throwing in some Black (or other designated oppressed minority) author to get woke points. I was shocked. He’s excellent. If you like Black writers, check this guy out.

He writes about race a lot, but in a subtle, understated, matter of fact way, sort of like Faulkner. But he also deals with the reality of Black-White sexual relationships, which was probably controversial in his day. When he went to Yale, he had already experienced quite a bit of racism, but he seemed more philosophical and “I’m going to show those White boys how good I am” about it. He’s not nearly as militant and angry as Wright.

John Updike: A & P (1962) and The Doctor’s Wife (1962). A & P is one of the all-time greats. Then again, not much happens. But that’s true of the best short stories of all.

Consider For Esme, with Love and Squalor by J. D. Salinger. What happens? Not a whole lot. But it’s one of the best short stories of its time. And Updike is rather like Salinger in that way. His writing is very subtle and to figure it out properly, you need to get down below the basic writing to figure out what he’s really getting at. He shows. He doesn’t tell.

And dialogue is very important. He deals well with shades of emotion, feeling, and mental states that are often pretty hard  for us to put our fingers on, and we would probably deny them even if we could. There can be a sense of lost opportunity or hypocrisy. His male characters are often gross sexists.

Misogyny is often apparent. I’m reading a recent novel of his, Towards the End of Time, and the same thing is going on. In many cases, this has to do with the author’s relationships with his ex-wives. But the lyrical Melvillean prose dancing off the pages of of this much later novel is joyous to read just for style alone..

I also read Hugging The Shore, a book of his book reviews and literary criticism. It was very good.

Donald Barthelme: Margins (1961) and See the Moon? (1966). This is literally some of the strangest and weirdest fiction I’ve ever read. It’s like this new fiction style called Weird. That’s about the only way to describe it. However, as an author, he is absolutely brilliant in a lot of different ways. You wonder how one man carried all this knowledge and insight in his 10 pound brain. I liked these stories, but they sure were weird all right. Plus which not much happens, but apparently that’s the idea.

I’ve read Amateurs; Come Back, Dr. Caligari; Forty Stories; Great Days; Sadness; Sixty Stories; Snow White; and Unspeakable Practices, Unnatural Acts, all short story collections. There was a time in the 80’s when I was binging on that stuff.

Jorge Luis Borges: The Secret Miracle (1962) and Funes the Memorious (1967). Borges is the great Argentine writer, one of the best writers of the last century. Nevertheless, he’s not for everyone and he’s a bit hard to get into. This writing is similar to Barthelme’s, but it is on a whole different level. It has been called magical realism. It has been called a lot of things. But there is no writing quite like it anywhere else.

It’s a bit like Gabriel Garcia Marquez of 100 Years of Solitude fame. After all, they are both South Americans and magical realism was birthed on the continent. He’s also rather like Ray Bradbury in terms of showing us fantastic and otherworldly visions of our world which are at once our own world and then again, something else entirely. I’ve always felt there was a bit of Franz Kafka in there too. There’s often a sense of tragedy in his writing, and usually someone dies. Death is always waiting around the corner. I’ve Ficciones and Labyrinths, both short story collections, during my time at university from 1978-1981.

John Barth: Life-Story (1968). John Barth wrote in The Literature of Exhaustion in 1967 that the novel form was used up and there was not much to do anymore as it had all already been done. It caused quite a stir on the lit scene. It appeared around the time that Roland Barthes, a literary critic, wrote The Death of the Author. Both are considered to be seminal texts in the emerging movement of postmodernism. Much literary criticism now continues to echo Barthes in positioning “author” and “reader” as completely different battling entities. It spends a lot of time mining the interplay between the two.

In 1980, he wrote The Literature of Replenishment in which he singled out Borges and Nabokov (see above) as two writers who were indeed doing new things with the novel instead of the same old same old.

Barth’s writing is self-consciously postmodern. After The Floating Opera and The End of the Road, things started getting weird. He became known for metafiction, that is fiction about the writing of fiction. The “writer” of whatever piece you are reading will often make an appearance, say a few things, and disappear.

Perhaps he will remind you that you’re only reading a book. Perhaps he will say that the story you are reading is really a story about an author writing a story. Which is about an author writing a story. And on and on. Get the picture? He was the first professor of Creative Writing in the US in 1953, although that is hard to believe. Now these departments are everywhere and all of their graduates are churning out at least a novel or two. To say we are swamped is an understatement.

His writing is full of a lot of self-conscious talk about novel-writing, how to write a novel, the components of a novel, the various ways one can choose in which to write a novel, the levels on which you can write them, characterization, plot, background, conflict, on and on. He often starts talking about this right in the middle of your reading, so you are reading along and then this “author” guy pops up and tells you there’s going to be a big plot change coming up ahead, so get ready for it. It’s weird and jarring but it’s very interesting.

This stuff is very hard to read and can be quite confusing at times. It’s also frustrating. But if you like to bend your mind a bit, this is a good place to do it.

I have read The Sot Weed Factor. That’s considered to be his best book.

You either like this writer or you don’t. I assure you that he is absolutely brilliant. But he’s not for everyone and some may find him a bore or end up throwing the book at the wall. Caveat emptor.

Saul Bellow: “A Father to Be” (1953): Interesting little story. In his early novels and short stories, the wild goings-on in the heads of his characters, who all have very rich and complex fantasy and emotional lives, is matched by the world, which is about as strange and active as the material in their heads. This can be seen in Dangling Man, The Victim, and even in The Adventures of Augie March and Seize the Day. After that, things start getting really weird and the outside world or the plots start veering way off course from the character’s inner lives. The mismatch between the two offers a lot of the conflict.

I have read Humbolt’s Gift at university, but I found it a bit of a chore honestly, and it was also rather boring. But then, I was 22, so hey. Maybe if I read it again at my age, I might get a lot more out of it.

It’s about the poet Delmore Schwartz, whose live was as wild as his poems. He wrote Under Milkwood, a Play for Voices. I’d never read it but maybe it’s not supposed to be read with your eyes. Maybe as the title implies, it’s supposed to be heard with your ears. I heard it on the radio one and the genius and brilliance of it was almost impossible to fathom. It was as good as Ulysses. Really. I don’t even know how he did it? How can one man do such a thing.

He drank himself to death at an early age like so many of these guys do. The story is he went to a bar and asked how many drinks he would have to drink to die and people at the bar estimated 17. So he proceeded to then drink precisely 18 drinks of alcohol. You know how this story ends, right? He died. Call it a suicide. Or a parasuicide. Anyway, it’s a typical way for this types, men as well as women, to take their final sleep.

I think the most common cause of death in poets must be suicide. And so many of them are depressives or manic-depressives. But it’s a fine line between creativity and mental illness and that’s why so many of us artistic types are so nutty. Yeah, I consider myself an artsy type. If I’m not, sue me. Anyway, it’s a great excuse for being crazy!

Also, an unbelievable number of poets are more or less gay. A lot of the women are lesbian or bi and often dykey or mannish. Gay male poets are almost a stereotype. But then the link between the Arts and Homosexuality was noted as far back as Antiquity. Some have even suggested that should a cure for homosexuality or genetic testing show up, we might want to keep gays around just for their creativity. As with so many questions of some but not great importance, I’m inclined to leave that up in the air or for the Gods to work out, which is basically the same thing.

A while back I was going through a bunch of poets because I had nothing better to do with my time and I kept running into this Gay-Suicide-Poet thing. A lot of the women’s dykeyness was turning me off, and I was terribly sad to find out that some of my favorite male authors were batting for the other team.

Then I achieved an epiphany. I don’t really if so many of these poets are faggots, dykes, and suicides or some combination of first two and the third, their lives were worth it and glorious and beautiful and perfect just for leaving us that sublime silver prose that sings off the pages as we read it. They did not die in vain. And perhaps there’s a place in the world for folks  like that. It takes all types to fill the freeways.

Alt Left: Sexism and Misogyny in Famous Modern Male Authors

The feminists hate Ernest Hemingway and call him a sexist macho pig, but that’s a bum rap. His women are often very good, and it’s not uncommon that they are stronger than the men. In fact, a lot of his men are rather weak and pussy-whipped and the woman is wearing the pants. Considering Hemingway’s macho demeanor, this is odd.

Philip Roth has a reputation for drawing shrewish, screeching harpies for his female characters. Presumably, his wives or ex-wives figure into this. However, an ex-wife of his was interviewed and she said he was more boring that sexist or misogynistic. He wrote a solid four hours a day and then spent eight hours reading literary fiction. 12 hours a day, all used up. He was pretty much inaccessible during those periods. Roth was also a massive narcissist, but that’s not uncommon in famous male writers. Come to think of it, a lot of male artists of all kinds are narcissistic. Sort of goes with the territory.

Saul Bellow had a similar reputation when he wrote about wives and ex-wives, but he married four times. I think it’s a bit of a bum rap in his case.

Henry Miller was grotesquely and ridiculously misogynistic. He was the classic misogynistic player who spent his life drowning in pussy even though he was a huge asshole and he was pretty mean to boot. Anais Nin, who was very close to him, once called him on his misogyny, and he protested that he loved women, after all, he was surrounded by them all the time. But all misogynistic playboys are like this. They look down on or possibly even hate women, don’t treat them well, and women reward these semi-sociopathic misogynists by drowning them in pussy.

There’s also the player or womanizer who loves women or ladies’ man. He simply can’t get enough of them and even prefers to spend his time with women instead of men. He even thinks like a woman, somewhat. He’s often very goodlooking and he’s a bit softer than the other kind. He doesn’t treat women very well either, but he does love them.

Bukowski was a serious misogynist. A drunken raging creep. I remember one interview in his home where he drunkenly picked up a chair and hurled it at whichever Young Woman Writer Groupie Du Jour was staying with him, and he added in a ton of abuse. And she hadn’t done much to deserve it. In addition, he was a proud alcoholic and he was also probably the ugliest man that ever lived, yet he got lots of women his whole life. Go figure.

Game/PUA: How Much Do Good Looks Help You in This World?

Ray: Can good looks get you far?

Do people take sides of good looking people over uglies?

Do they have more chances of being hired in jobs?

Sure, of course!

Of course!

Of course!

But you can still get fucked over. And still have lots of people hating you. I did. I got fired from jobs. Lots of people hated me. Even though I was goodlooking. It only goes so far in the world of work. In the world of other things like friendships maybe and getting women, yes. It’s great for getting women but good Game is necessary. If you don’t have good Game, well.

You won’t be an incel. Sometime in your early 20’s some women will grab you and basically rape you. And they will try pretty often before that if you have decent Game. You really need that good Game though. But all the good Looks and good Game does is get you laid.

Women often fall in love with a pretty face, it’s that simple. But you can still wear out your welcome. Girlfriends will turn bitchy or even evil. They will dump you, scream at you, laugh in your face, humiliate you. But you do get laid.

I think it also gets some women to fall in love with you, especially if you have other redeeming qualities, intelligence (the more the better), wisdom (later in life), friendliness and warmth, charisma, infectiousness, sex appeal, some sort of achievement, egotism, a bit of aggression, bad boy influence or even criminality, sense of humor, good lovemaking skills, and believe it or not kindness and compassion, and of course power, status, fame, and money (though these four tend to come later in life).

Nevertheless, power and status can come early in life via just being The Cool Guy on the Block that all the Girls Want. This can also get you a bit of local fame, as in the locally famous cool guy in the neighborhood who everyone knows and likes. Popularity alone gets you women right there, though and the opposite is also true.

But all of those things are simply “add-ons” to the good Looks. The good Looks are practically a requirement. I could be wrong. This has simply been the experience in my life.

If you are unattractive or average, can you still get women? Of course, but you will have more difficulties, and you may have to settle for women who are lower quality.

Let me give you examples:

The Nerd

Beta nerd:

Woman 1: Ew, he’s such a nerd! He almost stinks! He’s always got that slide rule in his pocket.

Woman 2: Yeah but he’s the smartest boy in the department!

Woman 1: So what? He’s a creepy geek!

 

Chad nerd:

Woman 1: Chad is so brilliant! He can do quadratic equations in his head?

Woman 2: Really?

Woman 1: Yeah.

Woman 2: Damn! I’m getting horny just thinking about it!

The Man of Wisdom

Beta wise man:

Woman 1: Yeah, see that older man there? He’s always trying to talk to us. Always doling out this “old age wisdom.” It’s so insulting. He thinks we’re stupid girls who don’t know anything.

Woman 2: I know, it’s so creepy. I bet he’s just trying to fuck us!

 

Chad wise man:

Woman 1: So Chad’s old, so what? He’s so wise. I’m learning so many things from him. He’s like my father, except I never had one!

Woman 2: Oh, I know, hun, I think you have Daddy issues.

Woman 1: If Daddy issues means I can get that hot old man, I’ll take em!

Woman 2: Teehee. Me too, even though I love my Dad. I could always pretend I have Daddy issues. Wisdom? I’m just a dumb girl. I bet he could teach me a thing or two too, teehee!

The Nice Guy

Beta nice guy:

Woman 1: Yeah, he’s just too much of a nice guy. I want a tough guy, not a little bitch!

Woman 2: I know what you mean. Nice guys are so boring and sissy. I think they all need a testosterone shot!

 

Chad nice guy:

Woman 1: Can you believe what a nice guy Chad is? He’s the nicest guy in the whole world!

Woman 2: Oh, that’s so wonderful! I wish I had a nice guy. All I get are jerks (because I choose them)!

The infectious/engaging Man

Infectious/engaging Beta:

Woman 1: Ew! That creepy guy! He’s so intrusive. Always coming around, thinks he’s so hot. Thinks he’s so charming.

Woman 2: Charming? Yeah, charming as a cobra!

Woman 1: Ew, gross, I know. He even looks like a snake lol.

Woman 2: It’s gross the way he tries to come across as Joe Cool to everyone. It’s creepy as Hell!

 

Infectious/engaging Chad:

Woman 1: Oh no, he’s not creepy or obtrusive at all. I mean, Chad is in your face and imposing, but oh I so love that in man!

Woman 2: Oh me too! He’s so engaging! I bet he has electric energy! Just sucks you right into him teehee.

The Friendly and Warm Man

Friendly and warm Beta:

Woman 1: That creepy guy tries to be so nice!

Woman 2: Ew I know! He walks up and talks to everyone, whether they want to talk to him or not.

Woman 1: I don’t trust him. Sure, he puts on that really nice cover, but he’s so damn creepy! I bet he wants to wear my skin!

 

Friendly and warm Chad:

Woman 1: Chad loves everyone! He talks to everyone, no matter who they are!

Woman 2: Wow, really? I bet everyone loves him too.

Woman 1: Of course they do. Even total strangers. Everyone opens up to Chad!

The Charismatic Man

Charismatic Beta:

Woman 1: Oh, gross! That gross, creepy guy thinks he’s so cool!

Woman 2: Ew, I know. What’s he got to be cool about?

Woman 1: He’s so delusional. Everyone hates him, he’s a creep and

weirdo, and he thinks he’s Mr. Charming!

 

Charismatic Chad:

Woman 1: Yeah, Chad thinks he’s hot shit. Chad is so vain.

Woman 2: Tee hee, that’s ok, all hot guys are vain. They have a right to be. They’re hot.

Woman 1: Yeah, I don’t care anyway. I’m insecure and I need some of that confidence around me.

The Sexy Man

“Sexy” Beta:

Woman 1: Ew, that gross creepy guy thinks he’s so sexy! Look at how he walks, talks, sits, stands, moves…everything. He’s so gross and ugly though.

Woman 2: Oh I know, right? When a gross guy tries to act sexy, it doesn’t work. It just seems creepy. I’m about ready to metoo the creep.

 

Sexy Chad:

Woman 1: LOL you see Chad? I swear, everything about him is sexy. They way he walks, talks, moves, sits, stands, holds a coffee cup, his little mannerisms, his charming emotions. Everything! He sounds seductive towards everyone too. I bet it’s just gone native by now. He doesn’t even have to think about it.

Woman 2: Wow! I bet he could turn on my grand-ma, and she’s 90!

The Man of Achievement

Beta with some sort of achievement:

Woman 1: So? So he’s a achieved a few things? He’s still gross! And he’s still a creep!

Woman 2: Oh I know! He could have 10 PhD’s, and it wouldn’t make my clit tingle. I know. He dries me right up just looking at him.

Woman 1: I think I’m going to be sick!

 

Chad with some sort of achievement:

Woman 1: Chad has a degree! And an advanced degree! And he’s working on his PhD! He ran the XXX Department! He won the XXX Award for XXX.

Woman 2: Hot! I love a successful man!

The Egotistical Man

Egotistical Beta:

Woman 1: Not only is he ugly, gross, and creepy, but he’s also arrogant.

Woman 2: I know! He’s an arrogant dick! He thinks he’s so hot. What a condescending bastard.

Woman 1: I know, he looks down on everyone and for no good reason.

Woman 2: Well, obviously he seems to be in love with himself.

Woman 1: In love with what? His ugly, gross face.

Woman 2: Ew shut up, I’m going to have dinner soon.

 

Egotistical Chad:

Woman 1: Teehee, Chad is so full of himself. But I love it though.

Woman 2: Yeah, me too. I see him and he’s so arrogant that I want to walk up to him and slap his face, but then I think, “Hey, I like that.”

Woman 1: I know what you mean! He really thinks he’s hot shit. But it’s kind of cute, actually. Anyway, he should love himself! He’s Chad! Chad has a right to some vanity!

The Somewhat Dangerous and Aggressive Man

Beta with a bit of aggression:

Woman 1: Ew, gross. He gives me serial killer vibes! He looks sort of menacing, doesn’t he?

Woman 2: Ew, yeah. He gives me the creeps every time I see him. I can’t put a finger on it. He’s not just ugly and creepy, but he also sets off my spidey sense.

 

Chad with a bit of aggression:

Woman 1: Teehee, well, Chad is a bit aggressive. He even scares me a little bit sometimes. But that’s ok, that kind of turns me on, you know.

Woman 2: Ooooohhhh, a dan-gerous man! You poor girl, teehee!

Woman 1: Yeah, he can do what he wants to me. I just told him, “Please don’t kill me!”

Woman 2: Teehee. Hell, he’s so hot, I might even let him kill me! It’d be a great way to go out!

Woman 1: Yeah! Danger is sexy! I’m attracted to dangerous men. Moth to the flame I guess teehee.

The Bad Boy

Bad Boy Beta:

Woman 1: Ew, that ugly guy gives me the creeps!

Woman 2: I know. He looks like a criminal! I bet he’s been in jail.

Woman 1: Yeah, what a loser. Jailbird. And probably for bad things too.

Woman 2: He’s so damn creepy, you know he’s got to be a rapist or a child molester. No way would I let that creep anywhere near my kids.

 

Bad Boy Chad:

Woman 1: Heehee, Chad is such a bad boy. He’s always getting in trouble teehee.

Woman 2: Ohh, Chad is a verrry bad booooy! I’m going to have to spank him for being so bad!

Woman 1: Yeah, me too. But I like bad boys. Nice guys are so boring.

The Funny Man

Funny Beta:

Woman 1: You see those jokes he tries to tell?

Woman 2: Oh I know. They’re all terrible! And so many of them are just tone deaf and send the whole room into embarrassed silence. And he keeps repeating the same jokes, over and over. We didn’t laugh the first time. Why would we laugh again, idiot?

Woman 1: And his jokes are so corny. They’re not even funny!

Woman 2: Yep. My little brother tells better jokes than that, and he’s in fifth grade!

 

Funny Chad:

Woman 1: Teehee, Chad is always cracking jokes. And often in inappropriate situations where he offends everyone in the room. Even his dumb, corny jokes are funny. I even laugh when he repeats his jokes. So he repeats them? They’re still funny!

Woman 2: Face it, hun, Chad’s a card! “Ladies and gentlemen, give it up for Chad!”

Woman 1: Teeheehee.

The Man Who Is a Good Lover

Nerd as good lover:

Woman 1: My friend dated him for a while, and she said he was good in bed.

Woman 2: Big deal! Look at how creepy and ugly he is! Gross!

Woman 1: I know, I’d have to take three showers after I got done with him. Yuck!

Woman 2: I don’t care how good he is in bed. I’d have to look at his face when he’s on top of me. I’m afraid I might puke!

Woman 1: Oh I know, huh? Who cares if some ugly creep is a “good fuck.” A grizzly bear could probably fuck me pretty good, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to do it with one!

Woman 2: I know, right?

 

Chad as good lover

Woman 1: I swear to God, Chad is the best fuck I’ve ever had in my whole life.

Woman 2: Really?

Woman 1: Yeah, he doesn’t even have to do much. Hell, he could just lie there and let me get on top of him and do the work, and I’d still think he was the best fuck of all!

Woman 2: Teehee, me too!

Woman 1: Why is Chad the best fuck? Because he’s in the room, naked, and fucking you, that’s why!

Woman 2: That’s about all he has to do, girl! Teeheehee.

The Kind and Compassionate Man

Kind and compassionate Beta: Well, he is nice. And he’s very kind and compassionate. He’s very good with animals. He works at the vet and he’s very kind to the animals there.

So what? He could be Mother Theresa’s son and I wouldn’t date him! What about us human female animals? How does he treat us? He’s creepy as Hell! Ted Bundy seemed very kind and compassionate too. He worked at a rape help line and he counseled women who had been sexually assaulted. And when he was done for the day, he went out and killed women!

 

Kind and compassionate Chad:

Woman 1: You will never believe this, but you know my smart-ass, sarcastic, bad boy, always in trouble, part-time criminal, full-time asshole boyfriend, Chad?

Woman 2: Teehee, yes, I know him. He’s a very bad boy! I think you should send him to my reformatory school where I will punish him teehee in my own special way.

Woman 1: Teehee. But you know what? Chad loves animals. Even bugs! He’s a birdwatcher and he even collects butterflies. And he rescues hurt animals all the time. He almost has tears in his eyes when he does it, too. Once my cat died and Chad come over to bury him in the backyard in a cardboard box, and Chad was crying!

Woman 2: Oh, how sad! Chad is so sensitive. So hot and so sensitive. Tell you what, next time Chad’s crying because some pet died, send him to my place. I’ll make him feel better teehee!

William S. Burroughs

A lot of people really hate this writer. He’s gay as Hell and his books are just drenched with the grossest scenes of gay male sex. It’s a bit hard to take. With regard to the latter stuff, I used to just sort of skim over them though. They didn’t really bother me. It wasn’t so much gross as I simply felt nothing at all. It was like I was reading something boring about water.

I’ve always felt this way about gay stuff. I saw naked boys in the shower room every day in high school for years. Of course I used to look at them sometimes, more out of curiosity than anything else. I was wondering if guys turned me on. I already knew that females turned me on like crazy. They were on my mind 24-7 back then, and it’s barely let up since. But sometimes you wonder if you want to double your chances of getting a date on Saturday night, you know?

Mostly I was sort of phobic around those male bodies, and I think the other guys might have been too. You would be showering and changing around all these guys, and you pretended you didn’t see them. It was like they weren’t there. I don’t think a gay boy could do that. I looked at boy’s bodies in the showers. I felt nothing at all. Looked at them changing next to me. Felt nothing at all. It’s always been like that.

I wonder how other straight guys feel about being around naked men. Most of us don’t really like it, and it tends to make us uncomfortable, though it probably shouldn’t. Do other men feel disgusted looking at guys’ bodies, or do they feel uncomfortable, yucky, and phobic? Or do they just feel zero, nothing, zip, nada, nope, nothing there at all.

Nevertheless, I always loved Burroughs’ prose. He was one of great writers of the later half of the 20th Century, and he was conceivably a genius. There is something about the style and themes of his writing. He was a master. I remember in The Western Lands where there’s this part when they are on some centipede expedition in the jungle of South America. This goes on for 20-30 pages. All of Burroughs’ genius and style vanishes, and now he is writing the way any ordinary guy with ordinary writing skills writes: good enough but not particularly well. And he keeps this up for 20-30 pages, never missing a beat, all in this lower, less competent register. It was simply amazing.

Burroughs is widely read by straight guys. He’s one of the few gay writers who has an audience outside the gay ghetto other than Gide, Proust, Wilde, Mann, Forster and the other old guys. But they didn’t write about homosexuality much, so they were easier to take.

He was also a king of the beats, so everyone who was into the beat movement read him.

I’m not sure about the hippie movement, but it wasn’t unusual to find a stoned-out long-haired young man in his 20’s backpacking across Europe with a copy of Nova Express in his pack in the 1970’s. It was almost a cliche, you know?

Burroughs was always hip.

And when punk rock came around, all of the punks loved him, and he quickly became king of the punks for whatever reason. His novels were rechristened as punk novels.

I don’t think he’s much read anymore, and the gay sex along with the horrible violence and depictions of death and other disgusting things makes his books a very hard read. The books are also drenched with drugs and crime. A lot of his characters are drug users, often junkies, and criminals of various types from thieves all the way up to the big guys. The books are full of street slang and criminal cant.

I’d say Burroughs is still read, by those who can bear him, let’s put it that way. There’s been an attempt by the gays to “gay ghetto” him like they do to all of their kind, but it didn’t work. Homosexuality is not a very important part of those books anyway. It’s certainly not why I read them.

He received much praise. Norman Mailer said he was

The only American author who could be conceived of having genius.

Samuel Beckett didn’t talk about other writers once, but he was once asked about Burroughs. The day was long and the light was going out of the room. As it got darker, Beckett didn’t turn on any lights or do anything to let more light in. The room just got dimmer and gloomier while he seemed to relish in this change. Of course that’s just like his books.

William Burroughs? William Burroughs is…a writer.

Like a real writer. The real deal. The real McCoy. To be good enough to be called a real writer by Beckett was an accomplishment.

He had great taste in literature, and he read all the time. I recall one interview when they asked him what he was reading:

“Well, Conrad (Joseph Conrad) of course. And Proust (Marcel Proust). I always read Proust. And Chesterton (G.K. Chesterton).

I would say you can see the influence of Conrad for sure in his prose. I can’t say much about the other two because I’ve never read Proust, and I’ve only dipped into a bit of Chesterton, a short nonfiction book he wrote very early in his career in 1903 about 19th Century poet Robert Browning, noted for his difficulty. The book is called Robert Browning.

What’s interesting is that all of those men wrote from 1890-1930, probably 50-80 years before the interviewer asked Burroughs that question. Of course those are three of the greats of the 20th Century, but when you ask someone what they’ve been reading, how often do they list any of those three? How often would they have listed those three when that question was asked of Burroughs, probably in the 1980’s? Same answer. No one reads any of those writers, not anymore, anyway.

On the down side, Burroughs also hated women. He was not afraid to say so, either. This is not unusual in gay men, especially in the more masculine ones like Burroughs. They simply don’t like women. This type of gay man is a lot more common than you think.

Here’s a bit of his prose:

They lounged around Singapore and Rangoon smoking opium in yellow pongee suits. They sniffed cocaine in Mayfair and they penetrated forbidden swamps with a faithful native boy and lived in the native quarter of Tangier smoking hashish and languidly caressing a pet gazelle.

– William S. Burroughs, from an essay written in 1985.

Isn’t that just perfect, glorious, and beautiful? I love the way those sentences slide across the page. I like the way the scenes jolt around from one faraway place to another within a single sentence. It’s like we took a world tour in two sentences.

Do You Have Free Will or Are You Hamstrung?

In a previous post, I made this statement:

I’m hamstrong by genes and biology. I don’t have free will at all. I can’t do what I want.

In terms of yourselves, do you agree or disagree with that statement? Can you do anything you want or are you hamstrung by, let’s say biology or possibly genes?

Alt Left: Socialism for the Win!

Socialism beating all capitalist countries!

You guys wonder why some of us are socialists. Well, here ya go.

As you can see, Cuban socialism beats all of its capitalist competitors in administering COVID-19 vaccines to the largest number of people in the shortest period of time. And keep in mind that the US has, I believe, a GNP 15 times bigger than Cuba’s and it still totally failed in this competition. In addition, many of those countries have social democracies with attendant socialized medicine, but even that didn’t seem to do very well against socialist planning in the health sector. Cuba beat the UK, Europe and North America as a whole, and the combined groups of high and upper middle low income countries.

I don’t have anything against socialized medicine in social democracies, but it does seem to fair worse against a pure Communist system. And in the UK and parts of Europe, public health is under relentless attack by the capitalists under the rubric of austerity and budget cuts.

The UK in particular has been devastated by these cuts which the Tories have been doing for decades now. Nevertheless, the idiot Brits appear to be ready to march off to vote Tory once again in the next election. The entire media combined to promote the Tories and destroy Labor’s left candidate. The current candidate is a centrist named Starmer and he’s so bad, he loses to pathetic Tories like the clown Boris Johnson. But hey, at least Starmer cleaned out the antisemites in the party! That’s all that matters, right Jews. You all would rather have a damned Tory government than a left Labor government unfriendly to your precious little hate state over there.

I’m not sure about the rest of Europe, but I know that public health has been devastated in Greece. The Left Syriza ran on an anti-austerity program but changed and went Centrist as soon as they got in, supposedly due to “forces beyond their control.”

This shows how hard it is to change the system absent an actual revolution as happened in Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. Without a truly revolutionary party as we had and have in those countries, the forces of capitalism will simply assert themselves and any Left candidate will be boxed in. This is already happening to Castillo in Peru, who finds his options limited more and more every week by the forces of the military, the big capitalists, the media, and the population in media, which is really all the same thing and could be called the Peruvian oligarchy or in US terms, the Peruvian Deep State.

And we can see how this is happening in the US as Biden progressively scales down his promises. At first he rejected Sanders’ Medicare for All, though it has majority support. Then he rejected Sanders’ free college education, a staple in many countries, including places like Mexico! In its stead he offered free community college. Well, he just got rid of that, too. What’s next, Joe? Free ice cream on Sunday?

Really, I don’t blame him. America is still a terrifyingly reactionary country, and in fact it is nearly a fascist country as about half the population is perfectly willing to vote for fascism and the Republican party is now an undemocratic authoritarian fascist party along the lines of the Latin American Right. It follows because the Latin American Right is run by the oligarchies that run those countries, and increasingly, the US is also an oligarchy and is no longer a democracy at all.

Nor are our elections free and fair. They’ve been hopelessly corrupted since the advent of computerized voting and gerrymandering and serious obstacles placed in the way of voting means that we are absolutely not a democratic country anymore.

Democratic countries do not allow partisan gerrymandering, attempts to steal elections, obstacles placed to discourage voting, and open theft of elections via computerized voting machines. I wonder if we ever had a democracy in this blighted country. Perhaps from 1965-2000, we had a pretty democratic system, but under Reagan, the Justice Department under Sessions interfered to keep voting restrictions against Blacks in while putting Blacks who worked for voting rights in jail. The FBI did this, if you can believe that. And you wonder why I despise feds so much.

Alt Left: Fate Versus Necessity or Free Will Versus Determinism: Why Moby-Dick Is One of the Greatest Books of the Last 200 Years

The three greatest novels in the English language in the last 170 years are the following:

Moby Dick, by Herman Melville.
Ulysses, by James Joyce.
Gravity’s Rainbow, by Thomas Pynchon.

I’ve read the first and the last and only read a tiny bit of the second. However, I have read Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man twice, and I’ve also read Dubliners, his collection of short stories. Both are highly recommended. I’ve dipped into Finnegans Wake, but it makes no sense to me, sorry. Nevertheless a copy sits on my shelf for the last 40 years, mocking me for being too stupid to understand it.

Of the first, I have also read Bartleby the Scrivener, a novella. Highly recommended.

Of the third author, I have also read three of his other novels V., The Crying of Lot 49, and Vineland. I’ve also read a collection of short stories called Slow Learner, a nonfiction piece called A Journey into the Mind of Watts, and a couple of book reviews.

If you have read anything by any of these three authors or have anything to say about any of them, feel free to let us know in the comments.

If you want to know why Moby Dick makes the list, simply consider this passage below, which also has echoes in much of Pynchon’s writing. It’s pretty incredible that he was writing like this in 1851. I can now understand much more of what he was getting at than when I first read this. As a hint, replace “necessity,” the 19th Century use of which correlates to our determinism.

I suppose Wikipedia should explain it pretty well, but fate, mixed with a notion of genetics, biology, universal culture, the constancy and cycles of history, human nature itself, and Natural Law, or the laws of God on this planet, all play a role. Positioned against determinism is the wild card of free will, about which endless discussions flow, mostly about just how much of it we have anyway.

The nature/nurture debate comes in here too, but nature can be as determined as biology, though I object to the strong determinist theory about life events.

All sorts of different events effect all sorts of different people in all sorts of different ways, often having to do with your culture. For instance, we now have behaviors which for 99% of human history were considered completely normal and non-pathological. These things happened to people, and everyone assumed it was the same state of affairs, so no one was especially damaged in any particular way, since claiming you were damaged by completely normal behavior makes you seem like a kook.

Now, this behavior, which never damaged a single human ever, is seen to be, in a deterministic sense, completely damaging in the same way to all who undergo it, and furthermore, the damage is permanent and lifelong. This behavior that was considered harmless when I was growing up 40 years ago is now thought to cause horrendous damage. Whole industries are set up to deal with the fake damage caused by this harmless behavior.

Humans are not real complex.

You tell people an experience is completely normal, and most will think of it as such, even if it is traumatizing.

You take the same behavior and tell the same people that is now terribly damaging for the rest of your life, and you now produce millions of people with fake damage from a harmless behavior.

Now this damage is quite real, but we must note that the person only got damaged because you told them it was damaging! The person experienced the behavior, thought little of it, the behavior was uncovered, everyone around the person screamed about what a terrible and traumatic crime had been done to them that would cause them horrible damage, and the person simply decided of their own free will to create damage in themselves. But even this is somewhat determined because it’s determined by society, as the free will with which they created their own damage was in a sense determined by society.

True free will is a wild card and does not exit. It says I can walk out into the world and do anything I am capable of and have people react the way I want them to. That won’t happen now, and it never would have in the past. Further, many of the things I think I should be good at, I’m not good at anymore, probably because my behavior has become determined as a result of whatever biology and experience has done to my brain, which has created a rather limiting brain that is pretty limited in the behaviors it can pull off and get away with. I’m hamstrong by genes and biology. I don’t have free will at all. I can’t do what I want.

Anyway, this is something like what Melville was getting at here, a long 170 years ago, and it shows why his book makes my best three list for the last 200 years:

I was the attendant or page of Queequeg, while busy at the mat.

As I kept passing and repassing the filling or woof of marline between the long yarns of the warp, using my own hand for the shuttle, and as Queequeg, standing sideways, ever and anon slid his heavy oaken sword between the threads, and idly looking off upon the water, carelessly and unthinkingly drove home every yarn: I say so strange a dreaminess did there then reign all over the ship and all over the sea, only broken by the intermitting dull sound of the sword, that it seemed as if this were the Loom of Time, and I myself were a shuttle mechanically weaving and weaving away at the Fates.

There lay the fixed threads of the warp subject to but one single, ever returning, unchanging vibration, and that vibration merely enough to admit of the crosswise interblending of other threads with its own. This warp seemed necessity; and here, thought I, with my own hand I ply my own shuttle and weave my own destiny into these unalterable threads.

Meantime, Queequeg’s impulsive, indifferent sword, sometimes hitting the woof slantingly, or crookedly, or strongly, or weakly, as the case might be; and by this difference in the concluding blow producing a corresponding contrast in the final aspect of the completed fabric; this savage’s sword, thought I, which thus finally shapes and fashions both warp and woof; this easy, indifferent sword must be chance – aye, chance, free will, and necessity – no wise incompatible – all interweavingly working together.

The straight warp of necessity, not to be swerved from its ultimate course – its every alternating vibration, indeed, only tending to that; free will still free to ply her shuttle between given threads; and chance, though restrained in its play within the right lines of necessity, and sideways in its motions directed by free will, though thus prescribed to by both, chance by turns rules either, and has the last featuring blow at events.

Thus we were weaving and weaving away when I started at a sound so strange, long drawn, and musically wild and unearthly, that the ball of free will dropped from my hand, and I stood gazing up at the clouds whence that voice dropped like a wing. High aloft in the cross-trees was that mad Gay-Header, Tashtego. His body was reaching eagerly forward, his hand stretched out like a wand, and at brief sudden intervals he continued his cries.

To be sure the same sound was that very moment perhaps being heard all over the seas, from hundreds of whalemen’s look-outs perched as high in the air; but from few of those lungs could that accustomed old cry have derived such a marvelous cadence as from Tashtego the Indian’s.

As he stood hovering over you half suspended in air, so wildly and eagerly peering towards the horizon, you would have thought him some prophet or seer beholding the shadows of Fate, and by those wild cries announcing their coming. There she blows! there! there! there! she blows! she blows!”

Moby-Dick, by Herman Melville (1951)

The Destruction of the Langues d’Oil Was a Deliberate Project

I got this from a paper on Academia. We see many typical arguments here against the use of dialects and sub-languages of the main prescriptive official language – that speaking them indicates that one is rural, uneducated, backwards, stupid, and not modern, cool, hip, urban, intelligent, and educated. Hence this process of wanting to dissociate with the old backwards ways and associate with the new modern ways continues today.

I was involved for a bit with a German woman in the US. She spoken Hessian, which is actually a separate language under the rubric of High German or Standard German. It is spoken in the Hesse, a wine-growing region in the central-west. She still spoke Hessian, but she told me it was not popular for the reasons above – it meant you were backwards, stupid and uneducated.

She also said something interesting about mutual intelligibility.

We see also the unifying effect of the Jacobin French Revolution, one of the most progressive revolutions the world had seen up until that time. In fact the American and French revolutions were modeled on each other. This was a progressive, modernizing revolution the likes of which had never been seen before. Egalite, liberte, and fraternite – Equality, freedom, and fraternity. It was also quite anti-religious, giving rise to something called laicism or extreme secularism in France.

The idea was to unify all Frenchmen under a single language. The local patois in addition to the other languages non-related to French such as Flemish, Basque, Catalan, the various Occitan and Arpetin languages, Breton, Alsatian, Moselle Franconian, etc. were seen as impeding in particular the fraternite or assimilitory aspects of the Revolution. They also kept people backwards, stupid and perhaps even promoted inequality and lack of freedom, both of which were associated with the ancien regime.

We also see how the local patois were tied into the land, the landscape, the stars, the times of day, the seasons, the foods, the plants and animals, the very lifeblood of the people. To uproot the patois would be to destroy people’s intimate connection with all of these things.

As all of these earthly connections were considered the realm of savagery – after all, the modern man was to liberate himself from the natural world and rule over or move beyond it – the civilization versus savagery motif also came into play. As you can see, lack of patois was seen as due to healthier lives, better food and water, more human interaction, and more money and higher level of civilization. Patois was associated with poor food and water, even poor weather, lack of sociability, poverty, and lack of integration into the monied economy.

As you can see, the development of capitalism in France also played a role here. The rural areas were to be forced into the capitalist mode whether they wanted to or not.

In epistemological terms the aim of Modernity is unequivocally to do away with the Old World, and the French Revolution provided precisely that opportunity. In order to align nature with productive forces, existing environmental regulations had to be done away with at the end of the 18th century (Chappey & Vincent, 2019, p. 109).

Not coincidentally it was also at that same period, from 1790 on, that the Revolutionary governments of France sought to survey the use of ‘patois’ in order to uproot them and replace them with the language of Reason (Certeau, Julia, & Revel, 1975) or at least a revolutionary version of it (Steuckardt, 2011). In line with the Ideologues’ project, this linguistic project was devised to gain knowledge and use this knowledge to transform (and improve) living conditions in the country.

So next, language.

Nowhere is the pre-modern vernacular connection between language and what we now call ‘nature’ better expressed than in a response given to Grégoire’s 1790 survey on patois by the Société des Amis de la Constitutions of Perpignan, in the Catalan-speaking part of France. Asked about how to eradicate the local patois, they retorted:

To destroy it, one would have to destroy the sun, the freshness of the nights, the kind of foods, the quality of waters, man in its entirety. (Certeau et al., 1975, p. 182).

Conversely, in a 1776 account of life in Burgundy, Rétif de la Bretonne accounted for the lack of patois in the village of Nitry in contrast with surrounding areas by resorting to natural explanations: purer air, better grains producing better bread, dairy products, superior eggs, and animal flesh. All those elements were then correlated with the practice of commerce, which brought inhabitants in contact with other localities and generated the need to speak politely (Certeau et al., 1975, pp. 277–278).

In the next village of Saci [where patois was apparently still spoken] one mile away, however, stagnant waters caused the air to be “devouring,” and the local inhabitants to be “heavy, ruminative, and taciturn” (ibid. 278).

In France, the patois are forms of non-language that index a state of wilderness and superstition and point to the savage (Certeau et al., 1975, Chapter 8) – forms of knowledge and practices which were to be uprooted pointing to an absence of a rational outlook on the world and a lack of industriousness (Bonneuil & Fressoz, 2016) and lust for more money over time.

In that particular view, the patois are immediately transparent forms of language: they are isomorphous with nature and with emotions. Along with the ways of life of their speakers and mores, they are susceptible to description in the natural science sense of the term: mere mechanical facts to be described (Certeau et al., 1975, p. 154). In this representation, mores are opposed to civilization (ibid. 155), rurality to urban life, and patois to language; access to language is thus tantamount to access to civilization.

The German “Dialects” or Sublanguages of German: Reports of Their Death Are Premature

I was involved with a German woman a while back who came from a part of Germany called Hesse. I asked about Palatinian, the language directly to the south spoken in and around Frankfurt in the Rhine River Valley. I asked if she could understand them, and she said,

If they don’t want you to understand them, you won’t understand them!

This shows how speakers of closely related dialects and languages can adjust their speech to become more or less intelligible to each other based on whether they wish to be either understood or not understood.

Many people in Germany say there are no more dialects or sublanguages and that everyone can understand everyone. I beg to disagree. For instance, an informant from a village 10 miles north of Frankfurt said that if he spoke the dialect of his village (technically simply a dialect of the Palatine language Frankfurtisch spoken in Frankfurt) in the city of Frankfurt, he will not be understood! In order to be fully understood, he would either have to speak Frankfurtisch Proper, the language of the city, or Hochdeutsch, the official language of the country.

If even dialects within “dialects of German” 10 miles away from each other can’t understand each other, I really doubt that the dialect situation in Germany is dead and they can all understand each other!

Alt Left: Karl Marx, “The Genesis of Capital”: The Creation of Capitalism and Its Link to Modern Land Reform

This fascinating document is available in booklet form as it is only ~35 pages. It is an excerpt from the larger Capital volume. It’s not an easy read but it’s not impossible either.

Some of the writing is gorgeous. I read one sentence to my very anti-Communist liberal Democrat father and he swooned over the prose. That one sentence was both perfect and beautiful, though it dealt with some terrible.

In many places, this is forceful – see the fencing of the Commons in the 1300’s, done deliberately to force the peasants into the capitalist mode or production. Indeed theorists said that if the peasants could not be shoved into capitalism, there would be no capitalism, for their would be no workers. It was essential to destroy the peasants ability to live off the land for themselves in order to force them into worse circumstances as industrial workers.

We see this very same rhetoric employed today in India – where it is argued that the tribals in Chattisargh and other places must be uprooted from the lands, have their lands stolen from them to give to mining and forest industries, and forced into the capitalist mode in cities in order to properly develop the economy. It is argued that India cannot develop its economy until the Adivasis have been destroyed. Note that as with the ancient peasants, the Adivasis will live much poorer lives in the cities than the were in the rural areas.

In Colombia, we see something very similar. In Colombia, small farmers own a lot of land. They are able to subsist off this land and they do not need to participate in the larger economy. They grow enough food for themselves and some city people. The process of the Colombian revolution and the genocidal response of the Colombian oligarchy to it is all throwing the peasants off of these small plots, stealing their land at gunpoint (the paramilitaries are used for this), and terrorizing or killing them if they refuse to hand over their land.

The land is then confiscated by latifundias or large landowners who by and large control the Colombian economy. They grow coffee, bananas, etc. and raise cattle for export, generating money for the economy in the process.

In fact, this process has been going on all over Latin America for over 200 years as sort of a slow-motion process of ethnic cleansing and land theft. Smalholders are able to live off the land in Colombia, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, Colombia, Paraguay, and Brazil, and this is seen as unacceptable as they only grow food for themselves and possibly for city-dwellers but the produce cannot be exported.

These countries wish to develop an export model of agriculture based on the large scale production of food crops for export mostly to the US. In return, their ability to produce their own food is destroyed, in my opinion, rendering their economies completely backwards. The people are then rendered vulnerable to the purchase of imported food from the US, often packaged or canned food that is not very good for you.

As you can see, the country gets screwed and the US wins both ways. By destroying the basis for feeding themselves, the US wins an export market for its processed foods. By replacing these with food crops for export to the US, the US gets to make money by importing and selling these food crops. In return the country gains nothing.

Only a small landholding and import-export elite (maybe 20% of the population) gains and the vast majority of the poorer people lose as they can no longer feed themselves, no longer own land and are self-supporting, have to resort to unhealthy foods that they need much of their income to purchase, and they also are rendered much poorer as low wage proletariat in the slums of the large cities.

And in the process, of course, the country generates a revolutionary movement, often an armed one.

This can be seen in areas of Colombia. In one particular part of Southern Colombia, most of the rural peasantry had been thrown off the land and most of the land was now held by a few large landowners who were raising cattle on the land. The peasants had been terrorized off of their stolen land and formed ghettos in a large city nearby, which increased the poverty rate and the slump percentage of the city by a lot. Here they were poor, unhealthy, poorly fed and clothed, living in slums in shacks with no sewage systems, clean water or electricity.

These slums began to generate a lot of street crime as they tend to do. Outside of the cities on the main roads, there were soldiers and paramilitaries everywhere and one went from one armed roadblock to the other. Curiously enough, a large guerrilla movement had developed among the few remaining peasants and in teeming slums. Armed guerrillas extorted the latifundias for money that they called “war taxes.” The latifundias now paid a lot of money for paramilitaries to patrol their lands.

In the slums, an urban guerrilla movement was developing. Police, soldiers and paramilitary members were attacked with bombs, RPG’s and automatic weapons all the time and took significant casualties. The war had now moved to the city where there was no war before. Bomb and gun attacks hit city police stations on a regular basis. Death squads and army units roamed the land and the unarmed Left in the form or human rights activists, labor union members and organizers, community organizers and activists, environmentalists, campesino organizations, organizations of slum-dwellers and indigineous leaders were murdered and tortured to death on a regular basis.

The idiot US and the West see this as a process of “Communist guerrillas trying to subvert Colombian democracy, shoot their way into power, and set up a murderous Communist dictatorship which will destroy freedom and prosperity in Colombia”. The vast majority of Americans and others in the West actually buy this bullshit. Many on the Left refuse to support the Colombian guerrilla, insisting that they are anachronistic and that they should try to seek power peacefully. However, since the FARC disarmed, former members and members of newly formed political parties have been massacred like flies. So state terror blocks all road to peaceful change, leaving no alternative but the way of the gun.

Obviously the ridiculous analysis of this situation that Westerners believe has no basis in reality. The Western media cheers on the genocidal Colombian state and says that the Colombian democracy is waging a war against irrational and bloodthirsty terrorism, typically linked with drug trafficking to describe them as criminals and destroy their legitimacy.

As long as this process goes on, Colombia’s economy will stay forever backwards.

It is necessary to do a land reform in the rural areas before any country can prosper economically. Indeed this “socialist” project of land reform which the US spent decades in the Cold War slaughtering millions of people to stop was actually implemented by the US in Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan in order to fend off a Communist threat. Oddly enough, it ended up creating the basis for subsequent booming development in those places.

Land reform was and is the basis for the Communist and Leftist revolutions and guerrilla forces in South Vietnam, Thailand, Colombia, Nepal, Peru, Cuba, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Paraguay in the past 55-65 years, with some of the revolutions happening later 40 years ago. In Paraguay this process has just started several years ago when a FARC split has taken up arms agains the state.

How Art Creates Beauty of the Most Horrible Things

Art is capable, perhaps uniquely so, in finding beauty or maybe better yet “perfection” in the sense of “excellence” in most horrible things. The ending of Moby Dick and Gravity’s Rainbow (two of the greatest books of the last 200 years) both come to mind. Both end with a terrible death, in the former of an entire crew of a whale-hunting ship and in the latter of a hapless boy strapped into a V-2 missile to be shot by the Germans at Pennemunde at London in 1944.

In a more modern sense, we can see this in Tarentino’s movies, where he portrays a stylized form of aestheticized violence that is both beautiful, terrible and “perfect.” I mean perfect or “excellent” in its “beauty” in a Platonic sense of the Greek word arete.

Aesthetics, the Philosophy or Art, Beauty, and Taste

The section of philosophy that deals with beauty, what it is, what it means, how to define it, its purpose, etc. is called Aesthetics. This school of thought was probably started by Plato. The actual study of Aesthetics itself dates from Hegel.

In the 19th Century, John Rusk made some great contributions to the genre in his works on art or art criticism. Kant, Nietzsche, Confucius and the Buddha all had important things to say on this subject, so you can see that the philosophical discussion of beauty extends to theology too, as Buddhism and Confucianism are seen as marriages of philosophy and religion or, I would argue, using Heideggerian language, “philosophy-as-religion.” Hume and Kant both linked art to the ability to produce pleasure in its consumer.

John Keats argued in Ode on a Grecian Urn that truth was beauty and vice versa, so here Tarantino’s hyper-realized violence is beautiful in part in its sheer graphic nature. In Hinduism, Satyam Shivam Sundaram makes the same statement – “Truth is God and God is Beautiful.” This sense of art as truth + beauty could be called a “mathematical conception of art” as we see in concepts like complexity, simplicity, and symmetry (symmetry in particular seems linked to art and beauty both) that mathematics itself can be both artistic and beautiful.

In the modern era, Freud  (the “Uncanny”, John Dewey (connection between art and ethics), Theodore Adorno (the Culture Industry), Marshall McLuhan (making the invisible visible), and in particular Arthur Danto (modern art as kalliphobia or anti-beauty), Andre Malraux and Walter Benjamin (the Renaissance and recent definition of art and beauty).

Modern Philosophy as the “Progression” from the Intelligible to the Unintelligible

Lyotard, Merle-Ponty, and Lacan are as usual much less intelligible. If we can see philosophy as the development of a social science, it seems to be “developing” from intelligibility towards unintelligibility. Kant and Nietzsche started it, Sartre turned it into an art form, and in the modern era, philosophy has ceased to have much of any meaning at all. See the French School starting in the 1970’s. The object here is apparently to make as little sense as possible.

Alt Left: Fascism, In Its Many and Varied Forms, Continues to Rampage Across the Planet

Rambo: Your friend there is wrong, Highbrow. Fascism is NOT dead. Just look around the world. Trying my best not to spout clichés, it’s very much alive and well. Maybe that’s what Highbrow has been trying to remind people of.

Yes, and fascism now is taking dramatically different forms than it has in the past. In general, fascism is political process set up by capitalists when they are facing a serious threat from the Left. Any rightwing authoritarian regime or dictatorship against the Left, especially a popular one, can only be seen as fascist.

Therefore, there were many fascist regimes in the world in the last 75 years. States in bold house current fascist regimes. States in normal print indicate past fascist regimes:

In Latin America in Guatemala until 1995, El Salvador until 1992, Honduras, Nicaragua until 1979, Haiti, Colombia, Brazil, Peru under Fujimori in the 1990’s, Ecuador, Bolivia under Hugo Banzer in the 1950’s and briefly last year, Argentina under Videla and Uruguay under the generals in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, Paraguay, and Chile under Pinochet, but also in Spain under Franco until 1975, Portugal under Salazar until 1974, Croatia and Serbia after the Balkans War, Greece under the generals in the late 1960’s, Ukraine, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Pakistan under Zia in the 1980’s, India, Iran under the Shah until 1979, Liberia under Samuel Doe in the 1980’s, Zaire under Mobutu, South Africa under apartheid, Rhodesia under Ian Smith, Morocco under the king, Brunei under the Sultan, the Philippines, Vietnam under Thieu and Diem, Thailand Burma under the generals, Indonesia under Soekarno, South Korea under Singhman Rhee in the 1950’s until 1980, Taiwan in the 1950’s until 1980 and China in the late 1940’s under Chiang Kai Chek, and Fiji.

Incipient fascism is creeping in the US, the UK, Israel, Poland, and Hungary.

There is presently strong fascist opposition in Cuba, Venezuela, Mexico, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Argentina, Peru, Belarus, Lebanon, and Hong Kong.

Pro-fascist democracies exist in the Dominican Republic, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Georgia in particular and frankly, in the entire EU and NATO because the EU and NATO are supporting the fascist opposition in Latin America, the fascist government in Ukraine, and the fascist opposition in Belarus these days.

There are arguments that the Taliban is fascist, but I’m not buying it. I’m also not buying arguments about “Islamo-fascism.” Nor do I think China, North Korea, Belarus, or Russia are fascist.

Alt Left: Who Kills More – US Liberal Interventionists or US Alt Right Nazis and White Supremacists?

Rambo: Your friend there is wrong, Highbrow. Fascism is NOT dead. Just look around the world. Trying my best not to spout clichés, it’s very much alive and well. Maybe that’s what Highbrow has been trying to remind people of.

Right. I banned him. He’s an Alt Right guy. They’re not with us. He hates the Left, so he’s not welcome here. Though I appreciate his anti-military, anti-corporate and especially anti-imperialist notions. I’d like to see more of the Alt Right take this up. I’m willing to make alliances with these guys. Yeah, they’re racists, but so what? How many people do these Alt Right guys kill and hurt every year? Almost zero.

How about liberal Democratic Party interventionists (imperialists)? US sanctions on Venezuela alone have already killed 100,000 people. We started a war in Iraq that killed 1.4 million people. We started another war in Afghanistan that killed 1.1 million people. And we are up to our necks with our ISIS and Al Qaeda allies in Syria, where we started a war that has killed 500,000 people.

Numbers of dead:

IS Liberal interventionists: 3 million over 20 years.

US Alt Right Nazis and racists: 30? over the same period.

Whose worse? Nazis and racists suck but I will ally with anti-military, anti-corporate, and especially anti-imperialist Alt Right White Supremacists over these liberal interventionist woketards any day of the week. Anyway the woke liberal interventionists literally kill 100,000 times as many people as Alt Right racists and Nazis.

Alt Left: I’m Starting to Think These Fundamentalist Christian Calvinists Are Pretty Cool

From here.

You write that the Promise Keepers declined after their ’90s heyday because the appeal of their soft patriarchy was fading. What filled the void were outfits like Mars Hill Church, founded in 1996 in Seattle by Mark Driscoll. It was tattooed, cursing, beer-drinking, hypermasculine, and really quite misogynistic.

Driscoll called on women in the congregation to give their husbands oral sex, warned against men being “pussified,” described women as being created by God to be “homes for men’s penises.” By 2019, Mars Hill had more than seven hundred churches all over the world.

Mars Hill was part of something called the New Calvinist movement. What was the New Calvinist movement, and how did it affect the evangelical movement?

I have a MAGA fundamentalist Christian girlfriend these days. She’s practically an MRA. When there’s any conflict between men and women, she sides with the men and blames the women LOL. She also thinks #metoo is bullshit and nothing but complete faggotry. She cheers on men who hit on women or buy whores.

He’s just trying to get his dick wet!…Good for him! He’s just trying to get laid!

She’s also very much into traditional masculinity. When she gets uppity with me, I set her in her place, and she agrees with me:

Just shove your cock down my throat and make me shut up!

I realize this shit is totally reactionary and backwards and against all of my cool liberal leftwing progressive values, but Goddamn is this a breath of fresh air!

I see why this sort of thing appeals to men. It’s basically paradise for men.

A Lot of Women Literally Want to Be the “Consensual Slaves of Men”

Not sure what it is for women, but if it’s slavery, a lot of them want to be “slaves.” Come to think of it, “consensual slavery” seems to be an integral part of the Feminine Character.

I realize there are a lot of women who hate this idea, but you’d be shocked at how many women actually love to live like this. They literally want the man to be above them. I’m not sure if it is a superiority-inferiority thing or a master-slave thing. It’s more like we are all in some sort of a Gender Army and the men are higher ranking officers than the women and they wish to be lower ranking officers and take (reasonable) orders from usThey like to be ordered around. They enjoy being at our beck and call. They see us as as the rock to hold onto in the roiling seas to keep from drowning.

I don’t’ believe women are inferior, and it’s not a scientific question with a real answer anyway. The answer to that question is whatever you think it is – it’s a matter of opinion and not of science. This is in spite of the fact that so many male autists think they can assemble scientific truth of women’s inferiority.

On the other hand, the man has to dominate the woman, if only just a little bit. If you don’t dominate her, she will rip those pants right off of you and put them on herself.

Total Equality Is Not Possible between Men and Women

Equality does not seem possible between men and women. I think the best relationships would be a sort of a kind and benevolent slight domination of the man by the woman.

I believed in equality for many years because that is what my politics taught me was right, but I finally realized that this goes against human nature or Natural Law. And if you spend your life acting as if total equality is possible in male-female relationships, you will be chasing a white whale with nothing but doom and the plunging depths of deathly despair at the end of your battles.

Doing the right thing makes no sense if all you do is tilt at windmills.

Alt Left: Latest on the Proxy War between Israel and Iran: “A War of Intelligence Services”

“A War of Intelligence Services”

Iranian Intelligence Attacked the Israeli Liner in the Gulf of Oman, Killing Three of Her Crew

The attack on the Israeli liner in the Gulf of Oman a while back was not a false flag. A few Iranians had been killed in Syria a couple of weeks before, and this was Iran saying there will be paybacks. So they attacked the Israeli liner and killed three of her men. The attack was conducted from Yemen. I am not sure of the weapon used, possibly drones. I am not sure of a Houthi role. When I asked who did it, my contact with deep connections to the Resistance Axis said, “This is a war of intelligence agencies!” So Iranian intelligence fired that missile from Yemen.

Huge Mysterious Blast on a Ship in UAE Harbor Killed Three Israeli Mossad Agents

I also saw a report in a Hezbollah paper about the mysterious boat blast in the harbor in UAE that was totally blacked out by UAE. 3-4 foreign nationals were killed in that mysterious blast, all Israelis. No state acknowledged this, least of all Israel. Obviously those men were all Mossad. I am assuming they either blew themselves up by accident or Iran killed them with a bomb on the ship.

Iranian Attacks on CIA and Mossad Based in Kurdistan

There are persistent reports out of Iran that Iran has targeted US CIA and Mossad bases in Kurdistan. The Kurds are traitors and they have let the CIA and Mossad set up shop there. The Mossad has had deep connections to the PKK forever. An Iranian drone scored a direct hit on a US CIA base in Erbil. Thing was that that base was top secret. No one knew it was there. There have been one or more strikes on Mossad bases in Kurdistan too. In one attack, the Mossad officer always went to the outhouse at a particular time to do his thing. Like clockwork. At the designated hour, Iran sent a drone over there, blew up the outhouse and killed the officer.

Iranian Intelligence Squad Raids Base in Israel

An Iranian intelligence hit team nailed a Mossad colonel in Israel almost a year ago. An Iranian intelligence squad just raided an Israeli base in Beersheva and made off with blueprints and fancy military hardware. The raid was done in a matter of minutes and they all escaped.

Azerbaijan Working Closely with Israel against Iran

In other news, Azerbaijan has completely whored themselves out to Israel. They were deeply involved in the attacks against the Iranian nuclear scientists.

Everyone knows there is no Iranian nuclear program. So why is everyone so frantic to shut down Iran’s peaceful nuclear program?

Deep Iranian and Hezbollah Connections to Gaza Armed Groups

Also, Iran started replenishing Gaza’s weapons and money very quickly after the war, within 2-3 weeks. I have no idea how they do this so quickly. How did all of those fancy military vehicles get into Gaza? Are there tunnels so large that you can drive trucks through them? Hezbollah was in contact with the Palestinians every hour during the war. They helped them greatly on strategy. Hamas alone may have 40,000 men under arms.

It is not known how much damage those tunnels sustained. I would think they would need bunker busters to destroy underground tunnels, no? Those are the only ground penetrating bombs out there. Hezbollah has been helping the Palestinians make all of these new weapons in Gaza. Almost all of the tech and expertise has come from Iran and Hezbollah.

Alt Left: Lying Western Media about “Clashes” in Lebanon

Did you notice that as soon as Victoria Nuland showed up in Beirut, snipers on rooftops appeared and started shooting at Hezbollah and Amal people? There were no “clashes” in Beirut, but the entire Western media is lying  to you about that. There were demonstrations by Hezbollah and Amal supporters in Beirut over a judge assigned to investigate something that never even happened in the first place – a stash of fertilizer blew up in the Beirut harbor. But everyone in Lebanon and even Iran has gone along with the lie that this is what happened because it’s better for everyone that way.

What really happened was the Jews dropped a nuclear bomb on Beirut and then set up a vast lie about a how a fertilizer stash blew up. The whole world officially went along with it. Not one nation dared to tell the truth  about what  happened. This is what the Malay Prime Minister Malathir meant when he said, “The Jews (Israel) control the world by proxy.” See anyone calling them on dropping that bomb? See anyone ever going against the ridiculous story that was put out? Of course not. Well, that’s what happens when you have the world damn world in the palm of your hand and everyone is either owned by you or afraid of you.

The Lebanese Forces are a Christian Phalangist movement whose members formed a proxy army allied with Israel when the Jews occupied Southern Lebanon. Their ideological mentor loved Hitler and had photographs of him in his high school locker. The current leader is a former general named Gaega. They are strongly pro-US and in my opinion they are more responsible than anyone else for bringing fascism to Lebanon.

About half of the Lebanese Christians are out and out Christian fascists. They have extreme hate for Muslims and especially for Iran, Hezbollah, and more than anything else, the Palestinians. These are the people who murdered 3,500 people in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in 1982 while Ariel Sharon, head of the Jewish Army, watched with binoculars from a nearby building to make sure resistance to the killers didn’t get out of hand.

They are funded by Saudi Arabia due to the fact that they both hate the Shia and Iran. The Lebanese Forces put snipers on rooftops and fired on the above Hezbollah and Amal demonstrators, killing 6 and wounding 60 more. After this, Hezbollah and Amal militias arrived on the scene and started shooting back. Somehow this gets called “clashes.” Not one Western media report mentioned the Lebanese Forces fascists.

Not even one. That is because the entire Western media is in bed with fascist elements around the world in Ukraine, Lebanon, Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Israel, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Peru, El Salvador, and Haiti. Mostly this is due to economic support for fascist elites and a democratic left. In a few places like Ukraine and Lebanon it is down to US geopolitical war against Iran and Russia which we have dragged our European slaves into.

On the other hand, arguably fascist states in Eastern Europe in Hungary and Poland are savagely attacked for not going along with the Western woke project.

If you notice, the snipers started shooting as soon as (((Victoria Nuland))) showed up. Mysterious snipers have a tendency to start shooting from roofs everywhere this walking malignancy shows up. Based on that, I think the US and maybe Israel had a hand in these snipers. Mostly I blame the Saudis. I’d say it was a US-Saudi plot to start a civil war in Lebanon with possibly input from Israel.

The US, the Saudis, and mysterious fascist snipers shooting at Shia Muslims to overthrow a pro-Hezbollah/Iran and anti-Israel government.

Alt Left: Mysterious NATO/CIA/Deep State/Jihadist or Fascist Snipers on Roofs That Shoot Both Sides During Unrest to Cause Chaos or Overthrow Regimes

Remember in Ukraine where mysterious snipers appeared when (((Victoria Nuland))) showed up and shot both the pro-Russian Berkut police and anti-Russian pro-Nazi protesters? That was a pure NATO operation, 100% of the way. The snipers were Lithuanians and Georgians and they were trained at a NATO base in Poland. The Georgians have been recorded as admitting that they sniped on both sides. Interviews with them can be found on Youtube.

The Lithuanians were holed up in a high tower and disguised as classical musicians. Some were female. They were photographed leaving Ukraine after the attacks with their guns in their instrument cases. The Ukrainian pro-Russian police were blamed but all of the bullets came from guns that they did not have as per an investigation by a commission of the Ukrainian Nazi government.

NATO, the CIA, the EU, and mysterious fascist snipers shooting both sides to install a fascist government and overthrow a pro-Russian one.

Mysterious NATO Jihadist Snipers Shooting Both Sides in Syria

Recall that in the Syrian Civil War, the war started with Saudi jihadist gunmen smuggled in with weapons stored in mosques who opened fire on both Syrian police, who were unarmed, and demonstrators. Reports indicate that NATO was deeply involved in this Saudi operation, as NATO helped them smuggle the weapons and vehicles across the border.

The Syrian police were blamed, but they had no guns. This was the demo that started the Syrian Civil War. So the Syrian conflict was violent from the very start. Within three weeks of the demos, there were already armed attacks on the Syrian Army. The scene continued for months with mysterious snipers on roofs targeting both police and protesters in cities in Syria.

Once again, NATO, the US, the CIA, and mysterious jihadist snipers shooting both sides to get rid of a Shia pro-Iranian and anti-Israel government.

Mysterious (NATO?) Snipers Shooting Both Sides in Egypt

During the Egyptian Revolution, snipers appeared on roofs attacking both police and protesters. There were rumors of NATO involvement here. Apparently the objective here was to get rid of the Mubarak government,  which had become a thorn in the side of the US.

NATO and mysterious snipers shooting both sides.

Mysterious CIA and Fascist Snipers Shooting Police and Protesters in Venezuela

During the coup against Chavez in 2002, rightwing fascist snipers on bridges attacked both protestors and police. Venezuelan police were blamed. NATO and the EU have long supported the armed fascist opposition in Venezuela.

The CIA and fascist snipers shooting cops and protestors to overthrow a Left government.

Mysterious (NATO?) Snipers Shooting Police and Protesters on Both Sides in Thailand

During the Thai civil unrest, mysterious snipers appeared on rooftops and shot both police and protestors. NATO was once again blamed. I’m not sure what the rationale here was, but the West was supporting one of the sides, either the red shirts or the yellow shirts, I have no idea.

It looks like this “mysterious snipers on roofs often shooting both sides, including police and protesters” thing is a CIA/NATO thing linked to US Deep State operations all over the globe. It looks like the Saudis are also involved, as are European fascist states like Georgia, the Baltics, and Poland. The goal is unclear but in most cases it is to start civil wars, increase unrest, and many cases, to overthrow regimes the US does not like.

Wherever Ms. (((Nuland))) goes, snipers on rooftops mysteriously appear, and they just so happen to promote US objectives. The objective in Lebanon was to drag Hezbollah into a civil war. The Western media are already lying like snakes about this, saying that the fighting was the result of “clashes” without laying blame on the US and Israel-supported Christian fascist Lebanese Forces who started it.

Alt Left: Israel Blew up an Oil Refinery in Lebanon

Not sure if you saw those photos of that burning oil refinery in Lebanon on October 11, but word just came in via French intelligence that that fire was caused by an Israeli missile.

Boy, everyone is covering up all of the Israel’s foul deeds, aren’t they? If you haven’t noticed, Israel is totally on a roll now, heads swollen far more arrogantly than usual, and more aggressive than ever. There’s nothing stopping them. They’re going all out, for broke. They’ve recently gotten a couple of academics fired at universities in the US and the UK.

I think of the Prime Minister of Malaysia saying, “The Jews (Israel) control the world by proxy.” You see anybody stopping them? You see anybody lifting even one finger or saying even one word against them outside of the Arab and Muslim World? You see any papers, TV or radio stations even saying one word against them or at least refusing to cover for their lies? Of course not. They get to do whatever the Hell they damn well please.

And when you get to do whatever the Hell you fucking want to no matter what and no one will even call you on it or even admit that you did it, guess what? The world is your oyster. It’s your baby. You’ve got the world in the palm of your hand.

So in that sense, the great Prime Minister was absolutely correct and perhaps he has been paying the price ever since.

Israel are an integral part of Western imperialism, NATO, the EU, the Pentagon, the Deep States of the West, and the corporations and rich of the West. They’re all in bed with Israel and none of them will say one word against them. And the security linkage is profound. Israel is an essential link in the world structure of Western militarized imperialism.

Well, Israel controls the West all right. In a sense that is. In the sense that all of the West is deeply in bed with Israel. In the sense that no Western state will lift one finger against Israel or say one word against them, nor will any Western media outlets. Israel is essentially a part of NATO right now and has been for a very long time. The relationship between Israel and the West is a political alliance that is more military than anything else.

I’m not sure to what extent trade has to do with it. In the US and the UK, it has to do with domestic policy in that Jewish money controls the political process in both nations on the question of Israel. Also Jews have significant media power in those two states, though the actual degree of that power is not known, and it seems to be lessening in recent years as rich Gentiles like Bezos buy papers. In Germany, it’s all tied in with guilt over WW2. This may be the case in most of Europe for that matter. The European Gentiles in large part got in on the Jew-killing in the world war, and now they repent for it by supporting Israel.

All of the Deep States of the West are totally in with Israel. And the number of Arab and Muslim traitors going over to them grows by the day. They don’t really have many state enemies outside of the Muslim and Arab World, and neither one will lift a finger to stop them. Only the Axis of Resistance, which includes Iran, the Iraqi government, army, and militias, Hezbollah, Lebanon, Syria, Algeria, Tunisia, Afghanistan and Pakistan are against them.

I’d like to point out that the recent cave-in’s by Arab leaders to the Jewish state are not what they seem.

Alt Left: Why Did Those Malaysian Jets Keep Crashing and Getting Shot Down?

Notice all those Malaysian jets that kept going down? After he made that statement, very weird things started happening to Malaysian jets. Remember the jet that went on auto-control, turned around, and ended up in the middle of the Indian Ocean? Remember the Malaysian jet, the M-17, that the Ukrainian oligarchs shot down as a false flag to pin it on Russia and pro-Russian militias? Ever since he talked shit about the Jews, his planes keep crashing and being shot down over and over under very fishy circumstances.

I don’t think it’s the Jews who are doing it. It’s the West, and the West is in bed with the Jews or Israel more properly.

Alt Left: About Those Fake Peace Breakthroughs Between Israel and the Arab World

First of all, all that is happening is normalization. Most if not all of those countries had no relationship with Israel at all. In fact, they all refused to even recognize that Israel even existed. Most of them were officially at war with Israel since 1947! Syria and Lebanon are still officially at war with Israel. No peace treaty was ever signed.

So all these countries did was recognize that Israel existed! And in some places, ended the state of war that had been going on for over 70 years. They also vowed to set up embassies in each other’s countries. In some cases, there are now regular flights between the two countries.

None of this is remarkable and hostile countries all over the world recognize each other, have embassies, flights, etc.

Now the Emiratis have taken this to the next level, but they’re just into it for the money. All they care about is money. Getting in with the Jews is seen as an obvious way to increase their wealth.

All of these countries had to be threatened and bribed to make these moves. All of these happened after the Abrahamic Accords, the worst peace deal by far ever offered by Israel. In fact, there were no accords at all. The US and Israel just laid out a fake peace plan and said, “Here it is. Here are the new accords!” No Palestinian signed that document. So it’s not an accord at all, as no opposing sides agreed to anything.

The Emiratis and Bahrainis were bribed by Trump with billions in military aid to normalize relations with Israel.

Morocco was bribed by the US recognizing Morocco’s outrageous annexation of Spanish Sahara. Didn’t take much to get them to go over.

Sudan was bribed by taking them off the fake “state sponsors of terrorism” list, which is nothing but a fake enterprise anyway made of lies and sleazy scams. So all of these regimes had to be bribed big-time to even recognize Israel’s existence in the first place.

In addition, all of these regimes are dictatorships!

Sudan is a military dictatorship and the people have demonstrated against normalization.

Bahrain and UAE are dictatorships. There have been large demos in Bahrain against normalization, but the police have broken them up.

Morocco is a royalist dictatorship run by a king. There have been large demos in Morocco against normalization.

Surveys of Arab countries show that ~two-thirds or more of their populations oppose normalization of relations with Israel. The lowest I saw was 57% in UAE. The point is that none of this normalization would happen if these countries were democracies.

There was a small conference in Kurdistan of Iraqi leaders advocating normalization of relations with Israel. The Kurds have been with Israel forever now. There were a few Iraqis there, but most of the traitors were Kurds. When word got out, the Iraqi government exploded and issued arrest warrants for everyone who attended the meeting and spoke. It is illegal in Iraq to advocate for normalized relations with Israel. This is rather typical. In Algeria it is illegal for Algerians to travel to Israel. Similar travel bans may exist in other places.

One of My Twitter Posts May Have Violated French Law

French law is increasingly insane on the subject of antisemitism and hate speech in general. The Jews are pressuring all of the countries of Europe to enact extreme hate speech laws to crack down on criticism of the Israeli state.

There’s the post. I called Israel “the Jews” but, hey, that’s what Israel is – Israel is the Jews! It’s the state of the Jews. The Jewish government and the Jewish Army in Israel exist solely for the benefit of the Jews and to the detriment of everybody else.

Anyway, look at what we say in wars:

The Germans attacked Poland.

The Russians raped many women in World War 2.

The Turks killed 2.5 million Armenians.

The Iraqis used chemical weapons against Iran.

The Vietnamese won the war.

The Japanese committed a lot of war crimes.

The Saudis are bombing and blockading Yemen.

The Emiratis are supporting ISIS.

The Jordanians made peace with Israel.

The Whites suppressed the Blacks in South Africa.

The Ethiopians are committing genocide in Tigray.

The Pakistanis rape Hindu women and force them to marry Muslim men all the time.

The Russians took over Crimea.

The Chinese claim the South China Sea.

The North Koreans attacked South Korea.

The Iranians shot missiles at our base.

The Syrians attacked Israel in 1973.

The Egyptians fought a war with Israel in 1967.

The French fought valiantly in WW2.

The Croats killed many Serbs in WW2.

The Serbs ethnically cleansed the Muslims and Croats just recently.

The Moroccans annexed Spanish Sahara.

The Libyans are enslaving Blacks right now.

The Indians are extremely racist against Blacks.

The Turks oppress the Kurds horribly.

The Germans were very cruel to Gypsies.

The Finns hate the Russians.

The Hawaiians got their lands stolen.

The Laotians were very cruel to the Hmong after the war.

The Vietnamese invaded Cambodia.

The Pakistanis killed 3 million Bangladeshis in 1971.

As you can see, general tendencies of societies are typically generalized into general statements that are true in a general sense if not in a perfect sense.

Now to me, I agree with the pro-Israel Jews. There is indeed no difference between the Jews and Israel. Saying that the Jewish Army attacked the Palestinians makes as much sense as saying the Turkish Army attacked the Kurds. Sure, a lot of Jews are not in the Jewish Army, but so what? A lot of Turks are not in the Turkish Army. A lot of Germans are not in the German Army. So what? There is no reason to use the word Israel in referring to the Israeli government, army, or its citizens.

In fact, it is more appropriate to refer to Israelis as “the Jews,” because that’s what they are. That state certainly doesn’t represent any of the rest of its citizens. When the Israeli Army attacks a village or helps settlers beat up villagers, it is acting for the Jews and the Jews only and not for any of the rest of its citizens. In fact, it is acting contrary to the desires of most of its citizens.

The state of Israel is not a state for all Israelis. It is only a state for the Jews of Israel. Everyone else doesn’t count. Further, Israel says it is the state of all of the Jews of the world. Hence, in accordance with this logic, all Jews everywhere in the world are citizens of Israel. Let’s just follow Israeli logic here. So all Jews are really Israelis. I don’t agree with that, but that’s what Israel says! And every Jew on Earth gets to go to Israel and automatically become a citizen, showing how Israel is indeed a state of all of the Jews of the world.

Now, the Diaspora Jews. I will say that 25-30% of US Jews are all right. 21-25% of US Jews describe Israel as either an apartheid state or a genocidal state! Incredible. These Jews are some righteous people. 30% of US Jews are sitting out the conflict and are not actively engaged with Israel. So none of these people are part of the problem. However, the Jewish Lobby and only the Jewish Lobby is 100% of the problem when it comes to the extreme influence of Israel on the US. It’s all about the Lobby.

The fundamentalist Christians haven’t much power. How much money do they spend lobbying for Israel. And please note that the 20-30% of US Jews above have no power at all. The 70-80% of US Jews who support the Jewish Lobby include all of the rich and powerful ones. And it is this Jewish money (and some say blackmail) power that is the main reason for the US fanatical support for Israel.

Now when we say the Jewish Army and the Jewish government, are we talking about the army and government of the US Jews? Not really. Nevertheless, it is a Jewish Army and it is a Jewish government and it receives tremendous support from Jews overseas. So we aren’t talking about Diaspora Jews when we say that. When I say Jewish Army and Jewish government I refer only to the Jews in Israel. I’m not referring to the rest of them.

In doing this, I am going by the very precepts of Zionism itself, hence there is nothing antisemitic about it. Zionism itself says that the government and army of Israel and the Jewish people are one and the same. Zionism itself says that the Israeli army and government are for the Jews and the Jews only. Hence this isn’t an anti-Zionist argument at all. It’s a Zionist argument, straight from the horses’ mouths. If this is how they want to play it, we will use their own rules against them.

Alt Left: Take Your Taboo Subjects and Shove Them All Right up Your Asses

The Very Idea of Taboo Subjects Outside of People’s Personal Matters Is Pretty Much Bullshit

I really don’t believe in taboo subjects. “Whoa! We don’t talk about that!?” Well, why the Hell not for God’s sake? Maybe someone’s personal life is rather taboo. I’m not particularly interested in people’s sex lives, for instance. Of course I can gossip with the rest but in general, people’s sex lives are a rather personal matter, especially if revealing things about it would be embarrassing to the person. People have a right to privacy in a sense. I’ve always outed everyone I’ve ever known who was gay or bi though if I knew about it. Not out of malice but simply because I felt that that was an interesting fact about them.

There are some things that have happened in our family that are so shameful and embarrassing that no one talks about them. I in particular don’t want to hear about them considering I was the victim.

If you are doling out people’s personal lives in order to insult or humiliate them, I don’t see the point.

I had a cousin who was gay. He died recently. Of course I asked about his love life. My family completely flipped out and kept saying over and over, “It doesn’t matter! It doesn’t matter!” It didn’t seem very woke to me. It seemed more like they were ashamed of it. Finally my Mom told me that he’d had a long series of relationships with older men. Actually his homosexuality was a huge taboo in my stupid family, and it was not to be discussed. His own father simply refused to believe that he was gay and kept saying he would find a nice girl one day. I don’t understand what’s so cool and woke about an attitude like that. It sounds like his father was ashamed of him.

The basic stupid attitude is that if you never talk about something, it’s hopefully going to go away. This is magical thinking, but humans excel at this. People literally believe that if we just never talk about this thing, it will either vanish or more properly, it will cease to exist.

All of this nonsense seems to be all wrapped up in shame, and shame is bullshit if you ask me. What’s there to be ashamed of? Nothing!

Further most subjects are taboo because the standard view of them is completely insane. Dope was taboo forever because the whole society was insane about dope. Sex was taboo in my family while growing up because my family was nuts about sex. The sex lives of sexually mature minors is now taboo because society is stark raving batshit insane about this subject.

A lot of taboos were just shitty. My friend CL had a mother who was a horrendous bitch. She was also very cruel and demeaning to him and in particular, humiliated him in an emasculating way. His father was just some cold asshole who cheated on the bitch mother. His sister was a mental case who fucked anything that moved and took every drug known to exist. She eventually died of AIDS. She hung out with an extremely gay punker crowd.

The fact that my friend’s Mom was an unholy bitch was taboo. He defended that evil cunt to the hilt. And look how she treated him!

The fact that his father was cold bastard who cheated on his Mom was taboo. His father was a wonderful man.

Anything involving the lunatic sister was taboo. She was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Every now and then, once every few years, my friend would go on an absolutely batshit insane bender of wild drinking for weeks on end which typically ended in some sort of a catastrophe. Of course discussion of this was taboo even though it was probably one of the most important themes of his life.

He could not express anger at all and he was freaked out and appalled if you ever displayed anger around him. Anger was taboo.

The guy across the street was a closeted faggot. Not a gay man, a faggot. And a real bad one too. He’d been in prison for a couple of years. Somehow I got tangled up in a very bad friendship with him that ended when one day I walked over to his house with a baseball and bat and smashed his front door down!

I had hired him to work on my car but halfway through I found someone to do it for less so he got mad. He went to my car in the middle of the night, switched every switch that could have been switched and then turned it on. Killed the engine. So he got his front door smashed down by me. This is what happens if you piss me off or fuck me over. I will go over to your damned house with a baseball bat and smash your front door down!

Anyway, he had been stealing people’s car stereos in the neighborhood for a long time. His father was a weird man with an evil look in his eye. Rumor was he was in on the son’s thievery and was selling the stolen goods. The guy’s mother was hideously ugly, grossly fat, and a deranged alcoholic. Periodically she would wake the neighborhood at ungodly hours screaming unintelligibly like a banshee or a howler monkey. This nonsense might go on for an hour or two. I once tried to bring it up with this guy. Taboo subject! His Mom was the greatest person on Earth.

I’m not sure if I ever brought up the fact that he used to be a thief and did prison time for burglary or the fact that his Dad looked like he had made a pact with the Devil, but I’m sure that would have been taboo too. After I smashed his door down I spread the rumor that he was a faggot closet case, which he was. This was also taboo and he threatened to beat me up for this insult.

Closets Are for Clothes

As an aside, the most utterly deranged, disturbed, creepy, tormented, and even dangerous homosexual men I have ever met were closet cases in their late 20’s and early 30’s with fake girlfriends. A few years back, I had a terrible interaction with a closet case, who was also profoundly disturbed and angry, at a local Starbucks. Closet case gay men are unbelievably fucked up. If you are biologically gay, please come out of the closet. We don’t like homosexuality but we will support you because we know you can’t help it. If anyone wants to chime in about why closet cases are so sick and fucked up, be my guest. I guess living a lie and hiding from yourself your whole life isn’t real great for mental health.

Taboo Subjects are Crap, Continued

Anyway, as you can see, most of the taboo subjects I’ve dealt with in my life were about fucked up people who no one would admit were fucked up, about unpleasant emotions that people tried to deny that they had, about people who lived lies, had shameful secrets, lived wicked and idiotic lives, and in general, subjects about which society didn’t know its ass from a Goddamned hole in the ground.

I’ve always told all of you guys that I’ll never lie you to about anything important in terms of current affairs, history, or politics, or much of anything, really. I might mystify my own life a bit, but so what? So shoot me.

As I noted at that start, I’m sitting here trying to think of a subject that is justifiably taboo,l and I just can’t think of one! Can any of my readers come up with some subject anywhere on God’s green Earth that is justifiably taboo? The whole idea of taboo subjects is stupid and lame. I’m against it.

My motto on this site is I’m going take every one of the taboo subjects whose secrecy you most cherish and shove them right up your asses. I’m going to force you to confront your bullshit, lies, and games. I’m going to make you question every single damn thing you believe and then some. I’m here to piss you off. If I’m not pissing you off, I’m not doing my job. If any of my commenters wish to follow suit and become professional trolls or provocateurs, be my guest. You will right in spirit with the site.

Now I gave you a question to think about, right?

Repost: Do the Races Smell Different?

This is a repost of a very popular old article. Enjoy.

From a very interesting discussion over at American Renaissance in an article about how the Pill disrupts women’s sense of smell. The article itself is interesting. Females have an evolutionarily developed sense of smell that makes them prefer males who differ in a set of genes called the major histocompatibility complex (MHC), which governs the immune system.
When they choose men with a different set of MHC genes, the offspring gets a complementary set of MHC genes, or the best of both parties, and has an increased resistance to disease. However, women on the Pill lose this preference. Researchers worried that women on the Pill might lose interest in their boyfriends or husbands while on the Pill.

But the comments were even more interesting. I have been wanting to write for a long time about the notion that some Whites say that Black people stink, or smell bad. There did not seem to be a way of writing about this without sounding like a racist asshole, so I put it off.

A relative told me that many Whites say that Blacks smell bad. He even said that they are called “Stink Bugs” by some Hispanics here in California. I said that I had been around Blacks most of my life, including having Black girlfriends, Black best friends who I hung out with every day, and teaching whole classes full of Blacks every day for months on end, and I never noticed it.

It’s not really known what Blacks smell like to those who say they are stinkers. Some say they smell like sweat or onions, but a lot say that they just flat out stink, period.

There is also evidence that Northeast Asians find the odor of Blacks particularly offensive, perhaps more so than Whites do. Asians also say that we Whites stink too, but not as much as Blacks do. They often say that we smell like red meat. Some of this may have to do with diet. But one White Vietnam vet said that Vietnamese could hardly smell Blacks at all, but could smell a White a block away.

Even Hispanics are said to be stinky by some Whites.

So far, this post sounds pretty racist. Black folks are getting screwed like they always do. The other races think they’re stinky, and there’s no hope.
Ah.

But there is hope for Black folks. It seems that a lot of Blacks say that we Whites stink too. Equal time! In the comments to the article (which Amren will not keep and I could not get Google too cache), commenters noted that Blacks often refer to Whites as having a “wet dog smell”.

There is supposedly even a type of spray called “Wet Dog” that you can spray on yourself to give yourself a scent that Blacks hate, though this may be an urban myth. What a way to keep people away! Along the same lines, a female commenter said that a Black woman told her that Black females can’t stand to take showers with White women in gymnasiums or at school since they think White women smell terrible when they get wet.

Even other Whites say we Whites stink. A White woman said that White men often smell like corn on the cob. A White man said if you get a lot of White guys together in a locker room, they smell like rotten peppers.

I’m a little upset that in yet another lineup between the three great races, those darned cunning, inscrutable Oriental despots come out on top, smelling like a rose even.

But alas, all is not lost. It seems that some Whites say that foreign-born Asians and FOB’s (recent immigrants) smell bad. It’s something like sesame oil plus old socks with a drop of rice wine. It’s subtle, but one woman described it as almost nauseating. A White man who served in Vietnam said that he could smell differences between Vietnamese and Chinese (the Chinese stunk worse), so there may be national variations in stinkiness. I’m happy that some folks think Asians stink too. All’s fair.

I supposedly have a great sense of smell, but I’ve been missing out on all these stinky races. I can’t detect any racial or ethnic differences in smell, though I used to work with this nice older White woman who smelled horrible for some reason.

But I find it amusing that in this area of dictatorially enforced anti-racism that so many Blacks, Whites, and Asians all think the other races stink.

Alt Left: Many Girls with ROGD Have Autism

Anonymous: It would be interesting to talk about autistic people, and how high rates of transgender feelings might be due to gender dysphoria due to identity crises in teenage years.

Among ROGD girls, Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, which now accounts for almost all FTM transsexuals and is almost certainly a social contagion mental disorder along the lines of anorexia nervosa, rates of autism and Asperger’s Syndrome are very high, as in 25%. Autism is behind a huge amount of this new transsexualism.

I saw a post the other day by a transman who has completely destroyed their health by transitioning from male to female. His health is shot and he almost died numerous times.

A teenage daughter of a friend of his insists that she is trans. Reason? She’s growing breasts and she hates that. She hates her breasts. Actually this feeling is very common among young teenage girls. Most grow out of it. Hatred of their genitalia is also very common among women.

I was involved with a woman for a while who went through a period in early adulthood where she taped her vagina shut with tape and walked around like that all day. I asked her why she did it and she said, “I don’t know.” She worked as a therapist if  you can believe that.

I saw a post on Reddit by a woman who said she hated her genitals for a good ten years since age 13. She couldn’t even bear to look at them.

Anyway, hating your body and hating your growing breasts does not mean you are trans, for God’s sake! Jesus, man.

No, Vaginas Don’t Normally Smell Like Fish

A lot of women, especially younger women, don’t like their genitals. Most older women seem to have made some sort of peace with theirs, probably because they are such a source of extreme pleasure that it’s hard to hate something that brings you that much joy.

Some don’t like how they look. Others think they smell bad, but the natural smell of a vagina, which is what I think most are talking about when they talk about stanky pussy, is not a bad smell. It’s a strong musky smell, but it’s not a bad smell. Have you ever smelled that really strong pot they call skunkweed? That’s the closest smell I have found to the smell of a vagina. I rather like the smell of that pot, but it’s definitely a strong, rather musky smell.

Some smells are just bad. They’re gross and sickening. Some smells are pleasant. Others are just strong and they are a matter of taste, just as no one likes the taste of beer, wine, tobacco, hard liquor or coffee the first time they try it.

All the talk about “smells like fish” is not referring to the natural smell of a vagina. If her pussy smells like fish, she has an infection. It’s called Bacterial Vaginitis. I must say, in all my years, I have never encountered a vagina that smelled like fish.

Some smelled like maybe…sweat? That part of the body is like an armpit and women sweat a lot down there. One reason people shower before they have sex.

I’ve met some vaginas that didn’t smell like anything at all. I’m not sure why that is. I called up a girlfriend once in the middle of the day she told me she was washing her vagina. “We have to do that, you know – we women,” she said. I never knew that they’d undertake a bathing expedition for such a limited purpose but maybe they do. In my 60’s, I’m still learning about these things called vaginas. You would think I would  have figured them out by now, but nope.

Alt Left: Banned from Twitter Again

As you know, I was banned from Twitter a while back for saying,

There’s no such thing as transgender people. They’re all just mentally ill.

I don’t quite believe that this is true because I think there are ~6% of them who have an actual biological disorder, and in those cases, I am ok with transition for them. However, the other 94% really have nothing wrong with them other than that they are crazy, often via a sort of social contagion similar to anorexia nervosa. This is the case with almost all FtM transsexuals.

89% of the men simply have a sexual kink, fetish, or paraphilia called autogynephilia where they get aroused by wearing women’s clothes and thinking of themselves as women. The disorder starts out early in life via arousal by wearing girl’s and women’s clothes. It becomes a paraphilia known as transvestism. Transvestism in many cases becomes chronic and worsens with age such that later in life just dressing up doesn’t cut it anymore and they need to see themselves as actual women.

It is curable and some people have simply cured themselves. Others have thought their way out of it. Whatever is wrong with them, none of them are men in women’s bodies or vice versa. The closest to that are the “homosexual MtF transsexuals or pure transsexuals who have brains that are “female-shifted” but not female. That is, their brains are halfway between a male brain and a female brain. So their brains are feminized relative to the average male, but they do not have female brain structures.

Anyway, I got banned.

Somehow I sneaked back on and set up another profile. It was rather successful for some odd reason until I got linked up with Robert Stark who was getting into it with TERF (trans-exclusive radical feminists).

I have no idea how it came up, but I ended up posting how I was still dating 18 and 19 year old girls around age 60. It’s very hard to date them and I’ve only been with a few because almost all of them want to charge me, that is, they want me to be their sugar daddy. That costs about $400/month so that is too much for me.

But now and again when the stars align or I succeed in violating the laws of physics, I find one who will date me, not for free, but in a normal dating relationship. Anytime you have an age gap that extreme, you’re always paying for everything since she usually doesn’t have a nickel. She’s often living at her parents’ house, hasn’t even learned to drive a car yet, has very limited work history, and some are still in high school!

Yes, I have dated high schools at age 60! But they were over 18. And sexually they have no idea what they are doing. Quite a few are virgins or practically so. One 18 year old girl not only had never had sex, but she had never even been kissed. I was her first.

As with the underage jailbaits (formerly accessible as a teenage boy and from 18-21), they have no idea what they are doing in bed, but they are very curious and enthusiastic and have a child-like eagerness to learn. Everything’s new to them and they’re having fun. They also often on a mission to achieve their sexual self-actualization in the face of parents or society that are preventing them from having sex.

They are out to create a sexual life for themselves as a way of being an adult and being independent, so there is often a rebellious attitude to it. One 19 year old girl was living at home and her father was enforcing permanent virginity til marriage on her. That wasn’t working out but he was still angry and slut-shaming. At 5 PM on the afternoon of the first date, she shocked me by asking me if she could move in. Of course I said yes.

If you take these young ladies in, you become her (substitute) father – let’s face it – in many cases that is what is behind all of this – a poor relationship with her father. Absent father, father left her, never knew her father, hostile father, hates her father, on and on. She veers towards older men as father figures to give her the love that Daddy never gave her. So you, the older man, are basically Daddy.

You are also her lover of course and in most cases you are her sex therapist too, since as I noted, they have no idea what they are doing in bed.

You are also her therapist, since they are typically pretty screwed up in the head. In fact, most of the ones I have dated were suicidal, either slightly or overtly. However, suicidality is almost the natural state of Womankind, and though they talk a good game, they don’t walk the walk. They make 4-5 more attempts than men, but men commit suicide twice as often. Suicidal attempts in women, which I have witnessed in a couple of girlfriends already, are typically designed to fail and are often cries for help or attention. They often use pills, which don’t work very well.

Men on the other hand – we don’t mess around. If we are going to try to commit suicide, we will finish the job, goddamn it, as cries for help and attention and considered sissified and feminine in men, so we don’t like to do that. On that note, gay teenage boys have an attempted suicide rate that is very high, as high as women’s, but once again, the completed rate is low. So these gay boys are engaging in a feminine style of suicidality, not surprising considering that much male homosexual behavior is feminine.

Anyway, most of these girls know very little about life, so you end up doling out wisdom to her all the time, and she is learning about life every single day. You show her better ways of dealing with things and how to be more mentally healthy as opposed to the opposite – what used to be called mental hygiene.

You also end up teaching her the 300,000+ rules about social speech and behavior. Actually there are a lot more than that, but I can only remember 300,000 of them at the moment. I apologize. I know, I’m a social retard. There are actually 3 million rules, and any competent social actor knows them all by heart. Forget one rule and you’re a social failure. But of course.

Young people don’t know much about this weird and often crazy rules, and they end up mystified and angry a good part of the time. So you’re always teaching her the rules of the world, which, at the tender age of 64, I am still learning. I’m not sure if that is normal, but perhaps it is. Learning is a lifelong process. Anyone who thinks they know it all is a fool best avoided.

I have a genius IQ which is otherwise useless, but it’s good teaching young folks. And I’ve spent my whole life filling up my brain. I easily am smarter and know more than 99% of the people you will ever meet. Not that that makes me special, but perhaps you might wish to stop and talk sometime? I like to think I’m a pretty interesting person because I’m so smart, and I know so many things.

Anyway, all of this comes in handy with a young woman, especially an intelligent one who knows a thing or two herself and is the “eager for knowledge” type. In vocabulary alone, I end up teaching them easily 10-20 new words every single day. And I know so much about so many things that these women can learn a Hell of a lot from me. I’m a walking encyclopedia, or maybe a walking university course. They recognize that and seem to enjoy learning all of these new things.

One told me six months after we had separated, “Ever since I met you, everyone I meet seems like an idiot.” It had been nine months since we had met. Another one was always telling me how wise I was. Most of us get to middle age and hopefully we have accumulated some wisdom along the way. That’s the general idea, you know. Hence a middle aged person will usually be wiser than someone in their 20’s, though some young people are already remarkably wise for whatever reason.

You might end up teaching her to drive.

If she moves in with you, it will be the first time she’s ever been on her own.

You are her mentor in so many ways. I’m a former teacher and it’s such a great joy to see someone learn, and there are few places you can watch this growth process unfold so quickly as when you are mentoring one of these young women.

So anyway, I laid all of this out in some posts, Robert reposted them gleefully, and the next thing I knew I was in a thunderstorm of radical feminists, lesbians, man-haters, social conservatives (they are allies – I call them femiservatives), and various forms of cucks, fags, and girlymen (male feminists).

The abuse was nonstop. I was called these things many times – pedophile (the girls were adults), predator, groomer, creep, rapist, dangerous to women, on and on. After they decided I was a professor at some Fresno State University, they said I was “grooming” my female students, which isn’t possible because you can only groom children. I was also “preying” on my female students. About 20 of them emailed the university demanding that they fire me. Unfortunately for them, I’m not a professor at that university. I’m only an alumnus.

Then they decided that I was a therapist, said that any male therapist who acts like I was had no business being in that profession, and ~20 more of them bombarded the State Board of Counseling Licensing to try to get my license pulled. Fortunately, I’m a peer counselor and we don’t have to be licensed, degreed, credentialed, or anything. We are limited in what we can call ourselves and say that we do, but there’s no license to pull, and no one has any jurisdiction over us. So that didn’t work either.

Then they started bombarding Twitter with complaints. When this wasn’t working, they posted, “Why is this pedophile still posting? Why haven’t we shut him down yet?” I think Twitter has a policy that once someone starts getting mass-reported, they are considered a nuisance customer and terminated for generating too many complaints. A perfect way to justify mass fake reporting of people you don’t like.

I mostly know the rules, but they caught me on a couple of things. Using the word “whore.” That’s a ban on that cucked website. A few other things.

Twitter dinged me three times and gave me a 7-day ban. That made me so mad that I reported a bunch of my enemies who had turned me in, something I never do because I hate this whole cucked process of banning free speech based on woke BS and hurt feelings. It’s completely gay. I don’t see why any man goes along with this pussy nonsense. It’s tattling and tattling is pussy and weak. Women tattle. Women call the cops every time the wind changes direction.

Men aren’t supposed to be calling the cops all the time, tattling on everyone, and trying to get everyone in trouble. That’s what sissies do. It’s like a little boy running to his Mommy every time he gets into it with other boys. It’s totally weak and wussy behavior.

After a couple of days, for no reason, Twitter changed it into a permanent ban. So the soyboys at Twitter permanently banned me for saying I dated 18 and 19 year old girls around age 60. How pussy and gay is that? Well folks, this is our soyciety in the Current Year, I am afraid. We live in a Matriarchy. The women are in charge and run the show. The “men” in power are all soyboys and cucks who are working for the Matriarchy. Real men have nowhere to go and are increasingly threatened. I don’t see this getting better anytime soon. In fact, it seems to be getting worse.

So there ya go. My latest ban. But have no fear. Is it possible I may sneak back on again? Who knows! Stay tuned to this channel to find out!

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)