Who Are the Druze?

Rambo: What are Droozes in Lebanon? Part Christian part something else?

The Druze exist in Northern Israel, Southwester Syria and Southern Lebanon. Druze are a sect that branched off from Islam about 100 years ago.They have a strange religion where only the elders know the true secrets of the religion because they have books that no one else is allowed to see. In this way they are similar to the Yezidis in Northern Iraq, the Alawites in Syria, and even the Catholics in the Middle Ages.

Like the others, the Druze tell their people only a very watered-down version of the religion, so your average person doesn’t really have good details on what the religion is exactly about. Women play a significant role in Druze culture, and I think some of their priests are even women. In  this way,  they are odd in the Middle Eastern sense.

This may well be an ancient idea. As with the other two religions, you cannot convert into the Druze religion. Like the Yezidis, the Druze are not supposed to marry outside their religion.

Although to hardline Islamists, they often say they are Muslims. The Islamists usually accept this. They were often persecuted, so they took refuse in high mountains and hid out. They also practiced a lot of taqiyya to get out of persecution. The Druze have been loyal to Israel, though they have been treated terribly by the Jews. This is because it is Druze tradition to go along with whatever government is in whatever state they happen to be in. Druze must serve in the Israeli military. But some are now identifying as Arabs and refusing to serve. That’s illegal and some are going to jail for doing that.

In Syria, they support the state and are very anti-Israel. The Druze in the Golan under Israeli rule are still loyal to Syria, and they really hate Israel.

In Lebanon a lot of them work with Hezbollah. They’re real Israel-haters there too. Their leader is a man named Walid Jumbalat who is one of most cynical men in Lebanon. He’s all over the place all the time, always changing sides and positions. His politics isn’t really coherent.

They are very similar to the Alawites, a similar obscure mountain sect that has used taqiyya and obfuscation to confuse people about what they are. The Alawites are Muslims, although Islamists call them heretics because the Islam they practice is very odd.

Quiet Riot, “Come on Feel the Noise”

If you liked that Poison song, “Dark Dirty to Me” I ran a while back, you should like this one too. Another 80’s hair metal band very similar to Poison. This is actually a Slade song. If you have never heard Slade, check them out. They were around in the early 70’s when I was still in high school. Very hard rock for the time. Very hard rock.

Alt Left: All Dissident or Opposition Media in the US Is Effectively Banned

transformer: “Protecting our freedom” is the standard justification for anything our troops do, regardless of what it is. It doesn’t fool anyone but the naïve, but it sounds better than “protecting our prestige” or “protecting our financial interests,” which would be closer to the truth a lot of the time.

I used to be a blind patriot that believed that the troops were fighting for freedom but around 2001, I started to question that belief. Since then, I have researched alternative news articles and opinions on the internet about the true nature of American foreign policy, the military, the CIA and the government. I don’t believe that anymore.

https://warontherocks.com/2020/05/this-memorial-day-lets-finally-start-having-an-honest-national-conversation-about-military-service/

Exactly. And they’re able to fool everyone or at least the majority. Unfortunately, it reliably fools anywhere from 55-70% of the population and that figure doesn’t seem to be budging. It all seems so hopeless.

Now with the Internet we finally have media that is anti-US foreign policy for the first time ever because the entire media has been on board with all US foreign policy from Day One. Foreign policy is run by the Deep State and the Deep State is simply “the foreign policy establishment of the United States.” The US media is actually a part of the Deep State – the propaganda arm.

Notice how they are frantically trying to throw all of the dissident media off the Net and banning them from all of the social media platforms? We don’t have a free press in this country. If all the dissident media gets banned from the Net and thrown off of all of the social media platforms, how is that a free press? It’s not! The main way they are doing this is that everyone who tells the truth about US foreign policy is said to be a Russians/Iranian/Venezuelan/Nicaraguan agent. All the dissident media telling the truth about our policy in these places is accused of being “state-run disinformation programs.” That or they are just banned outright.

By the way, as soon as all those big social media sites including Google went up, they all went full-blown Deep State? Why? Do they hold a gun to these guys’ heads? Are they being blackmailed? Threatened? Or is it shared ideology? All I know is it sure is strange and how new major media that shows up very quickly becomes a Deep State outlet.

The Deep State runs this damned country. The attitude of the Deep State is that “Presidents come and go, but we will always be running things behind the scenes.”

Alt Left: The Fascists in Israel, Ukraine, and Lebanon

The Nazi Fascists in Ukraine

The Jews in Ukraine are particularly evil. They’re out and out neo-Nazis, but it’s this weird Nazism that substitutes Russians for Jews. However, the spiritual father of these Nazis was an independence movement supported by Stepan Bandera in World War 2 Ukraine who supported Hitler and murdered 200,000 Jews and 40,000 Poles on their own. So the Jewish Nazis in Ukraine are supporting a movement that helped in the Holocaust of their own people!

In addition, the governments of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia and the opposition in Belarus are all pro-Nazi because the independence movements in all of these places were pro-Nazi in World War 2 in part because the Nazis conquered these places and promised them independence.

The local Nazis in some of these places were almost worse than the real thing. A Belarussian recently told about how the Belarussian local Nazi militia were going to wipe out his entire village for whatever reason, and the village heads went to the local German Nazi Army commander and told him of their plans. The Nazi officer was so appalled that he halted their plans and stationed soldiers in the village to protect the people. The local Nazi militias in Romania hung local Jews on meathooks in slaughterhouses. Photos of these murders leaked out, and even the local German Nazi military officers were outraged by this.

The truth is a number of German military officers were not interested in or even opposed to the Jew-killing.

A German general reportedly saved 3,000 Jews in Warsaw from imminent extermination by the SS. They were working in a factory the Nazis had set up as a sort of slave labor force, but the general tried to treat them as well as he could. He heard that the SS was coming to raid the factory and he knew what that meant. So he gave a talk to his Jewish workers and told that them that the SS was coming to the factory in a few days. He didn’t say anything else. He didn’t have to. All 3,000 workers had fled by the time the SS showed up. The general said they broke out while his men were sleeping. The Jews escaped to safety, at least for a while anyway. He later tried protect another few thousand Jews and was caught and executed.

Not everyone in the Army was a raving antisemite. In the beginning the Nazis had assigned the task of Jew-killing to ordinary soldiers. Famous letters from German soldiers expressed disgust and outrage over the gruesome murder by bayonet of a couple of dozen Jews that their unit had participated in in Eastern Europe. The soldiers had so many breakdowns and traumatic reactions afterwards that a special Jew- and other civilian-killing force, the SS, had to be created.

Before the Nazi Party went after the Jews, they had a lot of supporters among German Jews, many of whom were ready to go fascist themselves. They only reason they didn’t was because Hitler turned on them. If not they would have been with him to the end. By the way, guess who else supports those (((Nazis in Ukraine)))? You got it. Israel.

Jewish Fascists in Israel

The Jewish would-be fascists of the 1930’s have since vacated to Israel where they have resurrected a native Israeli fascism derived from the literal Jewish fascist Jabotinsky, who wrote The Iron Wall in 1921. All of the Likud and other rightwing governments since the early 1980’s have been literally heirs to Jabotinskyism. In fact, Jabotinsky is considered to be the spiritual father of the Likud Party, and everyone who came after him is one of his children. Jabotinsky supported all of the nascent fascist movements in Europe at the time.

Israel has now made alliances with fascist-like parties in Hungary, Poland, (((Ukraine))), India, and the Philippines, which should not be surprising because fascist states form alliances with other fascist states, and Israel is a fascist state made up of Jewish fascists.

Falange Fascists in Lebanon

Israel has long supported the fascist Falangists in Lebanon, a strongly-Christian native fascist movement. About half of Lebanese Christians are with these fascists and the other half are with Christian President Aoun and hence are supporters of Hezbollah because he is with Hezbollah. So half of Lebanese Christians are with Hezbollah and the other half basically want to exterminate Hezbollah. By the way, the fascist Lebanese Christians hate the Palestinians too.

They are also one of the only groups in the Arab World to support actual rightwing economics, which goes against basic Arab culture and Islam itself. This is because while most Middle Eastern Christians (Catholics) look East to the pro-socialist Eastern Orthodox Church, especially the leadership in Russia. The Lebanese, who are also Catholics, are Western Catholics who look to Rome and Europe. Hence the support for Western neoliberalism and libertarianism, two things which have never caught on in the Orthodox East and probably will not within the foreseeable future. Neoliberalism literally goes against their very culture.

The forefather of that movement, a man named Gemayal, emerged in Lebanon early on. In the 1930’s, he also supported fascist movements in Europe. He literally had pictures of Hitler pasted to his high school locker. The US also supports these Lebanese fascists, and in fact they are the principal US ally in that government. The Saudis also support them, but the Saudis are Far Right themselves, so it should not shock us when they support non-Islamic fascist, in this case, Christian ones.

The Israeli government is Far Right, and Far Right parties are often fascist-like. And as I noted above, the Far Right in Israel literally has fascist roots.

Alt Left: The US Opposes Al Qaeda, Except When We Support Them

In addition to running the Al Qaeda Armies in Libya and Syria to overthrow Qaddafi and Assad, we also run the Al Qaeda Army in Yemen to overthrow the pro-Iran Houthis, in Turkey to support Al Qaeda Syria, and in Iran to overthrow the government. In every one of these places, the Al Qaeda Army is actually the (((Al Qaeda Army))) because they have Israeli support, especially in Syria, Turkey, Iran, and Yemen. So it’s not even Al Qaeda. It’s more (((Al Qaeda))).

However, we oppose the Al Qaeda Armies in Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Somalia, Mozambique, India, Pakistan, the Philippines, Bangladesh, and the Sahel because in those places, they are attacking our allies.

Any of it make sense? Of course not! The USA sucks. The whole West is basically fascist.

Yes, both of those branches of Al Qaeda are funded and armed in part by the US and also by (((Israel))), (((France))), the UK, (((UAE))), Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar. There were intelligence agents from all of those countries literally embedded with Syrian Al Qaeda. We know this due to an interview with a top Al Qaeda leader in a cave by an East German journalist.

10 US intelligence agents were trapped by Assad’s army in Aleppo when his army conquered the city. That’s why the US was freaking out at the end. Assad even published every one of their names, ranks, everything. I think they were actually DIA, but they’re just as bad the CIA. Assad allowed them to be smuggled out. The DIA was involved in faking that (((Sarin gas attack in Damascus))) that never even happened. This was proven by the UN recently.

The DIA was also deeply involved in the rouge Ukrainian warlord oligarch was shot down hat airliner in the Ukraine to frame Russia, which has been covered up by the West ever since, including a fake judgement against Russia by NATO-run Netherlands, complete with literal faked forensic evidence. They scattered parts of what they said were a Buk missile as the site where the plane went down. Actually only one part and we don’t know how they linked it to a Buk.

We have literal eyewitness reports that a rogue element of Ukraine, a governor of a state who acts like a dictator – (((Kolomoisky))) is the culprit.

A lot of the really nasty foreign false flags, etc. are actually run by the DIA because it is US military and they are really good at actual military stuff. The CIA, not so good. Anyway, the DIA takes orders from the CIA. They’re both ratfuck agencies.

For instance, the people involved in recent paramilitary operations in Venezuela were active duty US military, often Marines or especially Special Forces, who are great at doing dirty work. One of these guys was recently caught in Venezuela with maps of oil refineries and huge cache of bomb material. There have been mysterious explosions that took out the entire Venezuelan electrical system that coincided with a US military mission to fascist Brazil (remember I keep telling you we love fascists?).

I am certain that US military – Special Forces or DIA – was involved in those explosions. There are regular sabotage attacks carried out against the oil industry and the electric sector by the Venezuelan opposition (You know, the “democratic” opposition), the same opposition which also tried to assassinate Maduro. Colombia was invoked in that assassination attempt and I know for a fact that the Pentagon was deeply involved.

You understand why I hate it when people say, “Support the troops?” Seriously, fuck the Pentagon. They’re no better now than they were in Vietnam and I came directly out of that protest movement. I walked door to door with my father for the antiwar “Clean Gene” Gene McCarthy antiwar campaign in the Democratic primary in 1968.

Alt Left: The US Framed Libya in the Shootdown of the Pan Am 103 at Lockerbie

transformer: I know it is off topic but many people are often led to believe that the Jonestown tragedy was a mass suicide however; with a closer examination of the evidence and facts reveals a sinister mind control operation and forced murder by the US military and CIA.

https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/Jonestown.html

https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/index.html

That’s pretty extreme. And I regard a lot of conspiracy theory as fact.

Did you know that it’s a fact that the US government framed Qaddafi for shooting down that jetliner. Witnesses were bribed to testify falsely in Scottish courts. The government of Malta was bribed and told the US would not go along with their admission to the EU unless they went in on the frame, of which Malta was an essential part. The FBI literally altered evidence to frame the Libyan government. The rest was all just Deep State, which includes FBI feds anyway. The whole plot was cooked up by President Bush.

Actually Iran and a pro-Syrian Palestinian group, the PFLP-GC, blew up the airliner. The PFLP-GC guys were out of Germany and a number of them were arrested for this very crime and are still in prison. The PFLP-GC were paid $10 billion by Iran to blow up the plane. The attack was revenge for the US downing of that Iranian airliner in the Gulf earlier. That was not intentional, but that ship’s captain was almost criminally stupid. His gunners kept telling him it was a civilian airliner but he had his mind made up that it was Iranian military and refused to change his mind due to defense mechanisms.

President Bush actually had a halfway decent US foreign policy. Sleazy as Hell but realpolitik all the way, and not particularly ideological. Syria was not our friend but he befriended them enough to get their support for the Iraq War as it was needed for the war. The fact that Bush was not ideological shows in his refusal to rescue the Shia and Kurds who rose up after Saddam.

This was related to his refusal to overthrow Saddam because he figured that what would follow was what exactly has followed since 2003 when ideologues invaded and conquered Iraq – 1.4 million Iraqis dead and related instability tearing apart the entire region and leaving hundreds of thousands dead in Syria alone. The Iraq War also birthed ISIS, by the way. They were literally created by our moronic conquest of Iraq.

That Libyan intelligence guy that got fingered was innocent. Qaddafi paid the $4 billion fine for downing the airliner though he was innocent to get us off his back. Then we overthrew him and murdered him a few years later. By the way, about Benghazi, that ambassador was CIA and he got what he deserved, all the way to the bayonet up his faggot ass. Fuck him. He was involved in running guns from the US Al Qaeda Army in Libya to the US Al Qaeda Army in Syria.

Joan Jett, “Bad Reputation”

Great music. I had heard of her way back in 1976 when she was with the Runaways, an all-teenage girl band. I met their ex-manager once and he told me that all four of the girls were bisexual. I’m not surprised. Quite a few women are like that. She was one of the first punk rockers. And I mean she was a real punk rocker. She’s also a lesbian, apparently a true blue biological one. I first heard of this in 1981 when I was dating a woman named Janet and she told me, “She likes girls.” That had always been the rumor anyway.

She refuses to comment on it, but she’s never been married or linked to a man. I read an interview with a guy from the Avengers who was living with her in Sweden for a while. He said they would both go out to bars and pick up women and bring them home to have sex with them! At a recent concert, the front rows were filled with lesbian or bisexual women wearing “Wett for Jett” t-shirts. I’ve heard that she has a lot of female groupies who act about like groupies do with male bands. And I’ve heard that she has sex with the hottest groupies all the time. She gets hot women! I don’t care if she’s lez, and it’s obvious she got wired up that way. I think she grew up in LA. Lakewood if I am not mistaken.

This is pretty much my theme song too. I’ve had a bad reputation forever,  and apparently I still do. What do I have to say about this bad reputation? See this middle finger here? Ok, you got the message. I’d like to say I’m understood, but who knows? Maybe I’m a scum after all, right? Anyway, I might as well just embrace it and call myself a Scumfuc like GG Allin called himself. Fuck it, man. They’re never going to quit saying terrible things about me. It’s hopeless to fight it. I’m going to have a terrible reputation for the rest of my life. If you can’t beat em, join em!

Motorhead, “Heroes”

This video is very well done. It’s almost magical. The song by Bowie is great of course, but this cover by Motorhead is just unreal. It’s almost better than the original. I just got turned on to this song too. It’s from an album of cover versions in 2017 that I’ve never heard of.

Those lyrics are just gorgeous, too. Just perfect.

I, I will be king
And you shall be my queen
Though nothing will never drive them away
But we can beat them forever and ever
Cause we can be heroes just for one day

[Verse 1]
And you, you are insane
And I, I am the same
Cause we’re lovers and that is the truth
Yes we’re lovers and we are the proof

[Refrain]
Though nothing will keep us together
We could stop time forever and ever
We can be heroes
What d’you say?

[Verse 3]
I, I can remember (I remember)
Standing by the wall (by the wall)
And the guns were all ready to fire (ready to fire)
And we kissed as though we never can fall (never can fall)

[Refrain]
And the shame was on another city
Oh we can beat them forever and ever
Then we could be heroes just for one day
We can be heroes we can be heroes
We can be heroes just for one day
We can be heroes

Eagles, “The Last Resort”

 

This is a truly great song, probably the best song on the album. Curiously, it never got much airplay. Great lyrics too. Just incredible. It’s like literature.

She came from Providence
One in Rhode Island
Where the old world shadows hang
Heavy in the air
She packed her hopes and dreams
Like a refugee
Just as her father came across the sea
She heard about a place
People were smilin’
They spoke about the red man’s way
And how they loved the land
And they came from everywhere
To the Great Divide
Seeking a place to stand
Or a place to hide
Down in the crowded bars
Out for a good time
Can’t wait to tell you all
What it’s like up there
And they called it paradise
I don’t know why
Somebody laid the mountains low
While the town got high
Then the chilly winds blew down
Across the desert
Through the canyons of the coast
To the Malibu
Where the pretty people play
Hungry for power
To light their neon way
Give them things to do
Some rich men came and raped the land
Nobody caught ’em
Put up a bunch of ugly boxes
And Jesus people bought ’em
And they called it paradise
The place to be
They watched the hazy sun
Sinking in the sea
You can leave it all behind
Sail to Lahaina
Just like the missionaries did
So many years ago
They even brought a neon sign
“Jesus is coming”
Brought the white man’s burden down
Brought the white man’s reign
Who will provide the grand design?
What is yours and what is mine?
‘Cause there is no more new frontier
We have got to make it here
We satisfy our endless needs
And justify our bloody deeds
In the name of destiny
And in the name of God
And you can see them there
On Sunday morning
Stand up and sing about
What it’s like up there
They call it paradise
I don’t know why
You call someplace paradise
Kiss it goodbye

Alt Left: John Lennon and Yoko Ono, “Merry Christmas (War Is Over)”

John and Yoko in their full-blown hippie phase and the height of the hippie era in the US in 1971. I was a freshman in high school, and I didn’t think much of hippies. In fact, the next year I worked for CREEP (The Committee to Re-elect the President) for the Nixon campaign.

This was the infamous campaign organization that was behind the paranoid Watergate mess. And that whole mess was caused by anti-Communist paranoid McCarthyite fanatics (of which Nixon was one). The broke into the DNC headquarters because they thought the Democrats were Communists!

What’s an insane anti-Communist campaign in the US without a few gusanos (Cuban exiles)? Not much! And sure enough, crazy gusanos played a huge role in this idiotic break-in because gusanos like their compatriots in Venezuela, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Colombia, Ecuador, Brazil, Peru, Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, and Paraguay, are some of the most flat-out deranged anti-Communist fanatics on the planet. The rest of the world doesn’t have much resembling this type, although Hong Kongers are similar. There are plenty in the Baltics and the former East Bloc and in the Ukraine and Belarus. There are probably some in the Philippines too.

Believe it or not, the entire rest of the world doesn’t give two shits about Communism or socialism or any of that. Probably because almost the entire rest of the world is already socialist in one form or another. Latin America is odd as a far rightwing outlier, the last holdout against socialism.

Anyway, John and Yoko released this as a single. The backing singers were done by the Harlem Children’s Choir, and boy were they good! Hey, Black ghettos can produce a lot of decent and talented people. The whole problem with places like that is not that everyone is lousy but more than there are way too many lousy people. I’ve met some of the finest, more morally upstanding folks in the ghetto when I used to teach there. They were often older, of course, but I also met some young ones. They’re often very religious.

Hardcore Christianity seems to be pretty good for Black people. This may be what keeps crime rates artificially low in the Black South, especially the rural South, as opposed to the cities. Also the South is where is actually an authentic and true Black culture or even Black civilization if you will in the US, with deep roots. You see it most in the rural areas, and yes, there is a lot of religion, but a lot of Southern Blacks act really, really good. So good that they would surprise you. And a lot of those smaller Black towns actually function pretty well. I don’t think Blacks up north ever created decent cultures. Even in Harlem, they mostly just created ghettos.

Happy Christmas, Kyoko
Happy Christmas, Julian

So this is Christmas
And what have you done?
Another year over
A new one just begun
And so this is Christmas
I hope you have fun
The near and the dear one
The old and the young
A very merry Christmas
And a happy new year
Let’s hope it’s a good one
Without any fear

And so this is Christmas
For weak and for strong
(War is over if you want it)
For the rich and the poor ones
The road is so long
(War is over now)

And so happy Christmas
For black and for whites
(War is over if you want it)
For the yellow and red ones
Let’s stop all the fight
(War is over now)
A very merry Christmas
And a happy new year
Let’s hope it’s a good one
Without any fear

And so this is Christmas
And what have we done?
(War is over if you want it)
Another year over
A new one just begun
(War is over if you want it)

And so this is Christmas
We hope you have fun
(War is over if you want it)
The near and the dear one
The old and the young
(War is over now)
A very merry Christmas
And a Happy New Year
Let’s hope it’s a good one
Without any fear

War is over
If you want it
War is over now
Happy Christmas!
Happy Christmas!
Happy Christmas!

(War is over if you want it)
The near and the dear one
The old and the young
(War is over now)
A very merry Christmas
And a Happy New Year
Let’s hope it’s a good one
Without any fear

War is over
If you want it
War is over now

Alt Left: A 100 IQ Doesn’t Mean Much of Anything, Really

Although American Whites (100) may collectively seem smarter than the Blacks(85) and Hispanics(90), they too are fucking stupid. An average IQ of 100 is nothing special. Even an IQ of 115 is nothing special when compared to people with IQ’s 125+. A whopping 86% of Whites have an IQ below 115!

Although those are the official numbers, I refuse to believe American Whites have an average IQ of 100. Europe’s White trash left for the new world. Sure there were some aristocrats and geniuses that may have made their way over here, but most of those people weren’t exactly high quality Whites. I estimate the average IQ of White Americans to be about 95. Europeans just seem more cultured and intelligent in comparison.

This disparity becomes readily apparent when you are in a flyover White trash red state. Everything is so rundown and the people are noticeably dirtier and uglier looking. You may not agree that White Americans as a collective have an average IQ of 95, but you have to admit that Middle America is blatantly dumber than Coastal America (east and west). Everybody, or at least the smart and talented people leave for the major cities, of which a disproportionate amount of are located on the East and West Coast.

There is a problem with your analysis.  First of all, a 100 IQ score means just about zip! Let us suppose that the average IQ scores doubled in the next 100 years. IQ’s rose on average of 100 points in the US. What would the average IQ in the US be? 100! So in that case, a 100 IQ score would be twice as high as it is today and we could no longer say that 100 IQ is not that smart. You follow? 100 is just sort of a placemarker or a tag. It all depends on how you are norming your population.

Also, you would think that an  IQ like mine (147) would be 47% smarter than an average IQ of 100, right? Nope! I believe a 145 IQ is literally 3-5 X more intelligent than an IQ of 100! I’m not sure how that works, but those scores are simply not linear numbers the way we normally think of them. They’re more like placeholders or points on a graph or dots on a chart.

Average IQ is 100 is because they’ve always normed these tests on US populations. Lately they switched to US Whites = 100 and that makes the average US IQ = 98. Our average IQ used to be 100.

So we’ve dropped 2 IQ points with all of this unrestricted low-quality immigration. Nothing wrong with immigration per se, but the last thing this country needs is more uneducated low skilled peasants and workers from the 3rd World. They’re a drag on the economy and they absolutely do increase the crime rate, run down cities, create gangs, etc. I speak about unrestricted Hispanic immigration, which is just stupid. With 10 fewer IQ points, of course they are going to drag places down, lower test scores, increase crime and probably gangs, etc.

That’s just a given. Now if you wanted to important Hispanics with average IQ = 98, I’d be right on board. In fact all of our legal immigration should be average IQ = 98 or maybe better yet, minimum 98 IQ to even get in in the first place. Letting in millions of dumber people to crash your country’s IQ score has to be one the stupidest things a country could do.

Alt Left: Two Populations with IQ’s of 87 Are the Same, Right?

Two groups with IQ’s of 85 will probably behave about the same, right? Nope!

That is because we are leaving out something very important, and  that is race. And race is absolutely real in a biological sense and you can make whatever you want of that. An 85 IQ US White, Persian in Iran, Chinese in China and US Black are going to act pretty different, though the American White and the Persian might act fairly similar. The races act different! I’m sorry but it’s just true. Open your eyes and ears. It’s only obvious.

A good IQ researcher over at Unz has written a number of articles where he claims that the IQ of your average human is  ~81. That’s terrible. It’s thought that you need a 90 IQ to create a decent modern society. That’s probably not completely true, but there’s something to it.

It also depends on the population. An Arab, North African or Central Asian IQ of 85 is simply not the same thing as a US Black IQ of 85. Go look around in Arabia, North Africa or Iran and get back to me. Even Pakistan is fairly civilized.

If those countries were full of US Blacks, the cities would look like Detroit, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Chicago, Oakland, etc. That’s why I get so upset with White nationalists snarly at Blacks that they only have 85 IQ’s. First of all, it’s probably 87 now. Second of all, that IQ score is no fault of their own. It is some sort of a product of genes and environment. Let’s put it this way. I don’t think the US Black 87 IQ is their fault at all! That’s simply the way they end up getting wired up.

If Tehran and Detroit have the same average IQ, there is something more going on with US Blacks.

I believe that is psychopathy. Your average US Black has a psychopathy score twice as high as the average White on the PCL. Say the average White score is 4 out of 0-40. Everything below 20 is considered in normal range, but you can be quite psychopathic and still be in the normal range. What can I say? We are apex predators, meat eaters and killers of our own kind from time immemorial. He aren’t like cows. We are more like bears or mountain lions.

Anyway if your average US Black has a PCL score of 8 to the average US White score of 4, that is going to make a tremendous amount of difference. That’s because there is a universe of difference between a PCL score of 1 and one of 19! They’re both completely normal non-psychopaths, but I guarantee you that folks at 19 on a PCL are going to act way worse than people with a PCL of one.

Blacks also seem to have elevated testosterone levels, and that is absolutely genetic. But they are only higher until age 32, after which they fall and are actually lower than Whites! I suspect that elevated testosterone plays a role in the extremely high crime rates of US Blacks.

Let’s not get too hung up on IQ.

Alt Left: The Family As Core of Venezuelan Society

Very nice comment here about how the whole of Venezuelan society is structured around a close-knit family unit. Actually, I have found that most of Latin America is like this, at least in the white and mestizo countries. It’s also true in Brazil. I really don’t how true it is in the Black Caribbean because I don’t understand that part of the world very well.

Please note that a stable father is typically not a part of the Venezuelan extended family! Yet society carries on anyway.

Manuel Rodriguez: I think that the stigma about labeling “momma boys” to men with an healthy attachment to their mothers might be mostly about western culture. We could also add the culture of individualism and the atomization and lack of relevance of blood families.

See, in Venezuela, we have a matrifocal system that is present in the majority of the popular class families. The father usually has little if any relevance on the stability and development of the family. The children might have other male models (usually other boyfriends of the mother), but their weight is still not significant.

Boys not only end up being raised mainly viewing their mother as the source of stability of the family, but she is literally the base of the family unit.

The families are “nuclear” in the sense that usually it will be two partners and children in a household, with the possibility of grandparents and grandchildren. But there is a good connection with those you consider to be part of the family. You can go stay with your relatives at their home without any problems as long as you behave yourself, say if you have to travel somewhere near where they live to study or do some other business.

There is the “family welfare” where families usually have the responsibility of giving medicine, food, and money to their relatives in need. This has been present for as far back as anyone can remember, but during the pandemic, this system has been of vital importance for the survival of the Venezuelan people. This is in contrast to countries like Spain, where families simply dropping their elderly on nursing homes ended in tragedy when the pandemic hit those places.

Other thing is that Western countries, specially Anglos, view the family as having a very limited role in the lives of adults.

The family is seen as composed of a nuclear family of two spouses and their immediate children. Apparently, they are expected to be independent and disconnect from their raised family as soon as they turn 18. They may interact occasionally with their immediate family sometimes, but they are otherwise expected to depend on themselves and don’t get much help.

The cultural expectations in other cultures in the world usually are that children are to stay in the family household until they either get married or end up financially secure enough to live independently without issue.

In said cultures the extended family is considered part of the basic family unit. You are also expected to help and give support to any family member that is in need.

This is strengthened when there is a mentality of collectivism or tribalism of sorts, as usually those who are connected to the bloodline are part of the tribe.

Repost: I Admit I’m a Misanthrope and It’s One of my Worst Flaws

Good old post getting comments. I reiterated in a post today that I don’t hate good people who simply aren’t real sharp. That’s no fault of their own. We are all God’s children and we are at his mercy when it comes to handling out whatever gifts or handicaps He so cavalierly distributes among us. I know some pretty dumb people on Facebook, and I talk to them sometimes. They are a bit hard to talk to, but they are nice enough anyway.

But I really, really hate lack of wisdom, which is it seems like 95% of the population has at least about some things. I hate moral panics and mass hysterias. They’re ridiculous! How could you admit with a straight face that you are so stupid that you are caught up in a moral panic? I would be so embarrassed.

But as far as my haters go and all these people trying to figure me out, the take-home point is that I’m pretty much of a misanthrope and I think you’re all a bunch of idiots! Definitely my haters. They’re pure morons, every one of them. I almost hate them more for being stupid than for being haters. And if you study my life and my writing, you will see this theme – “You are all idiots!” repeated over and over, so it’s sort of the theme of my life.

Once you figure out that Lindsay thinks people are basically stupid goddamned fools, you will finally be onto me. “Lindsay thinks we are all idiots.” Bingo! There ya go. You got me. Another thing about my haters is they peg me wrong, but your haters will always do that if you are halfway decent because if they were objective about you, they wouldn’t have an argument to hate you. In order to hate you, they must distort you. Actually that’s a good thing to remind yourself if you are dealing with haters. The only reason they hate you is because they distort you. The only way they can hate you is to distort who you really are.

One of my haters on Reddit said a while back,

“Lindsay styles himself as this radical individualist type. On the other hand, maybe he’s just a weirdo. I think he’s just a weirdo.”

Well, fine, but at least one of my haters figured me out. I do see myself as a radical individualist type who deliberately takes unpopular decisions to portray bravery. I also take unpopular views because I like to show that what everyone believes is common knowledge is often a bunch of total horseshit. I like the “society is full of shit and is filling your head with lies” view. That’s sort of the purpose of this site – to write about very thing.

I’m pretty disgusted by humans. I don’t even really like them. Actually, I hate to admit it but I am a misanthrope. And I hate to say it even more, but the majority at least here in the US deserve every bit of my hatred. I hate them because they are stupid, and stupidity itself is a little bit dangerous by its very nature, so they frighten me.

They’re idiots. I hate idiots. Actually they’re worse than idiots. They’re dangerous idiots, and that’s the worst kind of idiot of all. So, yeah, I hate most Americans because they are goddamned dangerous idiots who threaten my peace of mind, well-being, reputation, and maybe even ability to earn a living.

If you study people with very high IQ’s around my range and up, you will see that they almost all feel this way. Worse, as IQ rises, misanthropy seems to rise in tandem just like clockwork. On Quora they often had people asking questions for people with certain IQ ranges. It was one of the only places you could talk like this because IQ is a very taboo subject in the US. The question would be, “People with IQ’s over 140, what you do think about bla bla bla?”

One thing I noticed is that once people got above 140, they seemed more and more misanthropic. And it was all tied up with the idea that they thought people were idiots. “I feel like I’m surrounded by retards!” was a comment I saw over and over. I suppose it just goes with the territory when you get up into that high of a range.

Above IQ 160, it’s not to find a complete misanthrope. They hate people because they think people are stupid. And to them, most people are stupid. Check out the classic article, The Outsiders about people, mostly men, who had IQ’s of over 160. Most of them were not in very good shape. They were typically unmarried and worked at low paying jobs or even lived in poverty,  and tended to dwell alone in apartments. Lack of girlfriends or wives and even out and out celibacy was very common. They were all thoroughly disgusted by having to live in a “world full of retards” as they see it.

When you are up here in the stratosphere, every people with average intelligence almost seem literally retarded. It’s disgusting but you feel bad about it for hating them and keep beating yourself up and trying to be nice to them and turn off the misanthropy. Which can  be done.

But when it comes to close friendships or meaningful relationships, about 30 IQ points is the limit. If someone is 30 IQ points above or below you, you will have a very hard time communicating. Some say that meaningful communication is either very difficult or even impossible. Yes, you can become friends, but it will be quite difficult. Leaders who have IQ’s 30+ IQ points above those below them are poor leaders. Their underlings don’t listen to them, and rebellions are common.

The best leaders are not geniuses. The best leaders for White people would have an IQ below 130. Above that and you will not be able to connect with your followers.

I Think People Are Idiots Because They Lack Wisdom, Not Because of Their IQ Scores

Shetland: Fascinating perspective. Heck, I clock in with a modest IQ of 115, and I often feel like I am surrounded by complete dolts. I cannot even imagine what it must be like at IQ 140+.

Do you have any strengths in say, verbal or mathematical? One of my smartest commenters had an IQ of 115. It would be very hard for me to say that I am smarter than he is. He later told me he had a verbal IQ of 135 and was weak in math, and then it all added up.

Some of my smartest commenters had IQ’s of 117, 123. One had an IQ of 108! One of my clients has an IQ of 123, and he seems like he’s smarter than I am.

My basic attitude towards the world is that it is full of morons and idiots. By that I mean they lack wisdom, but sadly, absent a significant IQ, wisdom is hard to obtain. Even the wiser people with lower IQ’s often succumb to emtionality and emotional logic. I hate to say but emotion is the enemy of wisdom. It’s great to feel things, but emotion distorts reality and causes you to take irrational positions that make no sense at all simply because you’re so upset about them.

Also emotion prevents cognitive dissonance. I walk around with cognitive dissonance 24-7 because to me that’s simply the natural state of the world of man. Things don’t really make a whole lot of sense and we often have to take some pretty weird and even contradictory positions just to accept some weird truth about the world. I simply do not wish to believe falsehoods about the world, outside of my own personal life of course. I want to believe that truth about everything. Why should I wish to believe crap and lies about anything at all? I don’t get it.

I don’t mind good people who just aren’t real smart. One of my best friends has an IQ of 92, but we can talk about most things. In part because he has spent his life filling up his brain with facts and ideas. For example, he’s very well-read. So it’s not so much the gift that God gave you, it’s also what you do with it.

One problem that good people who aren’t real smart are not real common, at least in men. Lower IQ seems to be mean declining moral values in a lot of people, especially men. I’m not sure why that is, but it’s not a very encouraging thing to believe about us humans. I also can’t handle people who can’t think beyond the next 24-48 hours, and I see that all the time when IQ’s get down around the 80’s. I’m not saying they are bad people. They just drive me nuts is all.

On the other hand, I live with someone with an IQ of 145 who is one of the stupidest people I know. In part this is because he’s mentally ill, but he also has a pure shit Cluster B personality (“Asshole Personality Disorder”) to go along with it. His behaves with blatant irrationality day in and day out in my own house and it drives me nuts. I guess ultimately it might be rather harmless, but I just can’t handle people acting irrationally all day, even in rather harmless (but annoying) ways. Mostly, it’s just totally fucking stupid!

Why Do Non-Pedophilic Men Molest Girls?

Polar Bear: Bowie and Jagger rumored to have slept together. Strange to a seasoned rockstar or porn star would take a lot. Kinkiness can snowball. The gay-acting PUA guy I saw seemed more into his PUA bros. How into pussy can a truly gay man be? They’d have to be bi or possibly emotionally gay.

This whole idea of “gay womanizers” is pretty nutty, but there have been a few. A few very handsome gay men screwed a bunch of women as teenagers and young adults until they figured out that they were truly gay. I really don’t understand how that works. If you see some guy who has a reputation as a player or a womanizer and he’s screwing half the chicks in town, generally speaking the last thing on Earth he is is gay. In fact, guys like that are the extreme, ultimate contradiction of homosexuality. They are the Antigay to gays as the Anti-Christ is the absolute contradiction of Christ and God.

Gay men are not into pussy at all. At all. Zero, zip, zilch, nada, nothing. There’s literally nothing there. If they are truly gay, just forget it. They have no sexual interest in women. They never look at women. They never talk about women. They never fantasize about women.

And they certainly never fantasize and masturbate about women. In the lab, they typically score “Maximum homosexual, minimal heterosexual.” I guess there’s a bit of a reaction, but it’s barely enough to reach statistical significance. Straight men typically score Maximum Heterosexual, minimal heterosexual. I think they do react to men but only at a very low level, maybe 10% of max.

I just read an article about this by Raymond Blanchard, Seto and Freund, along with comments by Michael Bailey. All are considered some of the top sexologists in the world.

The article asked why non-pedophilic men molested little girls. The hypothesis was that they had a significant though lesser attraction to them such that they used them as a substitute for mature women.

Also for age, straight men

Females 15+:            Maximum arousal
Pubescent girls 12-14:  73% of maximum
Prepubescent girls 2-11 48% of maximum
Men both boys and  men: 10% of maximum (barely reaches significance).

50% of men who molest little girls are not pedophiles at all. They’re just like the rest of us. The question is why do they do it? You can see from the studies above that men do react to pubescent and even little girls at a fairly significant level ranging from 1/2-3/4 of max. The best theory out there and the one posited in the paper is that these men molest little girls as a substitute for women.

Sort of like, “What would you rather eat? A steak or a hamburger?” A steak’s probably twice as good, but if there’s a hamburger around and you’re hungry, you’re probably going to eat it anyway, even if it’s not your preference. Normal men are far more attracted to little girls than they are to boys or men, so it’s logical that they might substitute a little girl for a woman. That’s probably what’s going on in a lot of molestation.

Game/PUA: What’s up with the Female “Creep Detector?”

Interesting comment. I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately. Women always say, “Trust your gut, ladies! It’s never wrong!” Oh, yes it is! It is very, very commonly wrong, as in all the time. The main way it is wrong is false positives. Women label a lot of men as “dangerous” who are simply “unattractive.”

As Manuel suggests, in the female mind, ugly or unattractive somehow translates into “dangerous and he’s going to rape me and wear my skin.” I have no idea why they think like this, but Manuel offers some reasons.

Do women get too many false negatives about dangerousness too? I have no idea, but they gleefully hook up with psychopaths all the time, and those are the most dangerous men of all. We men keep warning these women that these guys are psychopaths and to stay clear, but women just laugh and tell us to shut up and get taken in by their hypnotic charm.

I myself get taken in by the charm of psychopaths myself very easily, but when I figure out they are psychopaths, I pull myself out of it and stop paying attention to them. On the other hand, unlike most people, I can actually spot a lot of psychopaths, though it often takes me some time.

There is a guy who is a big deal in the Delphi Murders community named Anthony Greeno. He’s a classic psychopath. Not a controlled one at all, but he’s not severely uncontrolled. It took me some time but I finally figured out that he’s a psychopath. But women love him and have formed Facebook groups to ogle and worship him. We men keep trying to talk sense into these ditzy broads, but alas, it is to no avail.

I turned on a video of him recently and was taken in very quickly, within half a minute. Then I realized what was happening and pulled myself out of it. I’ve been telling people he’s a psychopath forever now, but everyone just laughs and says they like him anyway. Especially women, they get taken in by him so easily. He’s finally going to jail again (he’s constantly in and out of jail on minor charges) and a lot of the community is finally saying they’ve had it with him. LOL I could have told them that a long time ago.

One thing I have noticed is women think “awkward, nerdy, geeky, doesn’t know how to act around women” = “creepy” = dangerous. That’s hardly the case. I have seen so many harmless men labeled by women as dangerous that it’s not even funny. I agree that most of them were a bit weird. Mostly they were just anxious, nervous, or a bit nerdy or geeky. They were quite socially awkward. I studied these guys for a while and figured out they were completely harmless.

You see, there is “harmless weird” and “dangerous weird.” I guess most people can’t tell them apart but I can. I think as women get older (past 30) they can figure it out, but young women as a rule are completely hopeless as they are in thrall to the Feminine Principle. After age 30, women figure out that their crazy brains are lying to them half the time, and they quit listening to their emotional brain so much, or better yet, they test the theories of their emotional brains against their logical frontal lobes. Yes, women actually have functional frontal lobes. I know it’s hard to believe but it’s true.

Manuel Rodriguez: There was a thought that I suddenly had when I woke up a few days ago.

As you know, there are instinctual and innate characteristics in humans. People have an adversity to corpses because that protects us from the bacteria of decomposition.

Women mate for two main reasons: to obtaining good genetics and obtain resources and secure their constant provisioning.

So, what if women had an innate, albeit unconscious, awareness that older men have lower quality sperm and genetics? This would explain why the only contexts where is seen acceptable for men that reach a certain age to get younger girls and women is to have a high status and access to resources as an compensation. The bigger the difference in ages, the more he has to compensate in resources.

—————————————————

One thing that I noticed is that women considering a man “creepy or scary”, this actually means a male that has failed to show minimal social skills and normal behavior. The woman additionally tells many women about this, including complete strangers.

It’s interesting because not only said conditions lead to her to react adversely and to consider him as an aberration and a failure for mating, but she also feels compelled to warn many other women that this man is completely unsuitable as a mate.

The irony is that the very worst and more dangerous type of men for women, precisely have high social skills and charm as their very definition (cluster B personalities.)

I guess it makes sense for their ancestral mating interests for women to do the following:

Women like men that display aggression and dominant towards other men but act kindly towards the woman. The problem is that with asshole men and Cluster B’s is that the typical displays of antisocial behavior they show towards other people is their real persona, which you should note to get to figure out who he really is, while their display of kindness to the woman is just a mask.

Maybe it’s possible for women to avoid the painful early stages of obliviously selecting abusive men by giving them some training in selecting mates and spotting real danger. Of course, it would be more unrealistic to expect some women like teenagers to not be impulsive, but warning them of some of the more obvious red flags would definitely help like watching out if a man is starting to separate you from your family and acquaintances (isolation tactic).

Maybe it works like food. Humans in ancestral times have gone trough times with severe food shortages, leading humans to have a likeness to consume salt, fats, and sugar. People don’t eat that delicious salt and fat all the time because we tell people that is bad for them and explain why. So they consume them in moderation.

Some women do learn to detect certain obvious dangers and signs of sexual harassment. But their evolved gut feeling of seeing charming men that as a type of desirable candy is most of the time unsuitable for assessing the real dangers of men.

Women are like a person that has a dog and several bodyguards. The person invites a recently befriended person to their house. The dog barks incessantly towards the friend like he has some sort of hidden inner evil, leading the owner to punish the dog. The bodyguard warns the person about some of the signs of the the friend that indicates that he might be dangerous, prompting the person to tell them to leave them alone. The friend she invited in uses the opportunity to harm the person.

One thing I noticed about conservative families’ boogeyman stories they tell little girls is that their aim and purpose in a roundabout way is to make the girl won’t give sexual access to boys too easily.

Game/PUA: Repost: Are Most Womanizers Gay or Bisexual?

Very old post still getting some comments. Interesting post though.

A commenter, apparently a crazy woman, suggests:

Most womanizers are gay or bisexual…don’t believe this B.S.

This commenter must be a woman. This is one of the ways that females get their revenge on the enigma of the womanizer: the only reason he is doing this is because there is some secret homosexual bugbear lurking somewhere in his psyche. The Don Juan is in desperate flight from his latent homosexuality.

I think this crap originally came from psychoanalysis, and the whole concept of latent homosexuality doesn’t make sense. As Otto Weininger would say, homosexuality is one of those A or not-A things. Something one either is or is not. It’s a pair of concepts. All humans, except the asexual, are either homosexual, heterosexual, or some combination of these these things (what we call bisexual). There is no third category. There is no such thing as latent homosexuality. One is either gay, straight, or some combination called bisexual.

Anyway, what a nutty idea! I’ve never met a gay womanizer in my life! How ridiculous can you get? They idea of a gay man sleeping with half the women in town is preposterous. Why? Why would he waste his time?
Are womanizers bisexual? Hard to say.

Most of the ones I’ve known were not, but two of them were, one a very dear friend of mine. He originally was a wild womanizer, one of the most insane I’ve ever known. But he did have a gay side. I know because he used to whistle at me when we were changing to go swim in the pool. Not really whistling as a joke either. Yikes.

Later on, he moved in with this queer in West Hollywood. Then he lost his job. The queer said either put out or get out. Disgusting, huh? I told everyone the fag was a scumbag, and my whole friend circle screamed at me. It’s perfectly acceptable to force a straight guy to screw a fag or else live on the streets!

He came and stayed with me for a while, but then he mysteriously went back. I was up in LA hanging out at nightclubs with him trying to pick up model/actress types, and I went back to his place. I woke up in the middle of the night, and he and the fag were going at it in the next room. Don’t ask me how I knew. I said, “Oh well,” and went back to sleep.

I woke up the next morning, and he was a bit defiant. I temporarily lost a contact lens, and the fag made a fake show of tying to “find it” by putting his hands all over me. Even my friend got in on it. I guess he had come to discover the pleasures of men. I ignored their crap and let them carry on and get their vicarious thrills. Later we found the damned lens.

We had breakfast, and the fag laid some bizarre and ugly psychological trip on me to try to seduce me. Didn’t work.

Later that morning I left, and I said a very warm goodbye to my friend. I decided, in my progressive and multicultural humanism, to love him whether he was fagging off or not. We had a long history together. But I never went back.

I saw him a few times later. A friend of mine saw him too. He was living with the fag and hanging around with this crowd of queers. They would go on trips together, like down to Laguna Beach. No idea what they did down there. Yikes.

Once he passingly remarked that he has a fistula in his anus. He got it from “driving a truck.” Yeah right, dude. He was drinking more, now in the mornings, but he’d always been a bit of a drunk. He had a cute girlfriend with him, a drunk herself. Later I heard he moved up to Santa Barbara to live in a house with her. He might have even married her.

Another guy was basically straight, but I’m sure he was known to do it with guys if times got desperate. I know this because he asked me once.

Repost: Alt Left: IQ in Israel and Palestine

Old post currently being commented on.

Jason writes:

This brings up another deep thought. Ever wonder why high IQ Jews and Palestinians can’t get along? Could it be because the Arab IQ is so inbred and low? How much can one blame on the Jews?

Needless to say, I strongly disagree with the thrust of this argument. The Palestinian people are native to that land, and their IQ figure is about in line with other Arab nations in the region. The problem is not that Arabs are dumb. The problem is that that is the Arabs’ land and the thieving, murdering Jews stole it and are currently stealing more of it at gunpoint, and they shoot and kill any Arabs who tries to stop these degenerate kleptomaniacs. 100% of the Palestinians’ problems are due to the thieving, murdering Jews. Without that bugbear, their problems would be the same as those of any of the other Arab countries around, as in quite manageable.

However, it does bring up an interesting question regarding what the IQ’s are of the Israelis and the Palestinians. After a bit of Googling around, I found these figures:

Ethnic group               IQ
Israeli Ashkenazim         107
Israeli Jewish             100
Israeli Sephardic           99
Israeli total               98
Israeli Mizrachi            93
Israeli Arabs/Palestinians  85

Most figures are from here. Israeli Ashkenazim figure is from here. Better figures including a study by James Flynn are here (Flynn 1998; Kaniel and Fisherman 1991). This page seems to prove that Lynn’s widely cited 94-95 figure for Israel is wrong and a better figure is 98. The figure for Palestinians is a result of a recent study done by Richard Lynn (Bakhieta and Lynn 2014).

Feel free to discuss and make of these figures what you will.

References

Bakhieta, Salaheldin Farah Attallah and Lynn, Richard ( 2014). “A Study of the IQ in Palestine.” Intelligence 47: 10-11.

Flynn, J. R. (1998). “Israeli Military IQ Tests: Gender Differences Small; IQ Gains Large.” Journal of Biosocial Science 30: 541-553.

Kaniel, S. and Fisherman, S. (1991). Level of Performance and Distribution of Errors in the Progressive Matrices Test: A Comparison of Ethiopian Immigrant and Native Israeli Adolescents. International Journal of Psychology 26: 25-33.

Alt Left: On Capital Flight

James Schipper: It is certainly possible to transfer savings abroad, and that is not beneficial for ordinary citizens, but a lot of what rich people do is not beneficial to ordinary people. More important than what rich people do abroad is the income distribution.

Suppose that Ruritania is a closed economy. In a closed economy there can’t be capital flight of course. Let’s further suppose that the richest 10% of Ruritanians have 64% of national income. The average income of the richest 10% is than 16 times higher than the average income of the remaining 90%. To a social-democrat like me, that certainly would be highly undesirable, but there is no capital flight to worry about.

Capitalists can certainly carry out an investors’ strike. If they really dislike or distrust a leftwing government, they can refuse to invest, but that is possible also in a closed economy. We shouldn’t become obsessed with balance-of-payment problems.

Concerns about balance-of payment are mainly justified when a country has limited export capacity but has to import a lot of essentials. In such a case, it may not only be necessary to have rigid controls on capital outflows but also to restrict the import of luxuries. If a family has limited income, then it should not allow dad to buy expensive cigars or mom to buy designer cloths.

Let’s take 4 rich Peruvians, Pedro, Pablo, Diego and Carlos. Each year, Pedro transfers 25,000 USD to a foreign bank. Pablo imports luxuries worth 25,000 USD each year. Diego employs 5 Peruvian servants with that amount. Carlos adds 25,000 to his Peruvian savings account each year.

There is no difference between Pedro and Pablo. Diego employs Peruvians, but the services produced by those employees are for him. Those 5 servants could be providing services for ordinary Peruvians. It is never enough to look at job creation. We should also look at what those jobs produce and for whom. Carlos is the only one who is doing what rich people should be doing: saving money in order to reduce conspicuous consumption and free up resources for investment.

If capital flight is no big deal, why do nations get so upset about it. Venezuela was losing $50 billion a year to capital flight, money that could have been invested in the economy. It was all going straight to Miami and Houston. Venezuela was so upset about this that they put in capital controls to keep people from moving money out of the country. But every time you do that, you seem to end up with an underground money economy and a dual exchange rate.

Capital flight -> capital controls -> dual exchange rates with black market exchange rate diabolically manipulated by the opposition in Houston precisely to ruin the economy -> fixed exchange rate instead of floating the exchange rate -> wild inflation.

And the capitalists went on strike anyway an refused to put any money into the economy. They ran their factories and firms at 50% capacity and stockpiled and even destroyed goods in order to create artificial shortages to wreck the economy.So they stopped the capital flight but not the capital strike.

The capitalists wave the threat of capital flight over the head of any leftwing government like a Sword of Damocles. They just did it was Castillo in Peru, and it forced him to reign in many of his more leftwing proposals. The main thing they need to do in Peru is nationalize the mining business. Mining is extremely profitable in Peru but all of the money goes to foreign corporate carpetbaggers and parasites and the Peruvians themselves hardly get a nickel.

Castillo merely threatened to renegotiate the contracts with the foreign companies so Peru got more of the money, and the oligarchy went nuts. That is because while the foreign-owned mining industry is disastrous for your average Peruvian, the Peruvian oligarchy, like most in the region, is a comprador oligarchy. They make a lot of money off of those mining contracts somehow or other, don’t ask me how. No matter how much the country itself is getting screwed by foreign corporations raping the country, somehow the oligarchy always positions itself between the corporations and the nation and makes money off of the pillage.

They Peruvian oligarchy said if you try to do the tiniest leftwing thing, we will take all our money out of the country. They also said that that would tank the stock market. That is another sword they wave over our heads. “We will tank the stock market!” They’re basically terrorists. “If you don’t give us what we want, we will use these economic bombs to blow up the economy!

Not Publishing

I know, I have not been posting. I worked so hard on that paper that I decided to give myself a vacation after I finished. So I am sleeping about as much as I damn well please. Which ends up being a very good part of the time, which is tragic but perhaps also a statement on the human condition.

Hopefully Jason will be filling in for a while. In the meantime, still lots of great comments coming through.

Repost: Alt Left: A Few Comments on Indians in India and the West

Repost from a few years ago. Still getting comments. Topical.

notpolitically: Hi Robert – Just curious what do you think you about Sikhs and Jains? Are they too fully Hinduized, and do they also have the f*cked up Indian mindset?
Where do you see India in the next 50-100 years?
Also Indians are scared The West is catching onto the BS and closing the immigration doors (could not have happened sooner).

Also what do you think about US/Western Born Indian such as 2nd/3rd Generation Immigrants? I noticed this ABCD in South Asians generally. The Whole Subcontinent is f*cked beyond hope IMHO.

Sikhs are absolutely fully Hinduized and not just Hinduized, which is bad enough, but in addition to that, they are Indianized, which is the worst of all and is the source of the whole problem with these otherwise interesting people. By the way, my Sikh physician agrees with me.

Jains, I have no idea, but they are some of the most casteist Indians of all, so I don’t care if they save the lives of flies, bugs, and rats. They obviously care more about these vermin than their fellow men. I met a Jain man once who told me they didn’t take converts, and I would not be a good Jain anyway, so forget about converting. They seem pretty Hinduized and possibly Indianized themselves.

I do not know how I see India in 50-100 years. They completely lack introspection and their ego defenses are so high that I don’t see how they can change for the better. Humans with those attributes sure can’t. Why shouldn’t nations (conglomerations of humans) be the same?

The 2nd generation Punjabis seem very Westernized, but they still only marry other Punjabis, and they mostly hang out with their own kind. But other than that, many are quite assimilated.

The American born Hindus are much worse. We have Gujaratis in my city, and they are much worse than the Punjabis. They strictly associate only with their own kind, and they are some of the most arrogantly and obviously casteist Indians I have ever met! I hate to say it but Gujaratis are just not very good people. They don’t assimilate very well here. Even if they were born here, they somehow brought India over here with them  nevertheless. Punjabis assimilate so much better.

Repost: Alt Left: The Indian Personality: Superiority and Inferiority Complexes Intertwined

Another old post getting posted around the Net:

A fine new Indian Hindu commenter named Janardhan has appeared on our blog, and he repeats some of the same things that other insightful Hindus such as ILOR, Rahul, and Pranav have said. This shows us that not all Indian Hindus are bad people and that some of them are capable of looking inwards and trying to better their society. I consider both Rahul and Pranav at least to be strong Indian patriots who simply want the best for their country. As they see it, getting the best for India is going to require some massive changes, hence their critical patriotism.

Hindus have a strange mix of superiority and inferiority complexes. Deep down they massage their ego about how their civilization was ‘da greatest’ with a total ignorance about other civilizations and their achievements.

According to Hindus, Ancient India compared to the rest of the world is equivalent to comparing the city of Vienna during Mozart with highlanders in Papua New Guinea. As if Ancient India was like this huge Vienna while the rest of the world were primitive.

But during the last centuries they were first enslaved by Muslims from Central Asia/Persia (whom they consider savage bloodthirsty barbarians, ignoring the intellectual side of Islamic civilization, which itself was plagiarized to a good extent from Greek learning) and then by Europeans.

One difference was that in the case of Islamic invaders they could hide under the carpet the invaders’ intellectual side, and they are thus dehumanized as savage bloodthirsty monsters (this label is justified though, as the Islamic rulers were quite brutal). But when the Europeans, especially the British, came, they could not ignore their obvious technological superiority with their steam engines and telegraphs.

Thus the conflicting superiority/inferiority complex feelings.

They were as per their myth Numero Uno Civilization in the world, but now they are nearly at the bottom. White people with their strange but seeming superior looks and behavior give us an inferiority complex. Besides, even the Japanese/ Koreans are way ahead of us, and now the Chinese are racing ahead. Mainland Indians just cannot accept the rise of China: “Those Chinkis like the Chinkis of Nepal and North Eastern Indians going ahead of us, not possible,” we say.

Thus the desire to prove ancient India being as technologically advanced as the modern world since the modern technological world is 90% a White creation and we cannot fathom a people other than us could have done so.

I think this is same with the Arabs with their Islam. Islam, the last word of God and having an Arab as its last and greatest prophet, has fallen behind the White nonbelievers. Oh, the horror.

Blacks? Well, most Indians consider Blacks as some savage monkey people anyways.

I would say we Indians are some of the most racist people in the world, but our racism is very subtle.

As someone who works in mental health, I would like to point out the obvious. A person with both a massive superiority and inferiority complex going at the same time is a common creature. This is typical for Cluster B personality types: especially Narcissistic and Borderline Personality Disorders. But it associated more with narcissism than anything else. In fact, all proper analyses of narcissism begin with the supposition that what is going on in narcissism is often a huge inferiority complex which is apparently being compensated for by its opposite, a huge superiority complex.

My view is that the worse the narcissist’s inferiority complex, the greater their superiority complex must be to compensate for it. Whereas if one feels only a bit inferior, one has only to feel a bit superior to compensate, as all human beings are trying to equalize things and get at what I call the “zero state” of perfect equilibrium where everything is ok. Many analyses of the Indian personality on this site have noted the profound narcissism apparent in most Indian Hindus. In many cases, this also looks like solipsism, but then narcissism and solipsism tend to go together anyway (Look at the Jews, the most solipsistic people on Earth).

Repost: Alt Left: The Failed State of India Grew from the Indian Mind

Old post still getting posted around…

Seriously? writes:

This blog tries too hard, and still only manages to draw one or two angry Indians — if that.

There is no hatred of the ‘White man,’ including even of the British, because Whites aren’t special enough to warrant hating. While there’s a consistent income gap between Black and White Americans, there is an even larger Indian-White income gap in favor of Indians.

India’s relationship with so-called White nations is similar to that of Japan. We don’t feel threatened and are progressing quickly enough to put history behind us.

But I think you’ve missed a fundamental shared characteristic of Indians, so much so that this blog can never be reconciled with reality. In fact, of all the stereotypes of Indians, I think this is the only one with any real merit. Indians have a kind of “brotherly love” predisposition which is hard to describe.

The second a Pakistani, for example, shows any type of support for an Indian, he or she can expect an endless stream of positive responses and absolutely no negative ones.

Recently there was a poll done to determine India’s second (after Gandhi) “greatest” individual. India’s first Muslim president received the most votes, even over the likes of even Nehru, who only ranked 15th. Despite the poll’s assumption that Gandhi was bar none the greatest Indian, polls including Gandhi invariably show Ambedkar (India’s Dalit activist and philosopher) ahead, usually ranking Ambedkar first or second.

But I guess you still may be able to twist this around to still trash Indians.

I suspect the main motivation for this blog and the posters on here is that Indians you come across don’t consider you as great as you consider yourself. This ends up coming across as arrogance to you, so you feel the need to react by trying to situate them further below you in the imaginary hierarchy you had before meeting them. Indians don’t react as negatively as you had hoped and so the effect is repeated and overall magnified.

Combine that with confirmation bias and then you eventually reach the conclusion that Indians have no good qualities whatsoever, have never accomplished anything, and are scheming to take over the world. But you can’t afford them anything positive, so you then say they don’t have the capability to do anything special like take over the world in the first place. It’s all pretty sad, really.

That is very interesting about that poll.

But how come every Hindu one meets has an extreme hatred of Muslims and/or Pakistan then? What’s it about? If Ambedkar is such a hero to most Indians, then why is India still mired in the most barbaric casteism known to mankind?

It doesn’t make any sense.

And I am starting to think that like most Indians, just about everything “Seriously?” says is a lie. There is hatred of the White man, and it’s most prominent among Hindus. Among Hindutvadis and on Hindutvadi websites, hatred for European White Christians and their civilization is quite extreme. I have even seen some of it in Indian nationalist Sikhs (most of the Sikhs in my town are actually strident Indian nationalists).

I treat Indian people the same way I treat any other human. I thought they were extremely cool for a long time until I finally started to figure out what was really going on with these people, and since then, I have been less than impressed.

The most arrogant of all Indians around my town are surely the Hindus. They are much worse than the Sikhs. They have a strange attitude. They really do think they and their civilization is superior, but on the other hand, they are not going to tell you two words about it, and if you ask them anything about it, they get suspicious and hostile and act like they think like you are an enemy spy, and they clam up and shut down.

What you have here are people who have extreme pride in one of the backwards, barbaric, and reactionary civilizational structures known to mankind. From a Left POV, that is nothing to cheer about.

Then you look at the country they have created, or really destroyed, and you start to put it all together. This throwback socio-religious culture has created one of the most outrageous and pathetic civilizational trainwrecks and failed states on the Earth. Of course the civilizational pileup we see on the ground was created cognitively and emotionally by the barbarism inculcated in the Indian mind. The two must be connected.

As long as backwards barbarism continues to rule the Indian mind, we will continue to see the smoking ruins on the ground.

Alt Left: Christianity Has Not Always Been So Kind and Tolerant

Great comment here by Francis Miville. I’ll let you read it and do whatever you want with it.

Unfortunately, I think you are very mistaken. First piece of bad news: Christianity did NOT start as a religion more compassionate than the Judaism it stemmed from. Turning the other cheek clearly applied only within the fold considered, so as loving one’s enemies.

In Latin (and also in Greek and Aramaic) there are two words to mean an enemy: inimicus which means the guy you really don’t like from within your group or circle of direct acquaintances and who doesn’t like you, and hostes which means those from the hostile world outside your fold, no matter they are actually unfriendly or seem friendly.

Right from the very beginning of the Christian phenomenon to a very recent historical era, you were NOT supposed to befriend the presumed enemies from without, which formed the greater mankind you were not even supposed to pray for by command from Jesus himself: humanity at large is a hostile and damned entity and the community of the truly saved are numerically negligible. Right from the very beginning of Christianity you had far more actual friendships to cancel than new ones to enter so as to become a good Christian.

Early Christianity took wholesale the rightmost Jewish doctrine of then very few Jews actually applied or believed in to that point, and gave an even more restrictive definition of the in-group which namely asked the elect not only to combat actual sins of the kind the pagans committed but thoughts: free thought was the original sin you had to renounce first to.

The thinking was now onwards the church authority’s job and no longer yours. Jesus himself referred to the Jewish fold as his only reference, and he admitted converts from outside Judaism more reluctantly than most Jews then did.

Later on, it appeared that the boundaries of the Christian fold were becoming less and less ethnic in nature and more and more ideological, but that movement was not at all one of greater opening of heart to the outside world Vatican II style.

Quite the contrary, it was made up of more intolerance and exclusivism: the Replacement Theology that prevailed just stipulated that since so many Jews had fallen, the empty places would be taken by the required number of individuals from without but that the overall structure of the chosen people would not change from what it was when the OT was written and that the proportion of that chosen people relatively to humanity would not change neither, that is to say about one to a thousand or even less.

But even then, inter-ethnic and interracial opening were not valued at all, just tolerated at a minimum rate for the new fold to grow when the ethnic community of departure proved too hard to convert: you had to remain in the ethnic group you were born in according to the flesh, as well as in the social class you were born it.

Early Christianity very stringently prohibited all upward social mobility in the fashion of rightmost Judaism and Hinduism with a supplementary touch of intolerance. Racial prejudices were never to be combated: you had to believe in the inequalities generally admitted by all and consider them as divinely-willed. You could not as a born-again Christian go yourself towards other cultures and ethnic groups, even already Christianized ones unless you were mandated to do so as a missionary by the whole church organization.

The Law was not abolished (only Saint Paul held a discourse that seemed very liberating in this regard in the wording’s appearance only, because he was a disciplinarian of the strictest kind in practice; the other apostles and early Church fathers just called for the same law plus far more stringent restrictions): you had to renounce to know about the Jewish law and leave the knowledge of its application and implementation to the authority above you and it was nearly always in the direction of more, not less restriction.

The main fear was that by interpreting the Mosaic Law by yourself you would grant yourself too many indulgences.

For instance separating meat and dairy in the kitchen was not of your concern because meat along all luxury food items would be prohibited to you except for two or three days a year maybe where you would be given some cooked by others. What was feared if you knew too much about the law was your feeling of personal sovereignty over your life.

It must be noted that up to the times of the American and French Revolutions, conversion to Christianity was even more difficult and less easily accorded to neophytes and necessitated more time of preparation than entering most Jewish folds. Only the Jesuits had become to make the process somewhat shorter and more amicable and even then they ended up being outlawed for that very reason.

In sociobiological terms the turn the other cheek attitude was not one of humanism at all but of group solidarity against the outer world : you had to sacrifice yourself and all your whims and preferences for the survival of the community (both the religious one and the ethnic one) not by compassion for the human kind: that was considered perverted in the near-sexual sense.

It was Darwinian minus the Theory of Evolution. Christianity is more strictly incompatible with Communism than any other religion, though it is also as strictly incompatible with economic liberalism of any kind.

Judaism is by its principle far less opposite, as it has actually shown to be with fits and starts at various times in history, until the advent of late established Zionism by which Jews have but very little to identify themselves as Jews with but the existence of Israel on the map, which happens to be a fascist state since about 1967-73. Jews however racist or snobbish towards their non-Jewish contemporaries were often encouraged otherwise to think that in the future it would be otherwise, as the whole human kind would be Jewish at last.

In traditional Christianity such a hope is to be forgone as a main heresy : humanity at large will always be wicked, and it has no future but to persecute the last saints at the end of the world before being itself destroyed by fire, and all humanistic doctrines challenging that Christian anti-humanistic pessimism were to be interpreted as Jewish booby traps set up in the intention of robbing money or achieving a future world dictatorship.

What must be noted is that Christianity is in principle a religion with Love as a fruit but NOT a religion of love: it is by its own NT definition a religion of the discourse (logos), of the preached word you have to submit to unconditionally by renouncing to all personal ideas with an intolerance towards whomever tempts you in contrary direction to be as directly as possible imitated from OT.

Love in the Christian sense is better thought of as care: though that care is for fellow Christians or potential Christians, and even more eternal truths approaching you from God, never humans as such and even less humanity or anything intended towards the good of the latter such as social or technical progress.

Though it is the main theological virtue, is only conditional and instrumental to the process of salvation brought about by submission to the divine Logos, which is NOT the Logos as defined by Athenian philosophy as accessible through reasoning, discussion, and exchange of ideas: for traditional Christianity as was crystallizing right after the first Resurrection news, Satan is free discussion in person, the element of air.

The fact that now Judaism has become more difficult, intolerant and anti-humanistic (even though it was always so to a certain good degree) than Christianity which seems now to be sentimentally humanistic (but that impression it gives is very recent: it started with Anglican Latitudinarianism in the 1680-1730’s, continued with Dickens’ and Victor Hugo’s literary approach and was finalized about 1960 with Vatican II), testifies to the exceptionally inverted times we are witnessing, which could be apocalyptic, though this is far, far from certain.

The only sign pointing towards that direction among many others that still lack is the Jews having gone back to Israel, but it may well be a misfire as many Jewish scriptures and admonition by sages clearly state that the Jews will have to make no specific effort and even less any move of conquest to get back to their point of departure as divinely intended: otherwise they are due for a splendid defeat and maybe a few other millennia of Diaspora or the realization that they have never been Jews at all actually.

Among the numerous other apocalyptic syndromes, clearly lacking are general abandonment of Christianity by humanity: this is true only for the Modern West which now comprises less than 10%;, elsewhere in the world, it is a faith in greater expansion than ever, conquering deep Africa and just starting to bite into Asia.

But conversion of the Jewish fold to Jesus’ teaching as it is abandoned by all other peoples: we are further from that point than ever. The most probable immediate outcome, if we are to believe the best-established narrative, is as a kind of harsh retribution by the jilted Christian God, a military conquest of most of Europe by Islam as it happened earlier with the Christian nations of the former Middle East and Byzantine Empire, while other parts of the world become more Christian and also more prosperous while the West turns into a kind of Iraq-Syria.

A lesser but important syndrome to watch before any true apocalypse can happen is the Jews losing their whole financial fortune to return to the exact lifestyle they had in Antiquity as well as all former Christian countries losing all their political power and scientific knowledge once they have given up believing.

This will be probably true for the US quite soon (my opinion is that the US brand of “Christianity” is the religion most contrary to Christianity ever devised, rather a kind of Jewier than Jew Noachidism for Jesus that could jettison Jesus at once as soon as Israel stringently asks for all pilgrims to go to Jerusalem), but once it has happened, it will turn out to have been a numerically negligible part of the world, setting a very negative example not to imitate for millennia to come maybe.

Alt Left: Conservative Arguments against Deficits

Found on the Net:

In 2011, the Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman characterized conservative discourse on budget deficits in terms of “bond vigilantes” and the “confidence fairy.” Unless governments cut their deficits, the bond vigilantes will put the screws to them by forcing up interest rates. But if they do cut, the confidence fairy will reward them by stimulating private spending more than the cuts depress it.

In other words, like all conservative economics, it’s nonsense. Or superstition. Or magic. Or they know it’s a big fat lie and they won’t admit it. Probably the latter.

Not to mention that there are no true conservatives anywhere on Earth who even believe in anti-deficit theory in the first place. All modern conservatives, given the chance in office, will balloon deficits wildly. In the US, this is due to another scam. Conservatives deliberately blow up deficits to cause an artificial debt crisis. Then the lying dogs start screaming about the deficits that they themselves created (without acknowledging that they created them) and demanding the destruction of most if not all social spending to fight the deficit crisis. The fact that they got away from this scam for decades is outrageous.

The corporate media of course is in on the whole scam and never blew the whistle on them even once. Americans, who are profoundly idiotic in terms of political economics, finally started to catch onto this scam under Trump a full 40 years after it was implemented under silver-tongued Scammer-in-Chief Ronald Reagan. In terms of political economics, Americans are some of the dumbest people on Earth. All over the world, people vote their class interests. Only in the US and a few other places such as Hong Kong and Colombia do they not do so. Americans are the ultimate class cucks.

Venezuealans and Nicaraguans, dumb spics in most Americans’ minds, have a far greater sense of political economics and class consciousness. No way on Earth could you put a scam like this over them. They won’t fall for it. It’s rather pathetic when dumb spics are vastly more intelligent on political economics than Americans are.

I guess Brazilians and Colombians are dumb enough to fall for it. But Peruvians, Paraguayans, Argentines, and increasingly Chileans ain’t falling for this crap anymore. Neither are Hondurans. Or apparently Mexicans. Salvadorans supposedly have great class consciousness but they just voted in a rightwinger named Bukele. Guatemalans are permanently class cucked and confused, possibly terrorized into supporting rightwing economics, though most of them don’t seem to have a clue about politics or economics. Ecuadorians are apparently easily fooled.

Outside the Western Hemisphere, no one falls for this crap except in the UK for whatever weird reasons they have. The Baltics became extremely class cucked as a reaction against Communism and it was deadly for them. Indians seem pretty class cucked. At any rate, if they have any money at all, they go hard rightwing on economics. You can’t put this scam over anywhere in the Arab World. They won’t stand for it. The Arab World is run by populists. Nor could you in Turkey.

For that matter, in most of the former USSR, it’s not possible to class-scam people. 70 years of the USSR guaranteed that class consciousness is pounded into the sense of all workers. This is what rightwing idiots don’t get about the fall of the USSR. They didn’t end up with this neoliberal paradise full of class cucks that they wanted. Instead, they ended up with a permanently militant working class and a permanently socialist or social democratic state. You can change the form (the state) but you can’t change the contents (what’s in people’s minds).

Different Types of Child Pornography: Under 13 (Kiddie Porn) and 13-17 (Teen Porn)

Teenage girl CP is completely different from the little kiddie kind.

First of all, most people would not be freaked out seeing teenage girl porn. In many cases, they would probably assume it was legal because it doesn’t look any different from adult porn. Even where they obviously not 18, it doesn’t have that creeptastic shock factor that throws you out of your seat. Also even in those cases, the girls have an adult sex drive (which makes all the difference), and they typically look like they are enjoying themselves.

So who’s harmed by this stuff? The typical argument is that child porn is “the record of a crime.” That’s not controversial, but if so, why aren’t videos showing murder and beheadings illegal too?

Arguments against Child Porn (Pornography of Children under 13 or “Kiddie Porn)

  1. It is the record of abuse. In a lot of cases, that’s not even true, but in other cases, it is.
  2. By being out there and people possessing it, it creates more demand. I agree with that.
  3. The child is harmed every time someone downloads a photo of her CP. This seems dubious. What if she doesn’t even know it’s out there? Even if she does, does she get a notification every time someone downloads her movie? How does that work? If it gets downloaded 1,000 times, how is she anymore harmed than if it’s downloaded one time? She isn’t.
  4. The child did not consent to having their CP spread far and wide all over the Internet. I’m sure that’s true in most cases, so that’s quite a violation, one that can follow the child until adulthood if they know their CP is still floating around out there.
  5. The more pedophiles look at this stuff, the more it arouses them to actually molest. That’s not a good argument and the limited studies we have shows that legal CP makes rates of molestation go down.
  6. A lot of this stuff is not consensual but forced or coerced. That’s a good argument, but would videos of a rape also be illegal. How about videos of a murder? But that kid should be protected from having his abuse put out there for everyone to see. No argument there.
  7. This stuff is just weird, freaky, and gross. I would certainly agree there. If you’ve ever seen this stuff, there’s a yuck factor involved that’s hard to put into words.
  8. The victim was a kid when it happened, kids need to be protected from having crimes committed against them broadcast for all to see, and the depiction of the crime is against the law in the first place. You’re not allowed to take pictures of this crime, while you probably could of most other crimes. This is an argument to show how the photographing of the crime of child molestation is different from the photographing of other serious crimes, such as battery, homicide, etc. Also the others are adults and presumably they could handle their victimization being out there better than a kid could.

What about Teen CP?

Almost all of the above arguments fall apart when you talk about teen CP. Show me one argument that still holds up when we apply it to teens.

  1. It is the depiction of a crime, typically statutory rape. Sure we can photograph other crimes, but this is one crime we cannot photograph because photographing this crime is illegal itself.
  2. It’s yucky, awful, and horrible – it’s upsetting to the senses. The yuck factor argument here falls apart because I imagine a lot of doesn’t even look yucky. Does it look any different from “barely legal” porn out there? Probably not. Even where they look underage, though it does look weird and somewhat disturbing to me, it’s not on the same level as real CP, which almost flings you out of your chair when you see it.
  3. Although most of this activity is probably consensual, some may be forced. Now we get into the argument of whether videos of rapes would be legal. But once again, this is one crime we are not even allowed to photograph, whereas we can photograph just about any other crime, I assume.
  4. If men looked at teen CP, this would arouse them to go out and have illegal sex with teens. That’s dubious, and it’s not the end of the world even if it does happen. In European countries, the age of consent is 14 or 15, and there’s no epidemic of older men hanging out outside high schools to prey on the girls. Nor is there much in the way of 14 and 15 year old girls having sex with older men. 15 year old French girls are capable to telling men to get lost. In other words, just legalizing something doesn’t necessarily increase the rate of it.
  5. The teen did not consent to having their porn all over the Net. Unfortunately, that’s probably not even true in most cases. In most cases, they probably made this stuff themselves as almost all of the teen CP out there is made by girls themselves and their boyfriends. Then they put it up on the Net and apparently don’t care if it goes far and wide, and it can’t go too far and wide anyway.
  6. The teen is harmed every time someone downloads the video. This suffers from the same flaw as the real CP argument, with the added factor that the girl probably doesn’t even feel harmed by the material in the first place as she produced it herself.
  7. By being out there and people looking at it, it creates more demand for the product. I’m not even sure that’s hard to prove because it teen CP doesn’t appear to be a commercial enterprise, probably because it’s so hard to tell it from real porn. Anyway there doesn’t appear to be much of a market for it anyway.
  8. Teen CP is the record of abuse. That’s probably almost never true unless it’s coerced and porn with adult women who were coerced would also be a record of abuse. There’s nothing “abusive” about adults having sex with teens.
  9. It is the record of a crime. Once again, why are homicides of beatings, homicides, presidential assassinations, etc. legal then? Those are records of crimes.

Good Arguments to Keep Teen CP Illegal (with Some Modifications)

I would not be opposed to teens having these photos and videos of each other. Millions of them already do and mostly nothing happens to them. All of the above arguments fall apart in the case of teens keeping porn of each other.

But then it should be restricted. I would say you can have it in your possession, but you can’t distribute it, say put it up on the Internet or sell or give away DVD’s of it. This would seriously limit the spread because how much can anything spread if it’s not on DVD or the Net? Hardly at all. But one thing I dread is going on the Porn Net and getting bombarded by offers to go to sites featuring 16 and 17 year old girls! Because as soon as you make that stuff legal, pornographers, being the sleazeballs that they are, are going to flood the Net within weeks with underage girls naked and soon enough in full hardcore porn.

If you put teen porn up on the Net for everyone to see for commercial purposes, you can and should go to jail. Most of this stuff is distributed in discreet networks that are hard to get to if you don’t know exactly where they are. Teen porn posted in these networks stays where it is. It’s almost all made by teenage girls themselves either alone or with their boyfriends. As long as it’s not spreading wildly to the wide-open web and staying on secretive channels, I don’t see the harm.

But how are you going to differentiate between keeping it on discreet channels and putting it out there for all to see? I have no idea. The main purpose of prosecution ought to be to keep teen porn off the Web in the sense that it is outside of the eyes and ears of your average person. You also need to keep it off of all large commercial, ad-supported, or porn video sites like PornHub. But how do you hold PornHub liable for teen porn it’s users put up there? You can’t. But where the girl is obviously not 18, you could make a case that PornHub should be liable if there is a complaint. You can’t expect them to sort through all the videos, but you can expect them to look at anything that generates complaints.

Society doesn’t want men approaching underage teen girls on the Net and trying to get photos and videos out of them. That the girls willingly hand this stuff out is no matter. This is just something society doesn’t like, along the lines of statutory rape. The penalties ought to be similar to statutory rape instead of CP. It’s hard to argue that having a video of a teenage girl having sex is 5-10X worse than actually having sex with her, but this is what the law will say. I’d want to make the penalties strict enough to deter men from doing this though.

What about adults in legal relationships with teens who have photos and videos of the teen, even in sex acts. It’s even harder to make an argument that this should be illegal or that it’s even CP. It’s legal to have with this girl every day for a year, but if you snap a picture of her naked, you get 10 years? That’s just getting weird. I suppose I would argue that the “personal possession ok, distribution illegal” argument ought to apply here. If it’s legal to have sex with a girl, it ought to be legal to take sex photos and videos of her for your own personal use. The law might require that you prove you were in a relationship with her.

Teens who take videos and photos of themselves is not really CP. There are people getting arrested for making sex photos and videos of themselves when they were underage. One man is on the sex offender list for possessing, when he was 21, a sex video of himself alone he made when he was 17. That’s just nuts. And putting girls in jail for making their own solo porn and keeping it on their drives is crazy.

As with so many sex laws, this issue runs up into all sorts of thorny issues and arguments that make little if any sense. It boils down an emotional revulsion towards this sort of thing and society’s decision to encode its revulsion in law. Many of the justifications for such laws fall apart when you analyze them. And justifications for some laws, for instance CP, change constantly, along with the definitions of it. The best policy is whatever protects the morals and norms of the majority while interfering with the privacy and individual rights of the potential criminal as little as possible.

Finished My Paper

139 pages. I really don’t think it was supposed to be so long. 395 references. I wonder if that’s a record. How many hours? 574 hours. Basically almost four months at a full-time job. Pay? LOL I won’t make a nickel.

Why the length and all the references? I really wanted to make my case as well as I could, so I couldn’t help but go on and pile on more and more arguments and especially references. The more you do this, the harder it gets for your opponents to argue with your ideas.

You can check it out here if you want, but I doubt if most of you are interested unless you are into the subject.

I suppose I should get back to regular posing now.

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)