Alt Left: Repost: Down with Colin Flaherty

This is a nice old post about Colin Flaherty. I like it and I think it’s worth a repost.

The problem is that Colin Flaherty’s whole shtick is that he is not racist at all in any way whatsoever! No, really. That’s exactly what he says. And that’s how he comes across, endlessly, in article after article and video after video. And that is exactly why this man is so dangerous.

Mr. Flaherty is a journalist and a good one at that. But in his middle age, he has decided to branch out into the area of Black crime, except that his focus has a twist – it’s all about Black crime against Whites. The subtext of every Flaherty article or video is that Black people are deliberately singling out Whites to attack as hunters single out prey. Nothing could be more nonsensical. Blacks do not preferentially prey on Whites. It’s nonsense.

89% of Black homicides are of other Black people. Most Black crime is Black on Black crime. Much is made of Black men raping White women, but Black men rape Black women at 5X the rate that they rape White women. There are all sorts of nutty arguments that try to deal with these uncomfortable truths while keeping the lousy theory alive.

The principal one was symbolized by the noted theory of Le Griffe du Lion, a very racist White professor of…get this…sociology! He did some fancy mathematics showing that Black people mostly see other Black people all day long and don’t see many White people. So of course they prey mostly on their own kind. That’s who they are around all the time! If Blacks were around Whites just as much as they were around Blacks, their propensity to hunt Whites preferentially as a predator hunts its prey (Le Griffe’s exact words) would come out.

But the other side can play that game too. There are 6X more Whites than Blacks. If Blacks displayed no preference at all in victims, they would kill 6X more Whites than Blacks, right? This argument spouts the rejoinder, “But they are only around their own kind all day…” which is probably a tautology and is certainly not falsifiable, so it fails as theory on its face.

Flaherty wrote a book called White Girl Bleed a Lot. It’s all about Black crime against Whites. Yes, Blacks commit some very bad crimes against Whites. But they commit just as bad or worse crimes against their own kind. So only writing about Black crime against Whites is lying in a sense, and worse, you are selling a form of poison to the masses. Racist poison. A really nasty racist poison.

Because nothing drives Whites up the wall more than the idea that Blacks preferentially prey on them as victims. Some of these theorists even go as far as to say that Blacks are waging a low-level guerrilla war against Whites. Oh, what nonsense.

If you study ethnic conflicts all over the world, one of the things that sets off massacres and ethnic cleansings is the notion that Group B, the out-group or the other guys, is trying to kill us, Group A.

Hitler set off the genocide by saying the Jews were trying to exterminate Germans.

The Rwandan genocide was set off in the same way.

The Sunni-Shia wars start off in exactly the same way. ISIS propaganda goes to great lengths to show how the Shia are preferentially singling out and slaughtering the Sunni. “They’re trying to kill us all,” is the message.

This was the line that the Young Turks used to kill 1.7 million Armenians. “The Armenians were starting a war against the Turks, and they were trying to kill all the Turks.”

The genocide against Muslims in Bosnia was set off by Serbian lies that “The Muslims were trying to kill the Serbs.”

Even the anti-Communist slaughters of the last century which the US fully participated in, each and every one of them, were all predicated on the idea that the Communist killers were going to seize power and kill lots of people. Hitler justified his genocide against the Jews by saying that they were Communists and that the Communists were mass murderers who were “killing millions of Christians” in the Ukraine. Yes, the fake Holodomor, the terror famine that never even happened, was used as a pretext for the Holocaust.

Remember that the next time any of you wants to rant about “Stalin’s terror famine.” Every time you say that, you are repeating Nazi propaganda. Does it make you feel good to parrot Hitler?

Many of the massacres of Indians were predicated on the notion that the Indians “were coming to kill us all.” In the original wording of the Declaration of Independence, there is language about how savage the Indians fought, knowing none of the rules of decency in wartime. “They’re savages, so we need to kill them all.” See how that works?

In Indonesia in 1965, there was supposedly a Communist coup to take over the government. All the world’s media reported it exactly that way. Except that it never happened. There was a fake Communist coup to take over the government. “The Communists tried to take over, and they are going to kill millions of people” lie was then used as an excuse to kill 1 million Communists all over Indonesia in only a few months. Most were hacked to death with machetes. Islamic fundamentalists were used by the US and Indonesia in this slaughter. Remind you of anything? Afghanistan, anyone?

The CIA was on the scene immediately and they supplied the new government with lists of known Communists. These lists were then used to single out people for killing. The US media then lied about the whole affair, with the execrable New York Times leading the charge. Later there was an attempt to bury this mass slaughter as “unfortunate but necessary and a good idea in the long run.”

It was only years or even decades later that we learned the truth about the fake coup and the mass slaughter. The Left was devastated in Indonesia and has remained in a meager state to this day. Obviously people in Indonesia have gotten the message about what happens to Leftists, which is always the general message of anti-Communist slaughters.

Hence it follows that once White people get it in their heads that “the Blacks are trying to kill us,” we can set ourselves up for some serious persecutions of Blacks based on that narrative. I doubt if we will start massacring Blacks, but “the Blacks are trying to rape and kill Whites” was always the excuse for lynchings and Jim Crow.

It’s an ugly narrative, and it’s a lie.

I could write articles about this sort of thing too, you know. I see articles all the time about Black people acting terrible, killing each other, killing White people, you name it. 98% of the time, I choose not to write about it. Why write about it? Yes, yes, we know Black people commit tons of crime, including violent crime. Yes, we know Black men have a high homicide rate.

Yes, we know that Black men kill many White people – but they kill far more Black people, and by and large, they prey mostly on their own kind.

Looking at the larger picture, Black criminals simply prey on other humans. They rob, rape, and kill Hispanics, Asians, Whites and Blacks. They attack everyone. They are not real particular.

And the evidence shows that if anything, they by far preferentially select their own kind for violence, and they preferentially select against White victims. So if anything, Blacks prefer to prey on their own kind and it looks like Blacks actively avoid preying on Whites. If that’s the reality, then it’s quite a poisonous stew to cook up to sell the lie that Blacks preferentially attack Whites. “They’re coming to kill us! The Blacks are trying to kill us White people!” It’s not only a lie, but it’s a very dangerous lie, a mental poison with grave effects.

Just to see what sort of vibes Flaherty is churning up, look at the commenters. Looks like Niggermania, Chimpout, American Renaissance, and Stormfront. There are all sorts of very vicious and ugly remarks against Black people as a race on there. So even if Flaherty really is a non-racist as he insists, look at all the wild racism that his irresponsible (or worse) videos and articles sprout. He’s fertilizing the land with poison, watching the weeds he watered grow and take over the land and choke out all the good and decent crops, all the while protesting that he had nothing to do with it, he was just some innocent farmer trying to grow crops. Yeah. Crops of weeds.

Whenever I see that language, I think, “This person is promoting hatred against Greg and Alpha.” I think that’s unacceptable. None of these Black people do much of anything wrong. They live like good, law abiding citizens, and in short, they are good people. Selling hate propaganda against good people just because they are Black is wrong.

And that is why you, Mr. Flaherty, are wrong.

And that is why you, Mr. Flaherty, are promoting a very dangerous lie.

Repost: Alt Left: Minorities Who Let Go of Their Identity Politics Seem Happier

Old post but still getting comments, so it may as well get a repost. Plus I just reread it and it’s really cool!

Minorities Who Let Go of Their Identity Politics Seem Happier

I’ve known Blacks who chucked Black Identity Politics and said, “I love White people!” There’s a whole sex kink out there like that for Black women who love White men. I’ve met many Black women with  this sex kink. There are Black men who think Whites are the bomb. I’ve met a lot of these folks. They admire Whites. They try to act like Whites. They see them as models of behavior.

And if you’re Black and you love White people, most Whites will let down their guard. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. I compared them to Blacks locked into Black Identity Politics, and the Black Identity Politics people seemed much less happy. They were locked into a war. Racism was everywhere, fogging up their glasses, giving them scratchy throats, and causing rashes on their arms. They were living in enemy territory every day.

Gays who dropped gay politics were a lot more relaxed. Gays locked into gay Identity Politics always had their dukes up, surrounded by homophobes, getting in fistfights every day. Gay Identity Politics is a scary place. There’s a gay-basher hiding in every bush. It’s enough to drive you nuts.

Repost: Alt Left: IP Is Counterintuitive: The More Their Demands Get Met, the Angrier and Unhappier They Become

Still getting comments so good for a repost.

 IP Is Counterintuitive: The More Their Demands Get Met, the Angrier and Unhappier They Become

All IP people are angry. They’re getting a raw deal! And paranoid. All IP people are locked into war with some binary “enemy identity.” Whites are the bad guys. Men are the enemy. The enemy is keeping us down!

With all IP, curiously, the more the groups realize their goals, first, they keep moving the goalposts, insisting its not enough and inventing new demands, and oddly enough, they get even more pissed off!

Remember the Second Liberation of Blacks in 1964? How did Blacks react to the greatest freedom from shackles since the First Liberation in 1863? For the next half decade, they rampaged though America’s cities with deadly riots, killing people, fighting cops and firemen, getting themselves killed, and most stupidly, burning their own hood, and then complaining their living in the embers of the ash heap. I’ve got a theory about why this curiosity exists. It actually makes complete sense.

I’ll give you a clue? Though they were in shackles, the source of all of their misery was not to be found in the shackles. A lot of it was but a lot of it wasn’t. So the shackles came off and they looked around, and they still weren’t equals. They felt ripped off by a shapeshifting enemy and exploded with frustrated rage. And it continues to today.

As racism declines with each year, Blacks continue to have their usual Black problems. Their ideology tells them that their problems are all caused by racism, so if their problems persist even after all these years of work, racism must truly be insidious, evil, and even possibly mysterious and invisible. Solution: Double down on the anti-racism and Black IP to defeat this racist monster once and for all!

We liberated women, and they still had most of the same old woman problems. Liberation didn’t fix their troubles, so obviously they didn’t do it hard enough. So they double down.

We liberated gays, but of course they’re still all screwed up. They’re far nuttier than straights. Both sexes of homosexuals live 18-20 years less than straights. All of the problems of gay men (Remember Boys in the Band?) remain. All of the problems of lesbians (Remember The Well of Sadness?) remain. All the wars of homophobia didn’t work. What to do? Double down on the anti-homophobia campaigns.

Repost: Alt Left: Shut Up, Virginia Giuffre

Post from several months ago is still getting comments, so I decided to repost it. I reread and it good God is it vicious! That means it’s perfect for this site, which is about tackling all taboos and pissing off as many people as possible in the process!

Serial liar, faker, and professional victim Virginia Giuffre has filed a fake lawsuit against Prince Andrew, lying like a bitch that Andrew raped and sexually abused her repeatedly when she was underage at 17 years old.

Problem? Nobody raped anyone and Virginia (The Liar) Giuffre never got raped one time.

I suppose you could argue that Andrew may have committed statutory rape, but that’s not rape at all. Instead it’s simply illegal intercourse.

Second problem? Virginia Giuffre is a whore. A lowdown, lying, scamming prostitute of the lowest variety, lower even than most disgusting whores, and that’s pretty low.

What happened?

Giuffre decided at age 17 that her goal in life was to be a whore! That’s right, a prostitute. Such a noble calling. She somehow got in with Epstein and Maxwell’s blackmail ring, and she was basically offered a job working as a little teenie whore for Epstein’s Mossad spying blackmail ring. Of course, since her life dream was to be a lowly prostitute, she jumped at the chance.

Epstein et al were soon pimping her out to famous people, except it’s hard to call it pimping because they let her keep all the money.

The one famous incident with Prince Andrew occurred in the Virgin Islands. Giuffre was paid a measly $15,000 to have sex (excuse me, to get raaaaaaped) by Andrew. She reportedly had lots of fun screwing the guy, since by all accounts she was a little teen nympho slut.

Problem? 17 year old Virginia was not underage! She was legal in the Virgin Islands, perfectly legal fresh teen pussy.

Now we move on to the other fake charges.

Turns out she had sex with Andrew several more times in New York, Florida, New Mexico and the UK.

Problem? 17 year old Virginia was perfectly legal teen snatch in New York, New Mexico, and the UK. No rape. No statutory rape. No any kind of rape, except in her ditzy teen whore brain.

Now, moving on to Florida, we do have another matter. If she had sex with Andrew in Florida, she would have been underage, because the Age of Consent there is 18. But notice she was legal and of age in four different states or countries and illegal and underage in only one state? Big deal! That’s barely even a crime.

Statutory rape of a 17 year old girl is a garbage crime anyway. 17 year old girls are perfectly legal to fuck anyone they want to, even a 90 year old man, in most of the world. They’re only illegal in a few backwards places like Florida.

It’s perfectly reasonable to set an AOC at 16 or 17. Most of the world has it at ~16. Most of Europe has it at 15! There have been absolutely zero problems reported in any of these places by setting the AOC at 15-17.

Now, setting an AOC at 15 is sketchy in the US because we are too backwards, puritanical, and weird to handle that low of an AOC. Europeans, being civilized, can cope with, it but Americans are uncivilized backwards boors and sex-hating super-prudes, so we can’t deal.

However, there is an argument for making a Romeo and Juliet clause for 15 year old girls. In many states they are legal for men up to 18 or 19. Colorado is particularly reasonable in this regard, as 15 year old girls are legal for men up to age 24. I dated a lot of 15 year old girls as a boy and for few years into adulthood. They’re horny as Hell and from the point of view of a young man 18-21, they seem quite mature, about as mature as you are.

Now the problem is that wherever you put that AOC, men are going to start fucking those girls. Put it at 17? Men will fuck 17 year old girls. Put it at 16? Men will screw 16 year old girls. Put it at 15? Men will gleefully bonk 15 year old girls.

And if you put it at 13 or 14, men will jump on 13 and 14 year old girls. I’m not entirely comfortable with that, though sex with 14 year old girls and 18-21 year old men doesn’t bother me. The thing about this sort of sex is it seems a lot more ok when the man is very young because after all, college boys and young men have been screwing high school girls forever. It’s so natural it’s almost set in stone. But as the man gets older than, say, 25, a lot of people start getting a lot less comfortable with it for all sorts of reasons. And as he gets older and older, it gets less and less ok. This is fine with me and I understand people’s distaste for this sort of thing.

I’d like to keep the 13 and 14 year old girls illegal for most adults, though we definitely need a Romeo and Juliet clause for both of them. I’m not sure where to put the limits though.

I met some 14 year old girls at the store a while back. They were fooling around like teenagers. I looked at them real close and I thought, “You know what? These girls need to be protected from us men. And even more so, we men need to be protected from those girls!” We both need to be protected from each other. A good way to do that is with an AOC law because most men beyond age ~21 will start to seriously think twice about underage girls, and men significantly older than that will avoid them as if they’re radioactive. Which they are, in a sense. Teenage girls are dangerous!

I think 13-15 year old girls ought to be legal for boys 13-17 though at the very least. We really need to stop putting kids in jail and on sex offender lists for having sex with each other. Guess what? Teenagers have a sex drive, often a raging one. And many, many of them engage in sexual behaviors and even have intercourse before age 18. It’s as common as dirt.

Now we do run into problems with Andrew and Giuffre due to the fact that Giuffre was more than just a teen slut. In fact, she was an out an out real thing teenage prostitute! What a noble, morally elevated female!

Now the problem is that in most of the US at least, it was perfectly legal to screw Giuffre for free, but automagically, one you pay her, you’ve committed a crime. You can screw them all you want, but you just can’t pay them for it! I sort of like this law. We should extend to all women, not just the teenies. It sure would save us men an awful lot of money!

Now, buying a teenage prostitute under age 18 is illegal in the US. It doesn’t strike me as much of a crime because there are many enthusiastic schoolgirl prostitutes. But I don’t see how you make it legal either. Make it a misdemeanor. Instead, it’s a serious crime and worse that, it’s somehow or other sex trafficking!

Now sex trafficking is a completely abused term once the US Justice Department got a hold of it after Congress made a retarded law in the midst of a Sex Panic. Sex trafficking used to be pretty serious. It meant more or less sex slaves. These women are out and out sex slaves, being imprisoned or locked into service by evil pimps, mostly men. A lot are literally locked in and can’t escape while they are ordered to have sex with man after man.

It’s really gross and it’s a very serious crime. And the truth is that most pimping probably is trafficking. If the prostitutes are free to leave the pimp, it’s not, but when are they ever free to leave? Not real often. Pimps threaten to harm, hurt, or kill any prostitute who leaves their harem, so most prostitutes with pimps feel locked into them. Obviously, pimps are one of the dirtiest aspects of this dirty business.

However! The Justice Department decided to somehow include all underage teen prostitutes under the rubric of “trafficking,” which is quite dubious. I don’t mind a crime called Prostituting a Minor, but it sure as hell isn’t “trafficking.” Even worse, any man who patronizes an underage teen prostitute is himself somehow guilty of trafficking! You paid this 17 year old whore for sex, did the deed, and walked out. Turns out you just committed an act of sex trafficking! That’s absolutely ridiculous, but that’s the crazy new law.

As expected, the feminists took the ball, ran away with it, and were never seen again. The feminists have somehow decided that not only are sex slaves and teeny prostitutes being “trafficked,” but in fact, every single woman who is engaged in prostitution is engaged in sex trafficking! More properly, since feminists insist that women have no agency, they are “being trafficked (by others, basically men).”

Notice how when feminists talk, women never have any agency? That means that they’re basically children and not responsible for any of their actions. Women never do anything. Everything that happens to a woman is not because she did it because I guess she can’t do anything, but instead it got done to her by someone else (typically an evil man).

I would say that according to this silly logic, prostitutes in business for themselves, which is lots of them, are apparently trafficking themselves! But feminists logically say this is not possible, and I agree. Instead they are argue that prostitutes in business for themselves are being trafficked by the male customers who purchase their services! So every time a man buys a whore, he’s “trafficking” her. Ridiculous, huh?

So it appears that the morally upright Ms. Giuffre, now older, wiser, and probably a lot less horny, was never raped even one time, ever. Statutory rape doesn’t count. It’s a bit hard to argue that she was being trafficked, but Maxwell and Epstein caught her trying to leave them a couple of times and brought her back and threatened her. Ok, now they’re trafficking her, so she was trafficked some of the time.

Giuffre was working very profitably for as a prostitute for the rich and famous from ages 17-23. So for most of her career, from ages 18-23, she was an adult, a grown woman. Giuffre claims that during this entire time, she was being “sexually abused” or “abused.” She never had real sex the whole time. Instead she had some weird abuse masquerading as sex. Are you sure you didn’t like it, Ms. Giuffre? A lot of women like that sort of thing, you know.

“Sexual abuse” is a term that has been tortured, raped, and murdered by sex-panicked morons for a very long time now. It used to refer to child molestation, which involves adults and children under 13. From 13-17, depending on the laws, there is no sexual abuse. There’s just statutory rape or illegal intercourse. It’s not possibly to sexually abuse a teenage girl and you certainly cannot abuse a grown woman because no matter how infantile her silly little brain is, she’s still an adult, at least chronologically. Sexual abuse literally means child molestation and I don’t mind referring to child molestation and sexual abuse. It’s a logical way to see it.

Somehow now teenage girls with ravenous, nymphomaniacal sex drives get “sexually abused” a good part of the time when they have sex, even when it’s consensual. In other words, the term for child molesting got inflated by dumbshits all the way to teenage girls and from there all the way to so-called adult women, assuming there even are any in an emotional sense.

It’s bullshit. It’s nonsense.

Poor Virginia suffered through the horrific ordeal of getting paid $15,000 to fuck a hot, sexy older man. It boggles the mind. No doubt this indignity was inflicted on the poor virginal Virginia endless times. How did she ever recover from getting paid $15K to get laid by some hot dude? Obviously, she’s a survivor. How she survived such a horror is simply beyond me.

Poor girl! Girls are crying! Poor Virginia! Virginia is crying! Poor women! Women are crying!

She never got sexually abused even one time except in her tiny little pea brain. And of course she never got raped even one time except in the   fever dreams of her mind. Now she may well have been trafficked.

Virginia, I will take time out for abusing your sorry ass here to tell you that I am very sorry that these low lifes basically imprisoned you as a sex slave. I really am truly sorry.

And I hope whatever damage this may have caused you – and it may well have done so – you are able to get over it and move it. I’m sorry you got taken back and threatened when you tried to run away. At that point, Epstein and Maxwell were trafficking you. That’s a serious crime, and I hope you can make peace with it, and I mean that with all my heart, dear.

Now that I am done addressing Ms. Giuffre, back to the story.

95% of Virginian Giuffre’s story is a pathetic joke. It’s not even true. She’s just another silly bitch trying to milk us men for everything we’ve got like so many of her sisters. I hope she decides to do something more productive and dignified with her life than act like a baby, be a permanent victim, and make a living scamming men.

Final Word on the Virginia Giuffre Versus Prince Andrew Bullshit

At most Andrew is guilty of statutory rape if he indeed had sex with her in Florida. Statutory rape of a 17 year old girl (and a high-flying, globetrotting high priced call girl at that!) by a 40 year old man is pretty much a joke of a charge. He definitely didn’t rape or abuse her. The sex was 100% consensual and she got paid $15,000 for suffering through this horrifying rape and abuse. The rape and abuse was so horrendous that she called up her friends and bragged to them about how she just had sex with Prince Andrew! Later on she wrote a book about what a blast it had been to be a high-priced, globe-trotting call girl to the rich and famous. Throughout the book she talks about what a blast it was to live this lifestyle.

Then comes the Epstein affair and she and the other little whores (because that is exactly what they were – teenybopper whores) decided that they had all been raaaaaaaaaaped and abuuuuuuuused and cried all the way to courthouse hoping to cash in on payouts of tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars for all the raaaaape and abuuuuuuse they suffered.

The rape and abuse was so horrible that many of them went back to be raaaaped and abuuuuuused over 40 different times! To give handjobs for $400 a shot! How traumatizing! Poor babies! In fact, it was so horrible that most of them went out and recruited a bunch of their little whore girlfriends to get raaaaaaed and abuuuuuuused via handjob for $400 a shot.

Just a bunch of lying, scamming, crybaby whores trying to cash in and get their tens or hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars from this guy’s estate. It’s all a gigantic scam.

Still Working on My Paper

Sorry, folks, I got the edited copy of my paper back and I realized that for South American languages, I had made all sorts of claims with zero references to back them up. Well, they will eat me alive over that. And in going back over the data to do that, I realized that a huge number of my claims were dead wrong, so I had to go back and redo the whole mess. And mess it is. South American languages are a hellhole.

They’ve been rather neglected in Amerindian studies because, well, the North Americans, as in the Americans, have done a bang up job on North American languages, and a pretty darn good job on Central American languages to boot. By contrast, South American linguists have not been doing nearly so much work perhaps because their academic system or culture is just not as far advanced as ours is. It’s taken me four days now to write four pages, if that gives you any idea of what’s involved. Nevertheless, there is a light at the end of the tunnel here, and as I am closing in on the finish line.

The Feminine Principle, SJWism, and the Lure of Eternal Childhood

There’s no place in rock and roll for sanctimonious twits or Neo-Puritans.

That’s why feminists and SJW’s cannot possibly be rockers. They’re too Goddamned sex-hating and uptight. On the other hand, the Puritanism of the SJW’s is simply the Feminine Principle in its pure form, which sadly includes a rather Puritanical element. You will never understand women until you figure out that this awful Puritanical element exists right alongside an attitude of the most debased and unhinged nymphomaniacal sexual degeneracy.

Women are nuns and whores, both at once, all of the time.

It’s a contradiction, but the entire Feminine Principle is based on contradiction, and most women walk around their whole lives with their minds wrapped in the most unholy contradiction. I don’t think it makes them miserable. In fact, I think they rather like it because it makes their lives wild, adventurous, and a bit dangerous and leads to “peak emotional experiences,” which are the end-all and be-all of female existence.

The SJW’s have simply adopted modern feminism’s complete abandonment of sexual liberation in favor of the worst most Victorian sexual repression, inhibition, Puritanism, and sex-hatred. Of course they only hate heterosexual sex, and they only hate it when men do it, not when women do, but that’s an essential contradiction of the Feminine Principle itself also.

No society should ever cave in to the Feminine Principle and give women everything they want. The female utopia is a dystopia for men, always and everywhere at all times. This is because the Feminine Principle is in many ways objectively irrational. I would argue that the Masculine Principle is probably pretty irrational too, but I don’t study men. We sure commit a Hell of a lot of aggression and violence, such that we are nearly a plague upon existence itself. Whatever good we men do hardly outweighs that.

SJWism is what happens when a group of people caves in to the Feminine Principle completely and resolves to run the world on the basis of female values, always a catastrophic error.

Now, women argue that societies run on pure male values are not real great for women, and in a lot of places, they seem to be correct. This just shows that the Masculine and Feminine Principles are both fucked up and irrational and terrible for the opposite sex in their pure form, which is a zero sum game of “everything for our sex and nothing for yours.”

Notice how SJW’s act like babies? See how they run to Human Relations every time someone looks at them wrong? These are people who never grew up and never want to grow up. Running to Human Relations to fix the owie and kiss it and make it better is like a child running to Mommy when they falls and hurt themselves. Can he fix it on his own? Of course not. He has to run to Mommy to fix it.

Notice how SJW’s throw a tantrum every time someone says something even 1% offensive, no matter if it is factual or not, as SJWism bans a huge array of facts about humanity on the grounds that they are “hate facts.” This is what a child does. Every time a child runs into a frustration or an obstacle, he throws a goddamned tantrum because he hasn’t yet learned to solve his own problems and remove obstacles in his way.

And it’s no secret that most women want to be children their whole lives. Why shouldn’t they? Children are always protected because they are too weak to protect themselves, and this is how women see themselves – as always needing outside protection. When women are given license to the be the “forever children” of their utopian dreams, every crazy thing they do is excused: “She couldn’t help it, she’s just a child.” And nothing is ever their fault because children are never at fault because they don’t know better.

The woman is always the most responsible teenager in the house.

– Arthur Schopenhauer

All of these victim groups of SJW’s wish to be children forever. The lure of perpetual indulgence and total impunity for behavior is too strong for most humans to resist.

It’s anti-Nietzschean, but so what? Nietzsche himself said most of us want the easy way out. And it’s a rare human who is so in control of their lives and un-childlike (completely grown up) that he is fully in charge of his existence without resorting to victimhood or lack of responsibility. The task of the Ubermensch is a tough one, and few have what it takes. For those who do, though, there’s no higher calling.

Cyndi Lauper, “Money Changes Everything”

Came out about the same time as the previous song, and Lauper was also a bit of a punk and quite probably a riot grrrl precursor. She was a feminist icon back when feminist was not a dirty word.

This is from a concert in Houston in 1984 or 1985. Notice the orgiastic, uninhibited, Dionysian act of total abandonment on the part of the lead singer. This is the true spirit of rock and roll, but you don’t see it a whole lot. It was there from the very start with Elvis and Chuck Berry and especially Little Richard. We lost the thread there for a while but picked it back up again with the Stooges, Iggy Pop, Wayne County and the Electric Chairs, the New York Dolls, Johnny Thunders and the Heartbreakers and of course with punk rock.

Rock is about cutting it all loose, letting it all hang out, complete abandonment of the senses to pure nature. There’s no place in rock and roll but sanctimonious twits or Neo-Puritans.

I have a lot of young readers on here. If you want to know one truth that will follow you everywhere all through life it is this: money changes everything. You can sit back and plug that sentence into so many questions you have about the world and it explains so many things. I can’t even go into it now. Suffice to say that at least here in the US, yep, money changes everything.

This makes a lot more sense than saying that money is good (capitalism) or maybe not so good (anti-capitalism). More than that, it is simply a “change agent” that when applied to various situations, explains so much of modern human life. Look around you next time you go out into the world and when you see things that don’t make so much sense, just think, “Money changes everything,” and see how many green lights you get. I bet you can drive all the way home without stopping.

Money is a “change agent,” and a very unusual and powerful one at that. It is also something that is almost never discussed on polite day to day society, which seems to be an odd taboo considering that America is all about money.

I dated a Middle Eastern Christian woman for a while, an Assyrian Christian from Iran. She didn’t like Muslims but she hated Israel too. And she wasn’t real keen about Jews either. We were talking about the US and I said this is a Christian country and she laughed at me and shook her head. “I’m a Christian. I know a Christian country when I see one. America is not a Christian country. America is a Jewish country.

The only thing that matters in this country is money. I’ve written many posts where I have said that America is indeed a Jewish country and I think this is part of the reason I am saying this. We are not Jewish in religion. Instead, we are Jewish in spirit. Almost all of the Christians in the US are not Christian in spirit. Instead, they are Jewish in spirit. Which is possibly why American Christianity has been so pro-Jewish and pro-Israel for so long. If the real religion of America is money, then what is the religion of the Jews?

“Money is the jealous God of Israel. The religion of the Jews is the religion of hucksterism.”

– Karl Marx, “On the Jewish Question” 1845.

Bingo! Like I keep saying, America is a Jewish country, full of 330 million Jews. I’m not saying that is either a good or bad thing, that depends on your opinion. I am simply stating it as fact, do with it what you will.

She said, “I’m sorry, baby, I’m leaving you tonight.
I found someone new, he’s waitin’ in the car outside.”
“Ah honey, how could you do it?
We swore each other everlasting love.”
She said, “Well yeah, I know, but when we did
There was one thing we weren’t really thinking of and that’s money.”

Money changes everything
I said “Money, money changes everything.
We think we know what we’re doin’.
That don’t mean a thing.
It’s all in the past now.
Money changes everything.”

They shake your hand and they smile
And they buy you a drink
They say, “We’ll be your friends.
We’ll stick with you till the end.”
Ah, but everybody’s only looking out for themselves
And you say, “Well, who can you trust?”
I’ll tell you, “It’s just nobody else’s money.”

Money changes everything
I said, “Money, money changes everything.
Ya think ya know what ya doin’.
We don’t hold the strings.
It’s all in the past now.
Money changes everything.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.”

Money, Money changes everything
I said, “Money, money changes everything.
We think we know what we’re doing.
We don’t know a thing.
It’s all in the past now.
Money changes everything.
Hey, yeah, yeah”

Money changes everything
Money changes everything now
Money changes everything
Money changes everything
Money changes everything
Money

Angel and the Reruns, “Buffy Come Back to Me”

A truly great song! I was just recently made aware of this song. This band was formed by Hilary Carlip, supposedly when she and the other band members were in San Fransisco County jail for unknown reasons. She formed the “all-girl, all-ex-con” band and they played as a novelty act at various punk clubs in California in the early 80’s. She cut her hair in a typical punk rock style. I find now that a single was released in 1982 on Carlip Productions. Side one was Buffy Come Back to Me” and side two was Beaver Cleaver Fever, a positively vicious song attacking the Leave It to Beaver show. They also appeared on the songtrack of the movie Bachelor Party with the song, “Why Do Good Girls Like Bad Boys?”

The reference on the song is to the TV show Family Affair that aired in the 1960’s. I have never heard of it. A 15 year old actress playing Buffy on the show sadly OD’d on drugs and died.

Carlip has been a singer, an actress, a standup comic, a songwriter, and all sorts of things. She has appeared on TV and in movies many times. She is associated with the Riot Grrrl punk feminism movement, which I’m not even sure if I’m opposed to! They’re quite a bit different from the monsters that are out nowadays.

Motorhead, “Sympathy for the Devil”

Fantastic Motorhead cover of the Stones, “Sympathy for the Devil.” Great music. Lemmy always denied that they played heavy metal. Asked what they played, he said, “Rock and roll.” That’s pretty much it right there. They were very popular with the punks although the punks did not like most heavy metal. This is possibly because they played very fast, and punk rock is fast as Hell. Some consider Motorhead to be speed metal, but the line between speed metal and punk rock is a thin one indeed.

This is their final lineup with Lemmy on vocals and bass, Phil Campbell on guitar and Mickey Dee on drums. Dee was drummer for the last 11 years of the band. Phil played for the last 21 years. Lemmy, Philthy Phil Taylor on drums, and Fast Eddie Clarke on guitar were the original lineup. They are all now dead. Live fast, die a bit younger than expected.

Motorhead was a “power trio.” They’re not particularly common as far as bands go because the lead singer has to play either guitar or bass, usually the latter, while he sings. That’s not very easy. Cream was the original power trio.