The Biggest NATO Lie of Them All – Ukraine is a Democracy and the War Is a Fight for the Democratic World

Ukraine is a democracy. The war is a fight for democracy and the democratic world. Lie. Ukraine is not a democracy at all. In fact, Russia is far more democratic than Ukraine. Ukraine is a “death squad democracy” of the kind that the US, Israel, and now NATO run in Latin America where anyone in the left opposition can be arrested, beaten, tortured, jailed, or murdered at any time. Somehow the US calls this “democracy.”

As soon as the coup took place in 2014, Ukraine started attacking members of the former government. The newly elected president, mostly neutral but who had tilted towards Russia because they offered a better deal, barely escaped with his life as the putschists were trying to kill him.

The coup itself involved NATO snipers from Georgia and Lithuania. They were trained at a NATO base in Poland. They were smuggled into Ukraine as musicians and they took up residence in a high rise. They had guns in their music cases. When the coup was going on, snipers from this building fired on the police and protestors alike, killing both sides. The killings were all blamed on the police, although they killed no one.

The NATO provocation was then used to overthrow the government. The “musicians” were then hustled out of the country on planes. I have seen videos of them leaving. Some were women. They all had their instrument cases. Later videos of these snipers appeared in Georgia. The snipers related the whole plot and said they were put up to it by NATO. They said they were sorry for what they had done because they did not realize what they were doing. All of these videos were ignored by the West, and the line about cops shooting protestors is still the narrative.

A phone call between the German and Estonian governments was intercepted in which the German man said that the snipers had been from NATO. It was played on the news but news in NATO countries refused to play it. The Ukrainian government did an investigation. A female surgeon said that the bullets had all come from a certain type of gun that the Ukrainian police did not have. The investigation revealed that all of the bullets came from guns that the Ukrainian police did not have. Then the investigation ended.

This is typical NATO tactic. Everywhere you find NATO, you find mysterious snipers shooting at both sides. They showed up in Venezuela, Egypt, Thailand, Ukraine, Syria, and Iraq. In the case of Egypt, Thailand, and Ukraine, the snipers were NATO. In Syria, the snipers were Saudis but the operation was run by NATO. In Venezuela, the snipers were rightwing fascists, however, the coup was done in coordination with the US, so the snipers were partly being run by the US.

In Iraq, the snipers were US Marines firing from the embassy and rooftops. Trump threatened the president with riots if he did not do what Trump ordered. He refused and soon Iraq was convulsed in riots started by the CIA. The riots started killing lots of people. Many cops were targeted and killed.

The riots had anti-Iranian overtones because they were partly run by the CIA. Then Trump said if you don’t do what I say, I will tell the snipers to start shooting at people in the crowds. The president refused. Soon US Marine snipers started shooting cops and protestors alike. The president still would not bend. Trump then said he would have the president killed, however, this never took place.

You can see here that America is a gangster state and the president of the US is simply the head gangster. It’s not so much a state and something akin to a Mafia or Organized Crime Gang. It’s a lawless state that obeys no rules and commits all manner of crimes due to a sense of impunity. It spits on international law because it is said that it does not apply to the US, as the US is above it.

As soon as the coup took place, killings began. Fascist Nazi gangs started attacking gays, feminists, transsexuals, labor union leaders and members, members of leftwing parties and organizations, communists, socialists, and anti-fascists. Dozens of members of a labor union were chained to a heater by Nazis in Kiev. They then set the building on fire.

Half the members of Parliament were members of the party of Russian speakers, the Party of Regions. Parliamentarians from this party began to be murdered by Nazis. Most of the rest of the members from this party resigned. Then party leaders began to be murdered. Soon the party was in a shambles. Nazis attacked the home of the leader of the party and tried to burn it down but they burned down his neighbor’s house instead. He fled to Russia.

Dozens of communists were chased into a labor union building in Odessa. Once inside, Nazis, including teenage girl Nazis, starting throwing Molotov cocktails inside. The building was then invaded. A secretary was raped and strangled with piano wire. Many communists were murdered with guns. The whole place was then set on fire. About 40 people were burned alive to the cheers of the Nazis outside.

All of Ukraine erupted in a roar over these murders and it was cheered from one end of the country to another. They made jokes about fried Colorado beetles, Colorado beetle being a name for Russians. Most of the Ukrainians in the country cheered wildly while these people were burned alive. A fake story was put out by NATO media that the Communists had set themselves on fire, and this is now the reigning narrative.

You can see by how most Ukrainians cheered when Russians were burned alive how widespread Nazism had become in Ukraine. The president at this time was another lousy crooked Jew named Yatsenuk. He favored saving, “Slava Ukraini!” a Nazi slogan of Ukrainian nationalists. He gave the Heil Hitler salute while he did this. As you can see, even Ukrainian Jews have become Nazis of a sort.

Before the invasion, there were no pro-Russian politicians left in the Ukraine. They had all fled the country. Those who had not fled or went into hiding had been murdered. As soon as Zelensky came into power, the first thing he did was ban all of the opposition media. His Cabinet was full of Nazis. There were also many Nazis in Parliament. Ukrainian media is full of overt Nazis.

As soon as the invasion started, a crackdown began on the newly reformed Party of Regions. Members were kidnapped and tortured to death by Nazis in Kharkiv. Their mangled faces were then put on social media.

There were roundups of socialists, leftwingers, and anti-fascists all over the country. Many were not even pro-Russia. All antifascists in Ukraine have now fled for Russia, supposedly a “fascist” country! They were welcomed there.

Many of the people above were badly beaten or tortured. Many were disappeared. We still do not know where many of them are. Many may have been killed.

From 2014-2022, the SBU was very active in Kharkiv. They rounded up many members of the opposition, jailing, beating, and torturing them. 300 people were tortured to death over the years in a torture center run by the SBU.

After the war went on for a while, Zelensky, who had already banned all opposition media, now banned all opposition parties. Mere statements in favor of Russia can get you arrested or worst. There’s no free speech in Ukraine at all. The leader of the opposition party, now outlawed, was arrested and beaten.

Described as pro-Russian, he was in fact anything but because even in the opposition, all of the pro-Russian people had left. Those that remained were not pro-Russian at all. Instead they may have wanted a peace settlement to the conflict in the East. Zelensky now runs a Nazi “death squad democracy” in Ukraine that has now morphed into a complete one party dictatorship with all opposition parties and media banned.

Ukraine War Lies June 27, 2022 Edition

Russia is blocking grain ships from leaving Odessa. In this way they are trying to starve a lot of the world to get what they want. Lie. The truth is that Ukraine has mined the harbor and hence no ships are going in or out. Russia has repeatedly stated that if Ukraine clears the mines, Russia will create a corridor from which to let the grain ships go through. NATO liars are saying that they need to form a navy blockade to get the ships out of the harbor. That’s fake. There’s no need for a naval blockade as Russia is not blocking any ships. More fake BS.

Russia has defaulted on its debt. Lie. More fakery. Apparently the sanctions opposed by the NATO faggots have prevented Russia from paying their debts. Russia has been trying to pay their debts, but the American snakes are refusing to accept Russia’s money. So if you are trying to pay your debts but your creditor won’t accept your cash, you can be forced into a “technical” default. That seems crooked and wrong but everything satanic NATO does is crooked and wrong.

Russian artillery hit a line for water in Lisichansk. Unknown. We are still looking into this one. The lie is that Russia is deliberately targeting civilians anywhere in the Donbass. In the Donbass, 85-90% of the population are Russian-speakers who hate Ukraine and love Russia. Why on Earth would Russia target their own civilian supporters? That makes no sense at all.

In Kremenchug, a Ukrainian mall was attacked by a Russian missile and caught fire. Lie. The mall had been closed since March, so obviously no legitimate shoppers were inside. And the parking lot was empty. Tell me how a shopping center with 1,000 people inside has no cars in the parking lot? We are still trying to figure out exactly what happened here. Everyone standing around afterwards is either a soldier or a fit, able-bodied young man. Not a woman in sight. I guess women don’t go shopping in Ukraine. How is that even possible?

We now know what happened. Russia hit a shop behind the mall where military vehicles were repaired. The shop was only 300 feet away from the mall. The explosion caused a fire to occur at the mall. However, there is no way that mall got hit by a missile. The windows were still intact and a look inside showed items still on shelves. All windows would have been blown out and all of those items destroyed if a missile hit the mall. So it looks like an accident that this mall caught fire.

It also looks quite unlikely that 13 people died and 20 more were wounded. Some Ukrainian commenters are acting like Ukrainian troops were being housed in the mall. We still don’t know if that is true or not. But Russia did not deliberately strike some mall full of civilians.

As you can see, the shopping center was permanently closed in March. There’s no way it could have been full of 1,000 shoppers!

On Snake Island, Ukrainian defenders said, “Russian ships, fuck you!” when told to surrender. All 13 of them were then killed. Lie. This fake attack has been denounced forever. There were 90 defenders on Snake Island, and all surrendered without firing a shot. There was no attack, or response to an attack, or dead soldiers. It was all a big fake. Apparently NATO dogs never got the message, and NATO networks continue to insist that the fake attack occurred. NATO citizens have to be the dumbest people on the planet. A Bushman is smarter than your average Canadian tard.

Russia attacked a train station at Kramatorsk, killing 40 people. flag. Lie. This was a very bad false flag conducted by the Ukrainians. First they told everyone to get on trains to leave the city, then they shot a missile at the crowd, killing up to 40 people! Ukraine hates the people of that city, as probably 85-90% of them support Russia and hate Ukraine. Why would Russia kill their own supporters? The Tochka-U missile used is not used by Russia. It was discontinued a couple of years ago and all stocks were destroyed. However, Ukraine has many systems.

Analysis of the trajectory of the missile based on its direction, flight path, and direction of bomblets shows that the missile came from Ukrainian occupied territory. The Russian Army even pointed to the exact force who fired the missile. Everyone in the area said the missile came from the southwest. Everything to the southwest is Ukrainian territory. Of course NATO media continues to lie about this fake to their tard listeners.

Russia fired artillery at Bucha, killing scores of civilians with flechettes embedded in shells. Lie. Problem: Everyone was killed right in Bucha. Russia was occupying Bucha. Russia didn’t shoot at their own city. Any artillery deaths in Bucha were killed by Ukraine. Also only Ukraine uses shells with flechettes.

Bodies in Bucha showed signs of torture. This means Russia tortured people to death. Lie. I would like to see an unbiased witness report on that. Most people were Terror Defense people killed resisting Russia or they were civilians killed by Ukrainian artillery.

In addition, many people were murdered by the SBU. Based on footage and examination of the bodies, these have been proven to be people who cooperated with the Russians, who Ukraine refers to as collaborators. I have not seen evidence that even one civilian was murdered by Russian troops in Bucha. It’s all fake. Were some of these collaborators killed by Ukraine tortured? We have no idea.

Just to show you evil that wicked little Jew Zelensky is, after the Bucha massacre when many “collaborators with Russia” were murdered by the SBU and Azov Battalion, this diabolical little snake went on TV and said, referring to Bucha, “We told you not to collaborate with the Russians. This is what happens when you collaborate. This same dog was also repeating the lies that all of those killed, who all showed signs of cooperating with the Russians, were murdered by Russia!

Why would Russia kill only the very people who helped them? However, this little monster knows exactly what happened – that the SBU and Azov went in there and murdered a lot of people for “collaborating.” So he’s lying through his teeth. First he is saying Russia did it, and then he saying we did it, but they were all collaborators and this is what happens if you collaborate.

Zelensky also repeatedly gives off Nazi signals. True. On Victory Day, the celebration of Russia’s victory over German in WW2, Zelensky, who is Jewish, tweeted a photo of a Ukrainian soldier wearing a Wolfsangel patch used by the Nazi Army. This little snake knew exactly what he was doing. On the day when Russia celebrates their victory over the Nazis, this creepy little Jew tweets a photo of a Ukrainian soldier wearing a Nazi patch! Just to say, “Screw you.”

Apparently Germans never stopped being Nazis or perhaps they are just getting back in the habit again. True. On June 22, which is the anniversary of the Nazis’ launch of the invasion of the USSR called Operation Barbarossa, Germany stated that it was delivering some important weapons to Ukraine. Ukraine also highlighted the date and crowed about the new weapons systems. But the Germans and Ukrainians did this to taunt Russia and celebrate Operation Barbarossa, which both countries still apparently support.

Russia has serious problems with manpower, morale, supplies, leadership, and equipment. Lie. I’ve been studying all of these forever and I’ve never seen any evidence of any of this.

Russia has lost 15-35,000 men in this war. Lie. This is a straight up lie by the NATO dogs. In fact, Russia has lost 3,250 men, or 30-35/day. The separatist armies between them lost 5,250 men and ~15,000 wounded. All together, Russia and its allies have lost 8-9,000 men and 25,000 wounded. This amounts to less than 5% of the force they invaded with.

Russian troops loot washing machines. Lie. The photo of soldiers stealing a washing machine shows a group of Ukrainian soldiers stealing the machine. There’s no evidence of Russian soldiers looting household equipment. However, I am aware of one case where Russians stole some food from a store. However, the store had already been almost completely looted by the townspeople. Most of the looting is being done by Ukrainian civilians. There has also been quite a bit of looting by the Ukrainian Army. Why this is so is not known. Very little is being done by the Russians. The stories of mass Russian looting are just NATO lies.

A journalist was executed by Russian troops. Lie. Sadly, Reporters without Borders concluded this “based on an investigation.” Even Ukrainian reports indicated that he was killed by shrapnel from shelling, apparently Russian shelling. He was in a forest when they were hit by shelling.

Ukraine prosecutes its troops for war crimes. Lie. Many crimes have been discussed during this war and during the eight year war against Russian speakers in Donbass. Only one soldier was arrested and tried for any of these crimes and that was a few years ago. None of the people involved in the documented atrocities committed against captive Russian troops by Ukrainian soldiers have been prosecuted.

Russia bombed an apartment complex in Kiev just to kill a bunch of civilians. Lie. Well, if they did that, they sure wasted a $90 million missile for no reason. Truth is there was a factory that made military vehicles right next to this high rise. Ukrainian forces shot a surface to air missile at the Russian cruise missile. It’s not known what occurred, whether the Ukrainian missile hit the building or whether it hit the Russian missile and made it crash into the building, but Ukraine is responsible for the attack.

Putin has a very serious illness and will be dead within two years. Lie. This is just not so. No evidence has been provided for this, and there is much evidence against it.

Putin has stolen every election he won in Russia. Lie. Nope. Apparently in every election, Putin has received by far the largest number of votes. Not to say that Russian elections are completely clean. But look at Putin’s approval numbers. They closely mirror his margins elections.

There is no opposition in Russia, and all of the opposition is under attack. Lie. This is not so. First of all, Putin only won 70% in the last election. That means 30% of Russians voted against him or voted for the opposition. The Communist Party is the largest opposition party, with 18% of the vote. Zhirinovsky’s ultranationalist party got 7%. The pro-Western opposition, who ran 13 families between them, got a total of 5%. This is the “opposition” that the West crows about. Obviously they are extremely unpopular and just about everyone hates them. Bottom line they have no support at all.

Putin imprisons or murders all of the opposition in his country. Lie. Before the war, even the pro-West opposition was on state TV a few times a week on talk shows. They put them on all the time to let them say their ideas while the moderators took them on. So Russians are exposed to the opposition all the time. They just hate them, that’s all. Very few if any of the opposition have been murdered on Putin’s orders. I can think of maybe one or two opposition murders that might have been ordered by Putin.

Putin murders any journalist who writes against him. Lie. I used to read a website by some former CIA dog who was hysterically anti-Russian. He had quotes from Russian opposition intellectuals every single day. The quotes were from opposition TV, radio, newspapers, and journals. There didn’t seem to be a shortage of any of these. Two opposition radio and TV stations were shut down at the start of the war, to the cheers of most Russians.

They just moved to Europe and now post on the Internet from there. It’s true that there have been a lot of journalists murdered under Putin, but many more were murdered under Yeltsin. Murders went down when Putin came in. Most of the murders with the exception of possibly when were caused by common criminals, were related to organized crime, or seemed to have been authored by local authorities. I saw only one that may have had Putin’s hand in it. There have also been a few beatings of journalists that could have been traced back to Putin.

The pro-West Opposition is not allowed to rally in Russia. Lie. This is just false. They let them rally all the time. It’s just that nobody goes to their stupid rallies because everyone hates them so much. However, these idiots get a permit for a rally and then they deliberately hold it a few miles away from where it was permitted simply as a provocation. They also go out into traffic and deliberately hold up traffic as a provocation to force cops to arrest them. Then they fight the cops like crazy when they come to arrest them. The lying Western media then reports this as “Russia attacked an opposition rally.”

Putin is a dictator. Lie. How is he a dictator if he only got 70% of the vote and the opposition got 30% last time. He can he be if he allows opposition media to say whatever they want? How can he  be when the pro-West opposition ran 13 candidates against him. How can he be when he has received the most votes in every election? And finally, since when do dictators routinely have 80-85% support. The Russian people do not consider Putin to be a dictator by their standards and they say that they do not want a dictator. To them a dictator means Stalin. Putin’s not Stalin.

Russians are not exposed to the Russian opposition. Lie. As I noted, they won 30% of the vote last time. Since when does the opposition get 30% of the vote in a dictatorship? All of this opposition has radio and TV stations, newspapers, magazines, etc. that they publish freely on a regular basis. In addition, Russians can go anywhere they want on the Internet assuming they can read other European languages. Even if they can’t read other languages, there is a large Russian language pro-Western opposition press on the Net accessible to any Russian who wants to read it.

Russians are banned from Twitter. Lie. Well, that’s interesting because I read Russians on Twitter every single day! Incidentally, Russians on Twitter read Western media all the time as they are always commenting on it. It’s just that they don’t believe it, that’s all.

Putin is the richest man in the world. Lie. Truth is no one knows how much he is worth. He gets a modest salary and has some modest possessions. Allegations about his worth claim that almost all of it is hidden. However, they have not presented any evidence that this is so.

The separatists are controlled by Russia. Lie. They never have been from the very start, in fact, Russia opposed them for the longest time. Even now they don’t support them much and the separatist armies are poorly armed and equipped. Russia simply doesn’t give them much stuff. Russia’s attitude is that they are separate countries and they can do what they want.

Russia is stealing grain and iron from Ukraine. Lie. Russia conquered those areas fair and square and the vast majority of people there support Russia and wish to separate from Ukraine. This is self-determination. People ought to be allowed to split off from one country and go join another. Anyway, Ukraine has been arresting, beating, torturing, and murdering Russian speakers in those areas since they day they got in in 2014. They have a right to secede based on that right there.

Russia is paying the farmers for the grain it buys from them. It is also paying all of the other farmers for whatever it buys from them. A lot of farmers are taking their stuff to Russia to sell it over there. Nobody’s ripping off anyone and it’s not Ukraine’s land anymore. They lost moral authority to rule when they started massacring Russians. Bye bye!

Russia sentenced two foreign fighters to death. Lie. These fighters were captured by the separatists. The Donestk separatists have the death penalty and these men were convicted in a court of law. The Lugansk separatists do not have the death penalty. Russia does not have a death penalty.

Russia does not like that the Donetsk people have sentenced these men to death, but there is nothing they do because Donetsk is a separate country and Russia can’t tell them what to do. After the war is over, Donetsk plans to get rid of the death penalty. If they join Russia as they plan to, they will have to get rid of the death penalty. I do not agree with this penalty for those men and I do not agree with Russia that any of these men are mercenaries. For one thing, they are all contract soldiers with the Ukrainian army.

Russian troops raped large numbers of Russian women, girls, and even boys. The husbands were forced to watch and then murdered afterwards. Lie. Apparently all of these stories are made up. The Russian Army is about as likely to rape civilians as the US Army is. Ukraine itself has admitted that there is no evidence for any of these rapes, especially the rapes of children. A Ukrainian official, a woman, has been fired by Ukraine, apparently for making up all of these rape stories which even Ukraine admits are lies. She just bought an $8 million mansion in Switzerland, so I guess lying pays.

Most Russian soldiers are draftees. Lie. Actually, all of the Russian soldiers are contract soldiers who signed up on their own as volunteers. A few conscripts were sent at the start of the war, but when this was publicized, they were immediately pulled out.

Many of most Russian soldiers are reserves as Russia has had severe losses in volunteers. Lie. In fact, Russia has 1.4 million reserves in their army. They are only using 1/3 of their standing army. They have not used any reserves yet.

There is an ongoing cholera epidemic in Mariupol. Lie. This is not so. Not a single case has been reported.

Russia forces Mariupol residents to dig graves in order to get food and water. Lie. Many people work cleaning stuff up, digging graves, or whatnot. They are all paid regular wages. As paid work is hard to come by, many people take these jobs.

Russia looted paintings and artifacts from a museum in Mariupol. Lie. The head of the hospital moved out as much of the painting and artifacts to Russia for safekeeping that she could. However, it had already been used as a base by Ukrainians, so much material was damaged.

If you say Russia is waging a war in Ukraine, you can go to jail or prison. Lie. I read Russian websites every day, and they use the noun war to refer to this conflict all the time. No one has gone to jail yet.

People are being sentenced to long jail terms for reporting on the war or participating in antiwar demonstrations. Lie. A few people have been arrested for “spreading lies about the Russian army” by repeating some of the lies above. A few people have been prosecuted for demonstrating but quite a few have been arrested. Sentences have been light, such as 20 days community service. A reporter who ran onto state TV with a sign saying “Stop the War” received a $300 fine. Obviously this people are only getting very light sentences.

Most Russians agree with arresting people who participate in antiwar demonstrations. Russians aren’t like us. They don’t like our version of democracy. They are perfectly happy to live in a fairly authoritarian state. The leader of this authoritarian state, Putin, has an 83% approval rating. When was the last time an American president had a rating that high? Putin’s is a benevolent authoritarian regime.

There are mass graves in Mariupol. Lie. A reporter went to one of these mass graves and it was just a regular graveyard. Another photo of bodies strewn for burial was of dead Ukrainian soldiers. A number of regular graveyards have been created for the casualties, which are in the thousands.

25,000 civilians were killed in Mariupol. Lie. Actually, the number is 5,000. Residents blame Ukraine for most if not all of the killings, many of which were deliberate assassinations of civilians just walking down the street or standing around.

Russia destroyed Mariupol. Lie. Residents blame Ukraine for 85% of the damage. Russia tried very hard to avoid civilian casualties because those are their civilian supporters. Much of the fighting was done by the Donetsk separatists. The Mariupol civilians are literally their own civilian base. Why would they try to kill them. Russia deliberately did not use air power or artillery in the street fighting because you can too easily hit your own men. Furthermore, 99% of Mariupol residents are pro-Russia even after a huge battle in which 5,000 civilians died. That says something right there.

A medic at Mariupol is a heroine. Lie. Truth is that she is a full blown Nazi, all the way, tattoos and everything. These are their heroines. Nazis!

Russia is attacking its own people in the occupied areas of Donetsk. Lie. Those are their own people. Why would they shoot at their own people. However, Ukraine has engaged in terror bombing of these towns and cities for eight years now. Lately it has picked up and is worse than ever. They don’t even aim. They just shoot at the cities. There are no military targets in these cities. The NATO MSM has refused to report it except to say that Russians are shooting at themselves and that Ukrainians are shooting at military targets. One time they did shoot at a base. These terror bombardments are meant simply to kill and wound as many civilians as possible. The reasoning is simple. Ukraine hates those Russian speakers in Donetsk and considers them all traitors and terrorists. So they have no qualms about firing on them and trying to kill and wound as many as possible. Even in the pro-Ukraine areas, when Russia took over a city, Ukraine considered that everyone who stayed and did not flee was a traitor and a collaborator. Hence they bombarded these cities mercilessly and killed and wounded hundreds of civilians.

A mayor, her husband, and her two children were murdered by Russians in a town northwest of Kiev. Lie. Their bodies were found in a shallow grave. Indeed, it is true that their bodies were found in a grave. However, the Russians had left that town four days before. The bodies in the grave had been there no more than one day.

Someone arrested the mayor and her family on March 23, probably the SBU. Twelve days later, her family turned up in this shallow grave. They were probably killed by Ukraine as collaborators because the mayor and her family helped arrange the distribution of humanitarian aid in the town. Why on Earth would Russia murder the mayor’s family who cooperated to help deliver humanitarian aid? It makes no sense at all.

The Kremenchuk Shopping Mall Attack

Of course I was shocked when I read about Russian missiles hitting a shopping mall where 1,000 people were shopping. There were two dead and 20 wounded at last count. Why in God’s name would Russia attack a shopping mall? They simply do not attack civilian structures at all, ever. It’s not what they do. They exclusively attack military targets and their missiles are very accurate. It makes no sense to waste a missile at $90 million on a damned shopping mall! Why?

Well, I did some digging. Turns out there were no 1,000 people in the mall. There were probably zero people in the mall. Why? Because that mall has been shut down for a very long time, that’s why! Notice the parking lot. Zero cars in the parking lot. Zero! Zero cars in a shopping mall full 1,000 shoppers! I guess they all took an Uber to the mall? Ever seen a shopping mall with 1,000 people in it and no cars in the parking lot? No such thing, huh?

The parking lot of the shopping mall is full of men, half of them soldiers. The men don’t look like shoppers. They look like officials. So where are all the female shoppers? Nowhere to be seen.

OK, so why would Russia waste $90 million to blow up a shopping center that has been closed forever? No reason, right?

As you can see, the shopping center was permanently closed in March. There’s no way it could have been full of 1,000 shoppers!

If the mall was closed, how could 1,000 people be inside? How did anyone die? Where were the people who died? In the mall? They could not have been.

It has now come out that three ammunition depots next to the mall were hit in addition to a factory that fixed military vehicles only 90 yards away. The explosion at the depot set off a secondary explosion at the mall, setting it on fire. There’s no way a missile hit that mall. The mall still has intact windows. None would have been left. And videos from inside the mall show shelves lined with wine bottles. All of those would have been smashed. The entire mall would have been flattened, not set on fire. That said, I think they should have attacked it at night as people were indeed walking around the area in daytime.

The reports of 20 and many more wounded are interesting. The mall was obviously empty of civilians. It had been closed to shoppers since March. The parking lot was empty. There are no female shoppers in the photos and in fact the only photos immediately afterwards show many soldiers and young men of military age. No one in the photo looked like a “shopper.” However,  a Ukrainian poster with regime connections obliquely stated that the mall had soldiers in it. If indeed there were casualties at the mall, they were all military and military-aged men.

Anatomy of a Rightwing Lie: The Failure of Land Reform in Mexico

A “Centrist Democrat” just told me that land reform failed in Mexico after the Revolution. I was shocked because no land reform in history or at least modern history has ever failed. So I had to go look it up. Well, like everything right-wingers say, it was basically a lie. Surprise surprise! I know, you’re shocked, huh?

Turns out that land reform failed in the first 15 years after the Revolution because it was never even implemented! In short, there simply was no land reform. Only 1% of the land was distributed. All of the presidents afterwards were conservatives who sided with large landowners and hence opposed the reforms. Most of them were large landowners themselves. Of course Uncle Satan, I mean Uncle Sam, opposed all attempts at land reform in Mexico, as the US has always sided with the rich and against ordinary workers and presidents. Both Democratic and Republican Presidents follow this model.

After Cardenas came in, a great deal of land was distributed and the ejido system was set up. It’s worked great ever since. There were some efforts later on by right-wingers to unravel the ejido system, but they have always been reversed. Yet when I Googled the question, I came up with a list of sites talking about the lie of “the failed land reform in Mexico.” And there were a slew of recent articles from the US press about how the present ejido system was a complete failure and had to be dismantled.

Capitalists will always oppose land reforms everywhere and at all times because the only thing the capitalists care about is concentrating as much land in their hands as possible. I did some research on that too and it was all just wishful thinking. Turns out the ejido system is working great. There’s plenty of food in Mexico.

How do you know a capitalist is lying? His lips are moving!

Why would a land reform fail in the first place? Because a system of haciendas where 1% of the population owns all the arable land and 99% of the rural population is left to barely scratch out a living as landless peasants? Because peasants are literally too dumb to grow food.

This is the argument of White Nationalists to the land reforms in Zimbabwe: “Niggers are too dumb to grow food!” I have been to their websites and argued with them over this, and everyone there told me flat out that “niggers are too dumb to grow food!” Well, that’s pretty stupid. How did these Blacks survive in Africa for the last 12,000 years since they had agriculture if they’re too stupid to grow food? Obviously they know how to grow food otherwise they wouldn’t have been doing it for millennia. And by the way agriculture appeared first in Africa before anywhere else in the world.

This was echoed by the press all across the imperialist world, especially in the US and UK. So the message of the US and UK imperialist press (which is all of it) was: “Niggers are too dumb to grow food!” So we see that the West can turn viciously racist on a dime if the imperatives of its capitalists compel it to. All of this antiracist woke stuff is just nonsense and lies. Capitalists could give a toss about race.

The reforms had failed forever because the UK was protecting 2,000 British farmers who owned 60% of the land and almost all of the good land. This is why brutal sanctions were put on Zimbabwe – to protect those British latinfundistas.

Incidentally, going back to the first paragraph, have you noticed how often “Centrists” and “moderates” parrot the most disgusting right-wing lies? What’s so moderate about that? Most Centrists are just right-wingers, perhaps a bit more compassionate but right-wingers nonetheless. And they’re all completely brainwashed by the Western media too. They literally believe every word the government says about domestic and foreign policy when a Democrat is in. When a Republican is in, they support an imperialist foreign policy again, but they oppose the domestic agenda. They’re pretty much just liberal right-wingers.

What is a Centrist anyway? It’s an invertebrate. Here in the US, it’s literally someone who believes the Republicans are right half the time and the Democrats are right the other half of the time. Given how far apart the parties are on domestic policy, that’s a completely incoherent politics. And what’s so moderate about someone who says Republicans are right half the time. Hell, Republicans are right 0% of the time. If they weren’t they wouldn’t be Republicans.

A Bit on the Sigma Male Type or the “Aloof Alpha”

The difference between Alphas and Sigmas to to me is that Alphas are acutely aware of status and hierarchy and a lot of them are dicks. After all the basic male agenda is

  1. Kill, eliminate, defeat, or sideline all the other men.
  2. Fuck all the women*.

*A sexually mature female is basically regarded as a woman in this primitive construct.

That’s the male drive on Earth, and that’s what it is for many higher mammals too. Alphas are dicks! If they see you as a male threat, they will often insult you right to your face to establish dominance over you and eliminate you as a threat. They might do it to men who are not a threat, too. They’re dicks to other men.

In a bar, an Alpha might be looking around at the other men. If he talks to another man, he quickly sizes him up as far as where he is on the hierarchy scale – if he is below, on the level with or above the Alpha. He might be friendly to the lower guy because he’s not a threat. Anyway, his response to those other men is going to be based on wherever they are on that hierarchy scale.

Now the Sigma, he simply doesn’t care. I used to say that when I am in a bar or a club, there are this many people in the club:

  1. All of the attractive women. The unattractive ones are not really in the room.
  2. Me! None of the other men even exist! There could be 20-30 guys in that room, but they’re not even there to me at all. They may as well be invisible. Now, they can talk to me, no problem. But I don’t really size them up as above, on the level, or below me. They’re still sort of not even in the room!

If someone asked me whether I was threatened by those other hot guys in the club, I would look around the room and say, “Competition? What competition? I don’t see any competition.” Then I would laugh. It’s not that I have measured myself and bested all of them, and now I look down on them. It’s more that they are not even there are at all to me!

Even if some guy seems like he is besting me, I will write it off and still say he’s not competition. So I don’t bother with social heirarchies and all of that.

I think I’m hot shit and I don’t know or care if it’s true or not. I think this way because it feels good to feel this way. The Sigma is an egotistical loner. In a way he’s above everyone else, but in another way, he’s not even in the same room or maybe on the same planet with them.

I’ve found that when you get yourself out of the competing with other guys realm, it is so freeing. Competition? What competition? I don’t even know if that’s true. It’s probably not even true. But it’s such a pleasant lie that I’m going to go ahead and think it anyway.

The Sigma has literally dropped out of the game altogether because it doesn’t interest him.

Repost: The Sexual Sadist

Older post still getting comments.

In the Delphi Murders case, one of the early suspects who has since been completely cleared was rumored to like to drink and beat women when he had sex with them. Reportedly he beat one woman so badly that she had to go to the hospital. In the Karenna McClerkin disappearance in the same area of Indiana, one of the suspects was a Black firefighter who reportedly likes to beat his women when he had sex with them.

Although this behavior sounds horrific, it’s more common than one thinks. And even more bizarrely, there a quite a few women who actually like to get treated like this. Yep, they actually like guys to beat them up when they have sex with them. I’d like to avoid women like this as much as I can in life, although I once had a girlfriend like this who wanted me to inflict pain on her, like squeezing her nipples very hard. It didn’t do anything for me, and I didn’t understand how this was supposed to be exciting. It just seemed sick to me.

Of course all of us men have a sadist buried inside of us from boyhood days. Not a sexual sadist because boys have no sex drive but an ordinary sadist? Of course. It’s the natural state of the Boy in Nature. Nevertheless, part of the process of honing a steel boy from the brittle iron of primitive mammalian boyhood via the fire of the cruel boot camp of youth where rough and dirty boys are minted into shiny new men is to progressively stomp out this primitive mammalian sadist in the boy. It gets drummed into our heads as we move through boyhood more and more that this sort of thing is not acceptable in a man.

Young men still have a lot of sadism in them. This is part of the reason why they’re such assholes, and I say this as a former ill-behaved young man myself. As a man moves beyond 30, even this casual sort of social sadism, often written out as a male bonding practice via ribbing, teasing, etc., becomes increasingly “uncool.” At my age, late middle age, you’re just not supposed to act like this. Ever. With any man. No matter what. It seen as “uncool” and immature behavior.

Besides, it marks you as a huge dick. Feminists think we are monsters, and a lot of red-pilled men seem to enthusiastically agree with them! This isn’t really true. But on the Manosphere range where the boors and the reprobates play, the guys are not pleasant all day. I find it ugly. I don’t like to fight with guys. I don’t even like to compete with them. I’m a Sigma Male. I don’t even have to compete. I look out and other men and think, “Competition? You call that competition LOL?” and never think of it anymore.

Anyway, the feminists need to know that it’s perfectly acceptable to be a real nice guy even in Man World, the world of masculine heterosexual men. You don’t have to be a dick. Honest.

Back to sexual sadism. Sadly, there are probably lots of guys who like to beat and hurt women during sex, but just because some guy is screwed up like that doesn’t make him a murderer. And most guys like that probably never kill. They can definitely hurt women pretty badly though, that’s for sure.

The problem is it’s a bit hard to beat someone up “just a little bit.” Once you start beating people up, it tends to get out of hand pretty quickly.

Also this type, the sexual sadist, tends to get more excited as he hurts people, and hence he might feel his behavior escalating during the act. It’s not unusual for these people, almost always men, to show up in therapist’s offices as their sexual sadism escalates concerned that the last time they did it they felt themselves escalating and had to stop themselves. They show up afraid they may kill someone next.

This disorder, like many mental disorders (at least to a point), tends to be progressive and worsen with time, at least without treatment.

I’m not sure why that is, but if I’ve learned one thing in life it’s that bad things if left alone to fester tend to worsen, not get better, over time. We like to think that time wounds all heels, but it’s just not so. The untreated bad get worse, not better. Whether this is due to life sucking in general, Pynchonian entropy, the Spenglerian life process itself, or simply God Himself being a Sadean son-of-a-bitch is not known. After all, our bodies themselves are entropic. Over time, they tend to worsen until they fall apart and dissolve themselves.

I recall a woman on the Net had some sick fetish where she wanted men to pretend to murder her during sex. So she had this sort of sex with ~10 different guys, and she said in a lot of the cases, the men got more and more excited as it escalated, and a number of the men said they had to stop themselves or they would have killed her.

These men may not have ever been full-blown sexual sadists. Instead, it is more than the case that sadistic sexual violence in both sexual sadists and normals tends to cause excitement in the male as the violence unfolds. As the excitement goes up, so does the violence in tandem. The end result can be seen in the crime pages of the big papers every morning. You remember that feeling as a boy when you got more excited as your psychological or physical sadism progressed against your victim? I do. If you don’t I wonder what’s wrong with you.

This type of sexual paraphilia is rather dangerous. Most never kill but it’s like handing someone a stick of dynamite, telling them to play with it, and walking out of the room to leave them alone to their fun and games.

A lot of people like to play around the edges with this sort of thing in sex, but they’re not seriously wrapped up in it as in the BD/SM lifestyle, which I regard as completely sick in its full-blown manifestation.

As long as it’s just a game that confines itself to the bedroom, it’s seems to be OK.

But in my opinion, most if not all serious sexual sadists and even sexual masochists are not very healthy people, and I’ve been studying this from a rather appalled distance for some time now. Women who come out of relationships with sexual sadists that have lasted over five years often if not always appear to return to society damaged, and the damage often looks like a battered woman. The relationships themselves, when viewed from a distance, look precisely like the abusive male-female relationships you hear so much about albeit in these cases, the abuse is completely consensual on the part of the woman.

It’s always consensual on the man’s part. He’s the one dishing it out after all. Most people who dish out abuse are quite happy to do so, and guilt is not commonly experienced because the man most likely to feel guilt is the least likely to be abusive, so they factor themselves out before it even starts. As usual, the worst men feel the best and the best men feel the worst, and this applies to women too.

I’m not sure if there’s any safe or healthy way to do this sort of thing. And in case you’re wondering, not that it matters, but this is not exactly my bag. I prefer to like and love the women I’m with, not hate them. I think if you truly hate your girlfriend and enjoy feeling that way, you’ve got a problem. I think if your girlfriend truly loves to be hated, she’s got a problem. You’re both sick and both of you deserve each other.

I’ve studied serial killers forever as a hobby, and this is a major part of their pathology. Also, I work in mental health and a lot of the people I work with are dealing with antisocial thoughts – molesting children, committing homicide, etc. As I specialize in this stuff, I end up having a relationship with this sort of thing whether I want to or not.

Repost: Alt Left: There Is a Strong Link Between Narcissism and Male Homosexuality

Older post still getting comments.

Very good article. I am a straight female who had many many gay male friends. Many were entertaining and fun but the amount of narcissistic abuse I have experienced has been overwhelming. I finally cut them off and reading this makes sense to me. They are all the same person. They are all predictable, pompous, and self indulgent. Now that I see the truth, it is hard to see how much of the world they have manipulated as narcissists would.

I recently received the comment above on this older article about gay men and narcissism. This woman agrees with me. I’m sorry she had such a negative experience with gay men, as I wish gay men all the best.

The article below asks an odd question. Is there something inherently narcissistic about male homosexuality. That is there is some basic about the nature of male homosexuality that Nature simply decides to pair it up with narcissism for whatever reason?

There Is a Strong Link Between Narcissism and Male Homosexuality

Polar Bear: I suspect some gay men are just obsessed with themselves.

The link between male homosexuality and narcissism is as old as Time itself and has been remarked on endlessly. Perhaps many things have basic Characters or Principles, not just the main races or the (only) two genders but also, say, gay men and lesbians. Anyway, there is classic Gay Male Personality that is stable over time. Go back and read the old psychoanalytic literature about male homosexuality. They thought it was a mental disorder at the time, in part because it actually does look like one. Instead of a disorder, I think it is a “syndrome.” A syndrome with some predictable characteristics and a classic personality structure.

But those old articles are amazing because they could have been written yesterday. I remember I talked to my paternal grandmother a few times about gay men. She was born in the 1890’s and died in the 1990’s. How much does someone who grew up during World War 1 know about gay men? But the things she said about them would have been noted by a sociologist studying West Hollywood in 1984. There’s a basic Gay Male Personality, and it’s relatively timeless like so many things about us two-legged monkeys.

No one quite knows why gay men are so narcissistic. Hypothesis: Gay men have cocks and a male body. Gay men are turned on by cock and male bodies. So gay men are in love with themselves, and in a sense, when they fuck, are they literally fucking themselves also?

Curiously, there’s no link between lesbianism and narcissism, possibly because females are just not that narcissistic. The correlate of narcissism in the Female Character is “solipsism.” Until you figure out that females are solipsistic at their core, raw, primal nature, you will always have an incomplete picture of them.

Is HIV Nature’s Punishment for Sodomy?

Well, sort of.

Pantheist: Would you say HIV/AIDS is a prime example of Nature’s punishment? It’s peculiar how sodomy is what drove the AIDS epidemic.

It’s not so much sodomy that is being punished as sodomy between men. Nature is much calmer about sodomy between men and women.

HIV is driven by: People who get fucked in the ass (gay men) are fucking other people in the ass (other gay men), who are then fucking other people in the ass (other gay men), and on and on.

With straight sodomy, it’s: People who don’t get fucked in the ass (straight men) are fucking other people in the ass (women).

The distinction is crucial. You get these diseases by getting fucked in the ass. Then you fuck someone else in the ass. Straight men don’t get fucked in the ass, so they hardly have any sodomy-related diseases to give to women in the first place. The only real risk from straight sodomy is HIV. Nothing else seems to be much of a risk beyond PIV sex.

Eating Shit, Figuratively and Literally

The notion that sodomy itself somehow uniquely spreads all these different diseases is pretty much bullshit. It only spreads blood-borne diseases and those are very few. This scare documents also list a lot of diseases as being spread by sodomy that are spread by oral-anal contact (basically eating tiny bits of shit). Sodomy does not involve eating shit.

Anyway, for it to spread diseases, the man who is fucking the woman in the ass would have to be eating bits of the woman’s shit in the process. That’s not something that happens.

For all intents and purposes, sodomy does not spread oral-anal diseases. Those are spread by oral-anal contact like licking anuses, which gay men do with a gusto that has to be seen to be believed.

Oral-anal diseases are quite rare in the straight community, so they can engage in oral-anal contact (licking anuses) all they want and nothing happens.

It’s all about the disease pool. Gay men are dealing with an extremely infected pool for these oral-anal diseases so the chance of getting one is high.

Straights are dealing with a pool where these diseases almost don’t exist, so the chances of getting one of these diseases is low.

Oral-anal contact is only dangerous if someone has a disease. You can eat another person’s shit and nothing will happen if the person doesn’t have a disease. You might vomit because it’s so disgusting, but it’s rather harmless. It also does stress your liver because your putting waste back in your system in pure form to be processed right out again.

Obviously you can eat your own shit all you want. Once again, it stresses your liver, and it might make you vomit, but it’s not really harmful, and you cannot get a disease by eating your own shit because you can’t catch a disease that you already have! If your shit has a disease in it, well guess what? You already have that disease! Not that I recommend eating your own shit.

On the other hand, I’ve pretty much been eating shit figuratively my whole life, and I’m healthy as a horse and have none of the typical oral-anal diseases except now and again when I’m feeling particularly dishonest, I open up my mouth, and I’m simply completely full of shit.

Verdict: There Was No “Bucha Massacre”

SHI: Robert, where do you stand on the massacre at Bucha? This is what Wikipedia says

It says that around 1000 bodies were recovered from the town. Summary executions, civilians shot at point-blank range. Looks like the Russians did a number on the Ukies.

Of course the Russian side of the story is that the Ukies staged a false flag. But I find it difficult to believe that they would kill their own women and children so mercilessly.

Surely Russian troops are capable of mini-genocides like this, just like the troops of any other country are.

Number one, Wikipedia, like everything else in the West, is run by the CIA or the US Deep State or better yet, NATO, NATO intelligence and the NATO Deep State. All of the West is 100% controlled by the Deep States of their individual countries, all deeply allied with the US Deep State, and beyond that, the NATO Deep State and NATO itself.

They aren’t capable of mini-genocides like that, especially not in this war. The Russian Army is one of the most professional armies on Earth. They’re about as capable of doing this stuff as the US Army is, and the US army doesn’t do things like this either. See the end of the piece for more.

There were not 1,000 bodies recovered from that town. 1,000 civilians MAY have died in that entire area north of Kiev. In Bucha, a mass grave was found with 76 bodies in it. There is video of townspeople who were burying them and they are saying that they are all territorial defense who were killed fighting the Russians.

An investigation was done of many of the bodies found in Bucha and it found that most of the civilians were killed by flechettes. Flechettes are used in Ukrainian artillery and Ukraine pounded the living crap out of that town and after the Russians left they leveled it, probably for punishing people for sticking around. Ukraine thinks anyone who stays in those towns is a collaborator.

All artillery deaths in Bucha were due to Ukrainian artillery as Russian troops were in town and they didn’t shell their own city. And Russia absolutely does not use ammunition containing flechettes. Only Ukraine does. So many of those killed were killed by Ukrainian artillery by flechettes. 76 were territorial defense who were killed fighting the Russians.

Everyone else was killed in an MI6/SBU psyop on April 2-3, days after the Russians left town. We know that those people were all killed after the Russians left because they were all alive when Russia left. Russia warned the people in the town that they might be targeted and asked them to leave, but only a few took them up on the offer.

There is footage of Boatman and his Azov Battalion entering into the town for a cleanup of saboteurs and collaborators. In one video, we see a soldier asking if it is OK to kill people who are not wearing a blue armband, and the other man says, “Fuck yeah!” Then we hear a man’s voice screaming, “No! No! Please don’t!” followed by a gunshot ringing out and a dog barking. This video is on the Net.

After this operation, dead people appeared strewn along the street in a regular pattern that makes no sense. The media claimed those bodies had been there for weeks but it is obvious that they had been dead no more than a day. Also we have videos of Ukrainian troops pulling those bodies on pulleys and arranging them on the streets. Every one of those bodies was wearing a white armband.

There is video of executions in a cellar. Everyone there is wearing a white armband too. There is also video of people killed in an alley. All wear white armbands. Many of them have Russian MRE meals next to their bodies. Some civilians wore white armbands to show the Russians that they were friendly so they didn’t get shot accidentally.

A lot of these people helped with the distribution of humanitarian aid and medical aid, a huge amount of which was distributed in town. So a white armband showed to the Ukrainians that you were a collaborator. Indeed they brought a dead man to the cemetery when the cameras were on. He had a white armband on. All of the dead with white armbands had been there no more than a day.

Let’s say the Russians killed all of these people. First of all, those bodies have not been there for 3-4 days. Second, why on Earth does Russia only kill people with white armbands and Russian MRE humanitarian aid. Those are the nice people who cooperated with Russian forces. So just before you leave, you murder all the nice people who collaborated with you, wore friendly armbands, took humanitarian aid, and helped distribute the humanitarian aid? Get out of here! No way!

One more thing. Testimony from a Russian journalist who was in the area north of Kiev the whole month said that not one civilian had been harmed the whole time he was there. A Ukrainian reporter who had been in Bucha the whole month said that there had been no killings by the Russians the whole month he was there.

If the Russians are killing people the whole month they were there, why do the bodies on show up after they leave? Why don’t we have any horror stories of murders during the period when the Russians occupied the site. Russians are murdering people like crazy and no one says a word? Get outa here!

Also, people who were in Bucha said that originally the residents were very wary of the Russians but the Russians were friendly, not hurting anyone, and distributing lots of aid, so during the month that the Russians were there, the people gradually opened up to the Russians.

Over time, the residents got more and more friendly with the Russians, with peak friendliness just as they were leaving. Wait. The Russians are murdering people the whole time, but the residents are getting progressively warmer to the Russians with time? Get outa here! No way!

Also, we have footage of the mayor arriving in town on March 31. Residents come out to greet him and say that the Russians were not that bad. One guy said they took him in for questioning but then they let him go. In this footage, there are no dead bodies to be seen anywhere in town and not one person mentions that whole city is strewn with dead bodies.

Keep in mind that according to the narrative, dead bodies are strewn all over the city when the mayor comes back and chats to cheerful residents. He tours the whole town and is smiling and happy. How come he didn’t see all these dead bodies all over the place? How come these happy residents don’t mention that there are dead bodies all over the city? There are dead bodies all over town but no one sees or mentions them and they are all happy and cheerful? The mayor neither sees nor mentions them and he’s all happy and cheery too.

Then we footage over the next couple of days of Azov coming in to “cleanup the city of collaborators.” All of a sudden, all of these dead bodies turn up all over town, all wearing or carrying signs of collaboration with Russia. Also we can hear the Azov people saying to kill all the people not wearing blue armbands, which means they are wearing white armbands.

Then we hear a man screaming for mercy and a gunshot. It all adds up. The Ukrainians massacred all of their own people with white armbands an MRE’s to make an example of them as “collaborators.” At the same time, they do a false flag blaming Russia for the whole thing.

I would like to point out that one of the highest ranking members of the Ukrainian Rada explicitly accused Ukraine and the UK of carrying out this massacre, specifically the Ukrainian SBU spy agency and the MI6 British intelligence agency.

Based on the available evidence, everyone dead in Bucha were either:

  1. Territorial defense killed fighting Russians.
  2. Civilians killed by flechettes which could only have been fired by Ukrainian artillery.
  3. “Collaborators” murdered by the SBU, Azov, and MI6 as a lesson for cooperating with Russia by wearing friendly armbands and taking MRE’s.

Further, the Russian Army is one of the most professional armies on Earth. Do you have any idea of what the punishment is in the Russian army for murdering civilians like that? It’s a very serious offense and they prosecute these cases all the time. Many Russian soldiers have been courtmartialed and imprisoned on these charges in Afghanistan. Someone would have talked.

There would have been leaks from Russian soldiers or Russian journalists about a war crime committed by the Russians. Some of the Russian prisoners would have confessed. We have a huge number of Ukrainian prisoners who have confessed to participating in or witnessing war crimes. We also have many videos that the Ukrainians took of them committing war crimes or admitting to committing them. There has not been one single prosecution of any Ukrainian soldier or militia member for any war crime during this war or during the Donbass War from 1914 – February 23, 2022.

In addition, to all of the above, Putin intervened in the General Staff’s decision to run the war by issuing a directive to all troops that Ukrainian civilians must be preserved at all costs. This was later modified to “preserve all Ukrainian civilian life except where doing so threatens the lives of Russian soldiers.” He did this, he said, because “after the war, we will live with the Ukrainians.”

So he’s laying the groundwork for relatively friendly relations with Ukraine after the war which would not be possible if Russia massacred civilians. In the beginning, the Russian military even said that they were trying not to kill too many UKrainian soldiers. They were even saving the lives of enemy troops. Incredible!

A statement like this is absolutely remarkable! I have been studying modern wars and I cannot remember a commander in chief ever issuing such an extreme directive to preserve enemy civilian life at all costs. It simply doesn’t happen! Almost all armies now all over the world do horrible things when they fight wars. The US, British, French armies are more civilized, but the US leveled Raqqah, Syria with artillery, killing 4-5,000 people. Then we levelled Mosul in Iraq with artillery and bombs (mostly artillery).

Mostly it was not aimed at all. Instead the intent was to level the city and kill everyone in it. 40,000 civilians were killed by the US and the Iraqis in the conquest of Mosul, Iraq. I told American liberal Democrats about this and they said it was justified because those civilians were supporting ISIS. Problem is once you legalize killing enemy civilians, you have to allow it all the time in every war. You have to allow the Russians to massacre Ukrainian civilians because they’re supporting the army. On and on.

I cannot find one single case of a dead person in Bucha who was killed by the Russians. I have studied this case more than most people you will ever meet and my conclusion is there is not one proven murder of a civilian by Russian troops in Bucha during this war. Perhaps there were some cases elsewhere. There does appear to have been a case north of Kharkiv where a Russian soldier was sentenced to life for the murder of a Ukrainian civilian. He confessed, so I am assume he was guilty. These things are done by most armies in wartime. There’s not unusual about a few cases.

No, Masculinity and Femininity Are Not Made-Up Concepts Social Constructs

Anonymous: Well if mistakes occur in Nature and by nature, then that means that Nature is flawed.

Of course Nature is flawed! Why is that even a question?

Anonymous: But that doesn’t make sense to me.

Why not?

Anonymous: Does that mean that Nature doesn’t have free will of its own?

Of course it doesn’t. It’s a process. It’s not like a creature that’s alive.

Anonymous: Since it recognises these occurrences as flaws then why does it allow them to appear over and over again?

Because it’s a process, and Nature is a system, not something with a mind and free will. It gets set in one way of doing things and then it just keeps on doing them. And Nature is amoral, completely. It could wipe us all off the face of the Earth if we allowed it to. It could care less about us or about much of anything really.

Anonymous: Maybe these flaws are Nature’s way of containing (depopulating) itself.

Not so sure about that part.

Anonymous: One thing is for sure is that Nature does seem to favour diversity. Progress only occurs when attributes are evenly spread. Suppose every single human only wanted to be a bodybuilder. We would get nowhere technologically but Nature has selected diverse people to have different interests.

OK, sure, but that’s just Evolution. Yet Evolution is another way of saying Nature. Nature is Evolution and vice versa. I fail to see any benefit of male or female homosexuality. As it’s apparently not genetic and only occurs when things go wrong in the womb, it’s not being selected for at all and it occurs at a low enough level that women with more stable hormonal flows in the womb are not selected for and the ones with less stable flows selected against.

Apparently the prenatal environment is pretty stable and doesn’t go off a Hell of a lot. Maybe 10% of the time at most and for the most part, all that occurs is lefthandedness which does not handicap offspring hence there’s no reason to select against it.

Anonymous: But why are those necessarily “masculine” characteristics? Just because on an average that males tend to have more of them than females?


Anonymous: But doesn’t Nature also allows women with similar potential to get muscular, big, and strong?


If they were strictly masculine traits, then there would be no girls with muscles.

That’s not so! Didn’t you read the fine print. Weininger says that the Masculine and Feminine Character are present in both sexes. All men have some feminine characteristics and that’s not necessarily a bad thing and vice versa. Some women have some masculine characteristics like being strong, well-built, muscular, and athletic and that’s not generally a problem except when women are at the extreme end of that spectrum, it seems like a lot of them are lesbians, and that’s not adaptive.

For the most part those things in a woman are not pathological, but there was no reason to select for them, hence women ended up much weaker than men. Furthermore, the strongest female bodybuilder is no match for even a middling male bodybuilder.

Anonymous: I like strong women.


Anonymous: I don’t like chubby women


Anonymous: or the very girly girls.

Bad idea.

Anonymous: Strong women like Sandahl Bergman in Conan The Barbarian. The warrior female type of spirit. I find that sexy.

Change your mind. I understand the appeal of a badass chick, but the problem with those violent women who fight people who do them wrong is that sooner or later, all of that righteous anger is going to get turned on you. “Warrior” women are nothing but trouble. They’re bitches. They will fight you!

Controversial Idea: Nature Punishes Those Who Violate Natural Law

Anonymous: I don’t get the Nature part. If a man a acting effeminate is against Nature and nature punishes them for it then why did Nature create them in the first place. I don’t think it is Nature punishing them either but society.

We can’t be objective about these things especially on a deeper philosophical scale. I think everyone should just mind their own business.

Even this whole masculine-feminine thing seems arbitrary. Why is masculine representing everything strong and the feminine everything weak? When without either of them conception would not be possible. So in a way, both need to be strong for a good family.

Women of the Stone Age may also be considered “masculine” by today’s standards because they were stronger, well-built, muscular and athletic.

Are you a heterosexual man? Go ahead and walk around in the world saying there’s no such thing as masculinity an femininity, and you’re going to flaunt the rules and say the Hell with this masculine crap. You see just how far that gets you. Try to be a feminine or effeminate man. You say it’s just fine. So try it and see. Do it for a few years and get back to me. I guarantee you won’t have a fun ride.

It’s against Nature because the only reason effeminate men and masculine women happen in the first place is because something went terribly wrong! Things go terribly wrong in Nature all the time. Nature doesn’t like mistakes and any mistakes that occur get punished by Nature because they go against Natural Law.

The old “society punishes gay people” is an old chestnut. The problem is that we have now found societies that are about as tolerant of gay people as possible, and gay men and lesbians are just as messed up in this places as they are in homophobic places. They also lose 18-20 years off their lifespan just like such folks do in homophobic places.

This got me to thinking that there is something about gay people that is going to cause them to be messed up no matter what. Now I don’t want to believe this because I want them to be just as happy as we are. But I keep getting beaten with the Reality Stick. I’m starting to think that there is just something inherently messed up about them.

Then I realized that wimpy men are typically very unhappy. And if you get them to act more masculine, they get a lot more happy.

Mean, angry, miserable, masculine-acting women (not all of whom are gay – some are just horrendous bitches who haven’t been laid in forever) seem absolutely wretched. And I’ve noticed that when a woman starts acting extremely feminine, it usually means 1. She wants to get fucked right now. 2. She’s a lot happier than when she was not acting so feminine.

So I started thinking that masculinity is the “happy place” for men, and femininity is the “happy place” for women.

Everyone minding their own business is just fine, but there are unanswered questions that demand to be answered whether it pisses off PC types or not. And the purpose of this website is to ask all those questions you are not supposed to ask and to talk about all those things you are not supposed to talk about. And that is what we are going to do no matter how much it pisses off PC fucktards.

Even this whole masculine-feminine thing seems arbitrary.

You’re young, aren’t you? I got some news for you. Stick around this planet for a while, and this time open your eyes and ears instead of shutting them down like you’ve been doing. You will realize that masculinity is a thing, defined in a rather specific way at least in most Western societies and in a lot of other societies too. It’s called the Masculine Principle and it’s one of the universal principles governing the universe or at least our part of it.

If you look around you will notice that femininity is also a “thing” – very similar across most societies. This is because it is something called the Feminine Principleone of the governing principles of the universe.

The Feminine Principle is weaker. The Masculine Principle is stronger.

Some woman wants to be a strong woman, however defined? All the power to her! Good for her! A woman can do anything a man can do in terms of jobs, with a few obvious limitations. Women should reach for the sky! They already hold up half of it.

Look around at the higher mammals, even those dogs and cats running around your house. Notice how the male cats act like human men and the female cats act like human women. There’s a reason for that. Now study elk and elephant seals.

Notice how one alpha elk gets a harem of five elk chicks? Notice how the other four male Beta elk are standing around in the woods jerking off their elk dicks with their hooves?

Notice how that Alpha elephant Seal as fat as Marlon Brando and a pure psychopath as bad as Ted Bundy, has a harem of 50 fat elephant seal chicks and he’s somehow banging all of them? I don’t know how his seal dick doesn’t fall off. Notice offshore towards those offshore rocks called haulouts? See those 49 Beta bachelor male seals hanging out on those rocks with their seal dicks in their flippers because they aren’t getting any seal pussy?

That’s human nature on a smaller scale. When you get rid of enforced marriage, things go back to the jungle. Women form harems with Alphas, most of whom are scumbags on a level of that Alpha elephant seal. Notice how there are now huge numbers of young men getting no sex at all, like 32% of young men did not have sex in the past year or perhaps have never had sex at all? Those guys are like those 49 bachelor seals on those haulouts. They’re not getting any. The state of Nature is a brutal thing.

I will also tell you right now that if you ever meet a woman who proudly calls herself a “strong woman” to get the Hell away from her as quickly as possible because she’ll be nothing but trouble and she’s capable of being one of the worst, most psycho bitches you’ve ever hooked up with. I think it’s OK to be a strong woman in whatever sense. But once they starting owning that title, they turn into the worst bitches you’ve met.

Yes, there are strengths in the Feminine Principle, but it is more yielding and submissive. You know, just like those female cats in your house that sit back and take it when a tomcat humps them?

We don’t know that Stone Age women were stronger, well-built, muscular, and athletic, but what we have learned of women 12,000 years ago in Mexico is that they were under the rule of a horrible Patriarchy that was utterly brutal. The one skeleton they found had been repeatedly beaten with big sticks and rocks. They are thinking that the men of her tribe were vicious maniacs who beat the Hell out of their women all the time. So compared to the men, it looks like the women were not so strong.

Indeed there are strong, well-built, muscular, and athletic women, but how many of them are like that? And incidentally those are masculine characteristics. If you follow Otto Weininger as I do (Otto Weininger is God) you will realize that all males have both Masculine and Feminine Principles. and it’s the same for women. Everyone is a mixture of the two. Pure masculine men and pure feminine women are probably not very common.

Masculinity, Femininity, Natural Law, and “Universal Culture”

SHI: It’s all right to be a soft-spoken man with no hypermasculine aggressive characteristics.

But it was NEVER acceptable to be effeminate.

Yes, effeminacy in straight men just doesn’t work at all. Any man who is like that, I’d suggest he work on it if he could. If I see a man like that, I want to ask him why on Earth, if he is a straight man, he’s acting effeminate. There’s nothing wrong with effeminacy in men as long as it’s a gay man acting that way.

But for a straight man to act that way is weird and ridiculous. It’s like a cat barking. It’s just weird and wrong and messed up. Barking is just fine for dogs, but cats aren’t supposed to bark, and if one does, I’d wager there’s something seriously wrong with it. You want to walk up to the cat and yell at it, “Hey, you’re a cat, dammit! You’re not supposed to bark. That’s what dogs do, dammit! If you’re going to be a cat, you have to meow like the rest of the felines.” Otherwise you’re just a freak, albeit one that might get you record Youtube views if you put it on the web.

You really can’t be too masculine, and a lot of wimpy guys like acting masculine if you give them permission to and bring it out of them. I’ve done this many times and it’s amazing how delightfully they seem to get into it. It’s like they are in their secret happy place that they have denied to themselves for so long. I’m convinced that most wimpy men actually want to be normal and masculine, but something – maybe a psychological issue – is preventing that.

Masculinity is our happy place. Remember how wildly and even cruelly masculine we were as boys? That’s the natural state of a male in nature.

For women, I really think that femininity is their happy place. They seem to feel so good when they are free to act feminine. Plus femininity is all tied into the sex drive. When a woman starts acting like a frilly Southern belle and flipping her wrist like a gay man around you all of a sudden, I can pretty much guarantee she is turned on by you, and in a lot of cases, it means she wants to fuck right now. It means she’s horny! Look how feminine and submissive they often turn into in bed. That’s the natural state of a woman, like a little girl in a way.

Also, I have found that wimpy or feminine men are often not very happy. I don’t know what it is. I think they are violating Nature or Natural Law. They’re supposed to act masculine and they’re not, so Nature is punishing them by making them miserable.

Have you ever noticed how miserable angry, masculine women are? They’re not happy at all, are they? Perhaps Nature is punishing them too. They’re supposed to be feminine and they’re not, so Nature is punishing them for going against Her. And that is a capital H by the way. Nature is God!

By the same token, gay men seem to have some essential unhappiness about them that goes beyond the harm caused by discrimination. And it’s completely analogous with lesbians.

A man is supposed to be masculine and attracted to women. With gay men, it’s the opposite. They are feminine and attracted to men. A woman is supposed to be feminine and attracted to men. Lesbians are masculine and attracted to other women. Both conditions are frankly abnormal in the sense that they go against the default for society, and if everyone were like that, society would collapse and mankind would go extinct.

By the same mechanism that punishes wimpy straight man and angry, masculine straight women, perhaps Nature also punishes effeminate gay men and masculine butch lesbians. Nature is telling them, “You’re doing it wrong!”

Natural Law is a theory popular in Catholic circles, and while I’m not a Catholic, I find Catholicism fascinating, and I think they may be onto something with their Natural Law. Certain things just seem to be flat out wrong across the board with humans. Molesting prepubescent children (say, under age ~13 or before puberty) is one. Almost no society, primitive or modern, accepts that other than the Sambia in New Guinea where it’s actually a manhood ritual to create men out of boys, hence Nature tolerates it. Even back in Roman days, molesting children was completely taboo. Check out Suetonius. He talks about this.

Hence, molesting kids is, in Catholic Natural Law terms, “inherently disordered.” There’s something about humans that, as an almost-perfect general rule, makes us dislike this sort of thing. Incest also seems to be “inherently disordered.” Every tribe they’ve ever found has an incest taboo for obvious reasons.

The fact that certain things are inherently disordered across the board for humans across space and time also implies that there is something called Universal Culture or maybe in Jungian terms, the Collective Unconscious Culture.

I doubt if homosexuality is inherently disordered. Societies seem to dislike it but tolerate in a few oddballs here and there.

In many societies, effeminate men are often given a term that something like “not-men.” That’s the Persian word for a gay man – gay men are “not-men.” In many places, they are allowed to wear women’s clothes, and they stay in the village with the women during the day doing women’s work. They don’t have to go out and hunt with the men. I’m not sure what they are like sexually, but in a number of tribes, they are treated as a substitute for a woman, and it’s perfectly natural for a normal straight man to take one of these effeminate men as a sexual partner, especially if no female available.

Masculine women or lesbians were also tolerated in small numbers by many groups. They wore men’s clothes and went out and hunted with the men, who accepted them as just another man, albeit one with some funny biology. I believe they were allowed to take another such woman as a partner.

It seems to be normal background variation for ~3% of the population to be homosexual in many societies just like it’s natural background variation for a small percentage of the population to be lefthanded.

Most of that is people who are wired up gay – “biological homosexuals” – from birth. I think it is caused by hormonal levels going off during pregnancy, so it’s basically a developmental disorder like lefthandedness, abnormal fingerprints, etc. And indeed those two things are found at much higher levels in gay men. Once again though, all of those both conditions including lefthandedness are caused by something going wrong, in this case in the womb.

I’m absolutely opposed to treating biological homosexuals any different than we treat our fellow straights. But no one should be under the illusion that this is a natural, normal phenomenon.

Remarks on Movements towards Androgyny and Hypermasculinity in Men, with Some Notes on Male Homosexuality

Bomb Roberts: I sort of disagree. I think androgyne can be an effective way to present oneself and interact with the world. However, it is a fairly extreme way of being, and anyone choosing it has to really commit and genuinely achieve an almost God-like lack of fucks to give. Most men just can’t do it.

Only world-historical figures like the ones you mention or super-effeminate gay guys.

That’s another thing: you have to be indifferent to what women think of you. That means one of two things. Either you know you have such a high level of supreme awesomeness that you know they’ll be into you anyway or you just don’t swing that way.

It is for this reason that I admire and respect gay guys and drag queens. They know who and what they are, and they don’t give a fuck.

First of all, I would like to welcome Bomb to the site. I have a feeling he might even like it here.

You are referring to the traditional version of an androgyne, right? Meaning a member of one sex who acts fully like the other sex. Nowadays most such folks have gone over to some subspecies of trans.

How about the other examples I gave from the 1970’s of guys who were actually as tough, hard, and ultra-masculine as street gang members (and a number of them like Thunders and Johansen were just that) but who dressed up like chicks or ran a layer of femininity on top of their hypermasculinity?

That’s the androgyny I grew up with in the 1970’s, and it was pretty boss. The first glitter rock club was opened by Rodney Bingenheimer on the Strip around 1969, and if you went there, you would see a bunch of guys who were practically dressed up like chicks. But if you went and talked to them, all of them would identify as straight males. See, back then you could dress like that, and people would not necessarily think you were homosexual.

How do you feel about what I call “pure androgynes” – very masculine men who also run a layer of femininity on top of the macho vibe? I kind of like that, but I’m not even sure that’s viable anymore.

Part of the problem was gays coming out. Before they came out, everyone was assumed to be straight until proven otherwise. I liked it just fine! Then when the gays came out, all of a sudden people realized that gay men existed, and a lot of us straight men who walked free a few years before were now being tagged, questioned, or accused of being homosexuals.

You might say, “Yeah, well, so what, who cares what people think?”

Sure, but let me tell you, it just doesn’t work being a straight man and having lots of people think you’re gay. It’s not like people learn the truth and blow it off and say, “Oh, OK! Sorry I was mistaken!” It’s nothing but trouble and problems that never end! Sure you can move to a new city to escape these troubles, but then they will just start up all over again in the new place. It’s like running away from your fears. You can run but you can’t hide and eventually it catches up with you.

On the other hand, I will say that I have been meeting some younger bisexual girls and women recently who were disappointed that I was not bisexual like them and who said they would be very happy if I were bi too. I assume they would tolerate more androgyny in men than straight women.

One, a 17 year old girl who I did not have sex with, told me to “Get over it,” meaning get over my “hangup” about having sex with guys.

And I’m getting dumped by young women these days for being “homophobic,” though I’m not really a gay-hater. More that I am quite uncomforable (or phobic as in fearful in the traditional sense of the word) with the whole subject of male homosexuality and have a low opinion of myself and my friends doing such things. We think it’s the worst thing on Earth for us and our friends to do. My friends say things like, “If you offered me a choice between having gay sex and getting shot, I would say, ‘Just shoot me.'” That’s a pretty extreme revulsion!

For the gays, it’s another story. They were wired up that way so they have to engage in gay sex. They have no choice. While we don’t like gay sex, we realize that gay men must engage in it and we can’t hate people over things things they can’t control. So we walk a tightrope of hating it in ourselves, our friends, and in general, while being tolerant of it among actual wired-up gay men.

It’s like cats meow, dogs bark, and gay men screw guys. Hating gay men for screwing guys is like hating your dog for barking. Barking is what dogs do. Screwing guys is what gay men do. And neither can help it anymore than the other.

I fully support gay men coming out of course, but even a lot of good things have a downside.

Also, IMHO perhaps in reaction to mass coming out of gay men (?), we have seen straight men doing an extreme doubling down on hypermasculinity to the point where they are almost parodies of such in order to differentiate themselves from increasingly out gay men.

Back in the 1970’s, a guy covered with tattoos was an ultra-macho scumbag, maybe a sailor or Marine at best but at worst a criminal or a biker, which was often the same thing. He was a scumbag! Women with tattoos were just scum too – mostly biker chicks or lesbians. Also, they were routinely tagged as superwhores.

Now what to us were marks of super-whoredom and extremely dangerous ultra-masculine criminals respectively have become de rigeour for both sexes!

I watched porn from the 1970’s and 1980’s. Male porn stars of that era were flexible in gender presentation, and many of them were rather soft pretty boy types. Some like Paul Thomas even had very soft voices. The men were a lot more androgynous because you could act that way back then and still have women swarming on you. I think you can get away with that anymore, sorry.

Check out the porn nowadays. Many if not most of the men are extreme hypermasculine men, so extreme in their masculinity that they almost seem like parodies. And the sex has gotten a lot rougher, meaner, and more hypermasculine. Add to that the recent fad for men to be Doms (traditionally as ultra-masculine as a man can get) or frankly out and out sexual sadists, and you complete the circle. Mass movements of men toward being BD/SM Doms or sexual sadists is not a good thing. No wonder all these women are dying of choking sex gone bad.

Give me back the 1970’s.

If you are referring to the traditional sense of a man out and out acting like a woman, I don’t think that’s doable at all for a straight man anymore except for guys like Prince, and he actually had a macho layer underneath.

Very few straight men are actually effeminate. Studies show that 70% of gay men are effeminate and only 3% of straight men are. I really do not recommend at all that straight men act effeminate.

Hey, a mannerism or two is OK. A lot of straight men have a faggy mannerism or two. One thing you will notice if you get extremely relaxed is that your limbs started sagging and going limp. Before you know it, you hand is bending backwards. But straight out acting like an effeminate homosexual is just not going to work for a straight man. In that direction lies nothing but trouble.  Effeminacy is for gay men. If you want to be femmy, just move to Frisco and go gay. If you want to stay straight, for God’s sake at least act like a man, dammit.

I Don’t Think Any Sort of Androgyny Works for Men

Soloman: Man you boomers are hella wild with your leaded fuel-filled brains n bones. Lol. Man, did you never hear about The Cure, or the myriad of subcultures where straight men are just fine being their wonderful, androgyne selves? Ya’ll fell out years ago, and now us GenX/Y/Z’s have to pay for all your closeted bigotry and ignorance.

Props for the “leaded fuel-filled brains” line. I just figured that one out right now. +1 for humor. Touche!

We like the Cure just fine. I saw them in concert in 1983. Actually, I came out of the 1970’s when this was all the rage. I’m a lifetime androgyne myself along the Iggy Pop – Mick Jagger – New York Dolls line. But that’s a different kind of androgyny – a combination of extreme psychological or cognitive masculinity with a feminine side layered on.

However, that sort of androgyny was far more popular back then than it is now. We have gone completely backwards on this issue. The whole rage now is hypermasculinity with the tattoos and the whole nine yards. And this is what women demand now. I’m afraid the market for 70’s-style androgyny is rather limited.

I’m thinking now that it just doesn’t work. All that ends up happening is people think you are gay or bi everywhere you go, and this causes all manner of problems, including gaybashing. For instance, I’ve been gaybashed three different times, once with a baseball bat! So that’s where that sort of behavior lands you. And I’m not even effeminate! I’m just a “soft guy” type.

Gay and bi men won’t leave you alone, and this causes all manner of problems too. That’s reason I didn’t go into modeling. I had repeated offers to get into male modeling as a man in my 20’s, but the scene is so full of homosexuals (1/3) that I chickened out. I would have been walking the gauntlet every single day.

Basically, women don’t like androgynes. They think they’re pussies and faggots. They despise the latter even more than the former, assuming that’s even possible. All they want are hypermasculine meatheads. They simply will not tolerate anything else, and we’ve been going backwards every year for decades now.

Keep in mind that this is a lifetime of experience talking at age 64 with a much more cynical mind than I had in my naive 20’s.

Ya’ll fell out years ago, and now us GenX/Y/Z’s have to pay for all your closeted bigotry and ignorance.

Please explain. How did we screw it up for you guys?

We’re not closeted. Pure androgynes are the last men on Earth to be closeted. They’re already pretty liberated as it is. Most of us were not secret gays or bis, at least back then. Most of the glitter rockers were 100% straight.

You really can’t go wrong with acting masculine, nor can you act too masculine.

There’s really no down side to masculinity unless you go overboard and end up incarcerated, injured, diseased, or dead, but even that is probably preferable to having women stomp on your balls your whole life. At least you die with your boots on and your head held high in defiant, rageful male pride takes no prisoners. This is how a man dies! With his back straight and his head held high!

Ukraine War Update June 12, 2022

Manuel Rodriguez: What is your assessment about the current situation on the ground in Ukraine? Advances have been quite slow. It seems things are not quite optimal for the Russians but not necessarily good for the Ukrainians or the West for that matter. As things are going, it seems that the Russians will have to hold on for a few months until the USA/EU collapses economically.

Russia is doing great. They’re not really going slowly at all in the core area of the Northeast Donbass. They are making amazing progress over there. The Ukrainian army is an excellent army, well-run and trained and armed to NATO standards. This is what a real war between two huge armies actually looks like. Remember the German-USSR war in WW2? This is like that. Or like WW1, trench warfare.

The Ukrainians are very well dug in in places like around Donetsk around Adviivka, Nieu York, Slaviansk, Marinka, Nova Bakhmutka, etc. There has been almost no progress on those fronts since the beginning of the war. The Ukrainians had years to dig in very deeply there and once troops are dug in that deeply, it is very hard to get them out! You just have to pound away at them with artillery forever.

If you try to storm their positions, you will get destroyed. Air power doesn’t do much good against them either. Fortifications work very well! The Ukrainians have taken big losses, especially in Adviivka, but they are still holding fast as they keep reinforcing.

On the Zaporozhye, Huilaopoye, Kherson, Khivi Rog, Nikolaev and Kharkiv fronts, not much is happening, just battles for position. Neither side is making much movement either way. Any territory the Ukrainians take is usually quickly lost. But the Russians are not making much if any progress either. Those fronts are frozen right now.

By Izium, Bakhmut, Popasna, Sovierodonetsk, Slavyansk, Kramatorsk, Liman, etc. the Russians are making dramatic gains and the Ukrainians are taking massive casualties. They just keep retreating and Russia keeps taking more and more towns and cities. The Ukrainians are outgunned 20-40-1 and they are outmanned 7-1.

The Ukrainians have probably lost ~55,000 men in this war so much. I don’t have figures for wounded but they must be high also. That figure probably includes missing. Those are incredible losses. Their forces now contain only 20% professional army with the rest untrained conscripts and territorial defense forces who are just meat thrown into the meatgrinder.

A lot are deserting or surrending to the Russians. There have been a number of prosecutions for forces desertion. The separatists are bombarding Ukrainian positions with leaflets asking them to surrender. They are also rarely rotated, whereas Russians on the front lines are rotated literally every single day!

There have been quite a few rebellions of Ukrainian troops laying down their weapons and refusing to fight. In some cases, they have been shot by officers for trying to surrender. There are many complaints of officers abandoning their troops to the wolves. Soldiers complain of lack of food, water, supplies, goggles, bulletproof vests, fuel, armored vehicles and especially artillery. Troops are given an automatic weapon with several rounds and a hand grenade and thrown up against tanks. They don’t stand a chance.

Russia has air supremacy. Ukraine has little air power and their air defenses are not very good. Both sides use drones to great effect. The Ukrainians seem to have better drones and make better use of drones to correct their artillery. Ukrainian artillery and special forces are quite good. The Ukrainians are simply outmanned and outgunned to the extreme.

The Nazi battalions are making noises of overthrowing Zelensky. The UKrainian army is being run by NATO, so really, Russia is fighting this war against all of NATO, with NATO commanders, NATO trained forces, NATO intelligence, and NATO weaponry. So envision this war as Russia versus NATO and it starts to make a lot more sense. Ukraine had their third biggest and best army in Europe! Don’t underestimate the Ukrainians.

At the start of the war, Russia had a lot of officers, generals, etc. who had obtained their positions via nepotism and connections. They performed poorly, using long convoys which were attacked to good effect by the Ukrainians. Putin replaced those commanders with those who were field-tested and had proved themselves in battle. Russia now makes good use of combined arms, which they were not doing at the start.

81% of Russians support Putin. 75% of Russians support the war, and 19% want a negotiated solution. Few Russians just want to pull out of Ukraine – maybe 6% of the population. Many antiwar moderates have gone over to the pro-war camp because they realize that the West wants to completely destroy Russia and return it to the colonial status of the Yeltsin years. Most of the dissidents have left, but about half the people who left have already returned.

There are several parties in the Duma. All of the parties outside of Putin’s party could be considered opposition, but most of the opposition is more or less pro-Putin. The anti-Putin Westernizers only have 2% of the Duma, and they only get 5% of the vote. Navalny, the great white hope of the West, has 1% support in polls.

In downtown Moscow and St. Petersburg there is a anti-Russian, pro-West youth movement, but it is not large nor is it politically active. A lot of the pro-Western Left just left the country.

It’s not true that you can’t oppose the war or Putin. An interviewer recently went out into the streets of Moscow and interviewed people, and a number of the young people were against the war, but they were not very politically active. 19% of the population says they are against the war in surveys. Nothing is going to happen to any of those people!

The openly treasonous pro-West, anti-Putin media was shut down, but that only amounted to a few TV stations. Medea is one of them. Note that they have been in business all this time and were only shut down for the war. In the last decade, this opposition was on Russian TV a few times a week on talk shows. The hosts were pro-government and they put the opposition on to tear up their views.

All Western media is available on the Net to any Russian who can read those languages and the stations like Medea have now set up in Europe and broadcast from there. Twitter is open to Russians and it is full of anti-Russian propaganda. I read Russians all of the time on the Net, and the ones who post are all hip to all of the Western news about Russia, but they simply don’t believe it. But it’s not like they only hear one side of the story!

Putin is probably not killing those oligarchs who are committing suicide and murdering their families. Perhaps this has to do with money. Putin doesn’t really bother those people, but he doesn’t care much about oligarchs either. The Russian people mostly hate them, which is why it is laughable that the West is sanctioning these guys as Russia and Putin already don’t like them as it is.

The Communist Party is the largest opposition party, with 18% of the vote in the last election. Zhirinovsky’s party got 7%. Most Russians just think Zhirinovsky was funny or hilarious, while the West finds him scary or appalling. I think the Russians see him as a troll.

Planned Shooting, Riots and More

I don’t know. Call me crazy, but there’s been a lot of shootings lately. Is this a coincidence? Well, let’s look at probability. I mean, science can tell us if I’m blabbing some conspiracy theory. Well, I don’t need advanced research, just common sense to tell it’s probably pre-planned stuff.

Who’s pulling the strings of the democratic party and what’s the end game? I mean, they’re pushing more buttons than the rottenest boy imaginable, lol. We got the trans agenda, we got a racial agenda, we got the gun agenda, we got the inflation, we got the reduced food supply, we got proxy war with another major nuclear power, we got the unlivable gas prices. Did I leave out anything?

Alt Left: The Alt Left and Race

Problems of Modern Anti-Racism and Critical Race Theory

First of all, few understand how or why this movement even arose. Almost all Left-liberals think the early anti-racism movement of MLK and even post-Hajj Malcolm X is worthy and even exemplary. White nationalists despise this movement. There’s a clash right there.

Anyway, modern antiracism has gone far beyond Rosa Parks and Malcolm. Instead of Rosa Parks, the modern antiracist heroes are nothing but dirty criminals George Floyd and Trayvon Martin. They’re literally the worst people on Earth. That’s absolutely disgusting, but it makes sense.

Because Blacks commit such an extreme amount of crime, it’s inevitable that antiracist Black heroes would extend to the criminals after the initial injustices were rectified. And the extreme Black crime rate leads modern antiracists with no alternative but to oppose police, jails, prisons, judges, prosecutorsm and the justice system itself as a civil rights violation of Blacks. Of course they want to abolish the police and prisons. How else to get “justice” for Blacks? That’s the only way to do it!

Further, modern antiracists have boxed themselves and society into a cage. By insisting that all racial discrepancies are caused by White racism against non-Whites, they open themselves up to all sorts of fallacies:

What about East Indians, Asians, and Jews? Haven’t they suffered just a bit or perhaps much more than Blacks? Why is their response to horrific White racism to succeed beyond Whites while the Black reaction seems to be to fail?

The arguments are circular and non-falsifiable.  A circular argument goes round and round and doesn’t say anything: How do we know the Earth is round? Because it’s shaped like a ball. How do we know the Earth is shaped like a ball? Because it’s round.

Modern antiracism arguments that racism is behind all racial disparities are similar.

How do we know that Blacks commit a lot of crime? Because there is racism against them. How do we know there is racism against Blacks? Because Blacks commit a lot of crime.

These arguments are like dogs chasing their tails in living rooms. And like the dog in your house, the arguments never go anywhere either.

The arguments that “racism causes all disparities” or “if there are disparities, that proves racism exists” are not falsifiable. There’s no way to prove them wrong. No matter how you slice the cake, it always tastes great. Arguments have to have some way to prove them wrong or else they are garbage. It’s not so much that these arguments are wrong, but it’s more that there’s no way to prove that it is either right or wrong. It’s like debating how many angels can stand on a pin.

The problem with CRT is not that it is not true. We can’t tell if it’s true or not true, so that’s not even a question. CRT is such bad theory that it’s not even wrong!

The genesis of modern antiracism, which all takes the form of Critical Race Theory, is via Black legal scholar Derrick Bell. Bell looked around and noticed that Blacks had achieved more or less legal equality. Yet that hadn’t seem to fix the problems of Black people. Huge disparities remained. Since these must obviously be caused by racism, clearly massive racism still existed despite the laws.

Then he looked around and noted that overt, nasty, ugly, in your face racism had similarly declined to the point where it was hard to find an obvious example of it in day to day life anymore. The use of racial slurs fell off the charts. Whatever was in their heads, most Whites were decent enough to Blacks. This sort of racism has continued to decline every year since the 1970’s, which makes the continuing disparities even more puzzling.

Bell’s argument was simple. If only racism could cause the disparities and de jure racism had collapsed and even in your face everyday racism had fallen off the chart or at least gone underground, what explained the discrepancies? Since the argument holds unscientifically that these disparities can only be caused by racism, the absence of legal and everyday racism poses a puzzle.

Clearly Blacks still faced massive racism (their problems proved that this was so), but how can we explain this if visible racism is so diminished?

Bell had a simple explanation. Since clearly Blacks continued to experience horrible racism (because of the disparities), if we couldn’t see it, there could be only one conclusion: Racism had somehow gone invisible and it was now in a form known as structural or institutional racism which could not be measured or studied.

If we can’t see or study something or even prove it’s there somehow with equations, there’s no point discussing it. Once again, antiracists have constructed a tautological and non-falsifiable argument impervious to reason or argument. No matter what, it’s always correct.

Most of society believes this nonsense, and this boxes us in.

Blacks can’t do math? Obviously math is racist. Quit teaching it.

Blacks do poorly on tests and in school? Obviously tests and grades are racist. Throw them both out.

And because meritocracy ends up with huge disparities itself between Blacks and Whites, clearly the idea of meritocracy itself is racist and must be tossed out. That means we can’t hire, promote, admit to universities, or pass in school anyone over anyone else. Forrest Gump is as qualified as Einstein. In this way we arrive at a society that promotes failure over success and hires, admits, and promotes the failed over the successful.

Everyone from the most successful to the worst failure gets the same grade as even the process of figuring out if one human is better than another at anything is racist. It’s clear that this way forward is doomed to fail in the worst way. To see what happens when incompetents are hired for important jobs and placed in charge of making essential decisions, take a look at Africa, where such is the norm. Those are not just failed states. That’s an entire failed continent.

Although the idea of an upside down meritocracy where failure always bests success seems insane, this is the only possible outcome of our present Critical Race Theory view of race. CRT spells the doom of nation, society, culture, and civilization itself. Perhaps we should be careful what we wish for here.

The Alt Left and Race Realism

Although the Alt Left masses themselves itself have officially renounced race realism, I continue to promote a Liberal or Left Race Realist project, as quixotic as it sounds.

It’s as clear as air to me that race is a real thing beyond mere obvious appearances. The behavior of Caucasian, Asian, Black, and Amerindian babies differ dramatically in ways that prefigure the personalities of the adults. I can’t see how that can possibly be due to culture.

The famous “candy bar” tests in the Southern US and Caribbean showed that Black and White children differ on impulsiveness and ability to delay gratification. There’s no way that something that basic was caused by culture. Granted, Black adults can learn to delay gratification when they become adults, but the results on even that question are not particularly encouraging. Witness the Vietnam War style dead and wounded counts inflicted by the Black armies of the night in a mere wink of a weekend in a large city like Chicago.

And even if Blacks do learn to become less impulsive as they age into adulthood, it’s clear that the basic Black personality comes into the world marked with a tendency towards impulsiveness. Sure, it can be curbed, but in order to do that a Black person has to go beyond their basic nature. Obviously this can be done too, but a lot of people are not good at it and tend to slide back towards their basic tendencies if they don’t watch themselves closely enough.

Anyway, if you plug “impulsive” and “poor ability to delay gratification” into the statistics on Black Americans, so many puzzling differences between them and Whites on all sorts of variables become lit up with the bright light of epiphany. The penny drops and we can see clearly now that the rain are gone.

Even more importantly, the debate about race realism is seriously off-base out of the starting gate. The horses are already tripping and we’ve barely started to run. The debate gets lost into a shout-fest about whether differential Black outcomes, which sadly are lower on a lot of good things and higher on a lot of bad things than Whites, are due to culture or genes or both or something in the air.

I point out that it doesn’t matter why Blacks or any other race act the way that they do. If you live in Chicago, does it matter that Blacks shoot up the city every weekend due to their SNP’s or due to their upbringing? What difference does it make? You’re dodging bullets one way or the other.

Instead, a race realism debate should start out on a much more innocent, basic, and hardly controversial basis: that the major races differ phenotypically in most of time and space. A phenotype is simply what results when the genotype (genes) interacts with the environment. The gene + environment = phenotype is the basic model for most human behavior and many human diseases. That the races differ phenotypically is not up for grabs at all. Pull out any chart on racial statistics and look around. The races act different! Duh.

The problem is that we can’t even admit this basic scientific fact on our benighted society. You can’t say, “Blacks commit much more crime than Whites” or “Blacks are less intelligent than Whites.” But these are hard, solid scientific facts that are completely uncontroversial in criminology and psychology.

The intelligence differentials are proven by IQ tests. The debate about whether intelligence exists, whether it can be measured, and how well IQ tests predict intelligence ended decades ago in the journals. Even the hard-line environmentalists have caved in on these issues. But it takes forever for science to make it from the journals and halls of  academe to the popular press, and in everyday society, we are still pitching arguments that were trashed decades ago by the experts who study them.

Further, Blacks are behind in school achievement and have lower rates of high school graduation, college admission, graduation, and all sorts of other obvious markers for intelligence, which proves that the IQ tests are indeed measuring intelligence.

Try to state the obvious fact, “The Black race is on average less intelligent than the White race” in our society. You’ll be cancelled in the blink of an eye. According to the doctrine of “pure” race realism, which merely suggests that the races behave differently in different places in time and space, the only possible reasons for lower Black intelligence, higher crime, lower scores on many positive things and higher values on many negative things are either genes or culture. We can rule out racism. And by culture we mean the culture that they have created for themselves, possibly via their genes. So the culture argument goes circular very quickly.

We know racism is not at fault because Blacks have similar statistics in places that are almost all-Black where no anti-Black racism can be seen anywhere on the horizon. In fact, in these places, Blacks have even lower intelligence and higher crime and pathologies than they do in the US.

A Race Realism Critique: Race Realism Doesn’t Go Far Enough Towards Bettering Our Race Problems

White nationalists, including Brandon Adamson, have been unimpressed by my project, seeing it as too little, too late, and at any rate of little help to Whites. I beg to differ. A society in which the basic minimal premises of race realism – the races behave differently, and it’s not due to racism – would conceivably result in a dramatically different America. One with less self-flagellation and verbal lynching of Whites, with less White guilt and blame, and with fewer declarations of unwinnable wars to close racial gaps, etc.

The Societal Benefits of Adopting a Basic Race Realist View of Race

According to the cause and effect so favored by modern anti-racism, it stands to reason that the racism of US White society has dramatically increased Black intelligence and improved their behavior. I don’t believe that either, but the fact that Blacks act the same or usually worse when they are subject to no racism at all seems to rule out racism as a cause of lower intelligence and behavioral pathologies. Hey, they want to play cause and effect, right?

Yet if this is true, it lifts a weight off of our shoulders.

No more frantically beating our heads into our desks over the achievement gap. No more frantic efforts to close a gap that  probably cannot be closed. No more waging dubious battles against unseen and possibly nonexistent entities like systemic racism. No more dumbing down curricula because school itself is racist because Blacks don’t do as well in it. No more admitting less qualified students over the more qualified. No more handing out graduation degrees barely useful for lining bird cages.

Likewise, it lifts a weighty package of guilt from the minds of Blacks. If Blacks perform less well in school, hey! It’s not their fault! Doesn’t that feel better already? They can quit beating themselves up over it. And the guilt is lifted from us Whites too. Blacks don’t do poorly in school because of we evil Whites and our devilish racism. Turns out our racist dark materials play no role in this at all. It’s not our fault that Blacks do less well in school! Stop beating yourself up, White man!

Once we acknowledge the bare minimum of race realism – that the races in the US behave differently for some unknown reason that is not caused by racism – now we may proceed onto the fraught terrain of the genes versus environment debate.

Granted, this is a minefield too because once society decides that Black statistics are caused by culture, we end up waging endless wars to improve Black culture, wars that typically boil down to charging at windmills with lances and other forms of folly. Indeed, Blacks behave much better and even show better school performance when we better their culture, but the gaps remain and may sadly be insurmountable.

When we acknowledge that Blacks are less intelligent, the urgency of closing the achievement gap fades. If they really are less smart, then the achievement gap is a normal product of such. Same with high school and university graduation rates, university admissions, etc. A less intelligent race would obviously drop out of high school and college more and be admitted to universities less often. So many foggy things become crystal clear.

At any rate, a society that acknowledges minimal race realism should be good for Whites. Once we acknowledge intelligence is a thing, we can start choosing better immigrants for our country. If the average US IQ is 98, I would argue that US immigrants should have a minimum 98 IQ. There’s hardly anything more ridiculous than mass importation of low IQ immigrants resulting in lower national IQ, but this is the project we have signed on to.

I’ve long said that it doesn’t matter much where an immigrant comes from if they are chosen well. Setting a 98 IQ for Black and Hispanic immigrants should reduce a lot of the crime problem we have from poorly controlled immigration. We can even take the best and the brightest from Africa. I have no objection to a Kenyan with a Master’s Degree wanting to call this land his home, and he and his offspring are unlikely to cause problems.

At the moment, our immigration project seems to to import vast numbers of low IQ, poorly educated workers and peasants from the 3rd World. I am baffled at why such folks, useful for little more than the most manual of labor, benefit our advanced industrial nation. Furthermore, this cohort is likely to produce a lot of school failure, crime, gangs, and other social pathologies. We are mass importing crime-prone populations from the 3rd World. It’s little surprise when their proclivities bear fruit in their behaviors.

A race realist society could look askance at affirmative action and other nonsense where less qualified people are promoted over more qualified, something that barely makes sense in most possible universes. In fact, it seems to be either cultural self-flagellation, masochism, or even a death wish on our part. It’s a project that is deliberately designed specifically to fail. Any rational person would scoff at such perversity, yet we are no longer a rational society.

Even the Genetic View of Race Is Not as Pessimistic and Doomed about Race As Everyone Thinks (or As Conservatives Hope)

On the other hand, the genetic explanation is not so doomed as liberals think. We are heading into the era of out and out gene editing. If we can’t create a better Black citizen by social engineering, perhaps we can create one in a test tube.

Once elevated Black levels of testosterone combined with a 2X higher psychopathy score become acknowledged (for these are obvious facts undisputed by science), extremely high rates of Black crime and other pathologies come into clear focus.

Further, once we acknowledge that the races are biologically and behaviorally different (and the reason is irrelevant), we can do one more important thing – we can start tailoring interventions specifically for certain races.

If Blacks have high testosterone, perhaps a pill can lower it. Elevated psychopathy levels may also be treated with a pill of some sort. Of course Black people would have to volunteer to take these pills, but once we point out that Black violence and behavioral pathology damages the perpetrator in addition to his victims, perhaps some Blacks will tire of antisocial behavior ruining their lives and sign up for a pill that keeps them out of jail.

There are other interventions besides medication. There are all sorts of psychological and sociological therapies for all manner of behavioral pathologies, including those that put you behind bars. Once we realize that the different races bring a different phenotypic dish to the plate, we can start tailoring interventions by race. Perhaps therapies that work well on Whites won’t work on Blacks. Perhaps Blacks will need interventions specifically designed to work with their phenotypical material.

Problems of White Nationalism

One form of White advocacy in the face of the coming trials of Whites in America is a movement called White nationalism which advocates a separate White ethnic state in the US. There are many problems with this proposal from the point of view of the Alt Left. First of all, we are a left-liberal movement, and people in that sphere are positively allergic to anything that even remotely smacks of racism.

And White nationalism is not just racist in the fake use of racism that the Cultural Left uses in which 80% of those accused of bigotry are not guilty of such. White nationalism is the real deal, hardcore, ugly, nasty, out and out blatant racism against non-Whites. At least that’s how it appears to everyone on the Left, including those on the Alt Left, as we are after all Left at the end of the day.

White nationalism will never go over with any liberal to Left race realists. It’s too toxic. It’s true that Adamson did start a “left wing of the Alt Right” wing of the Alt Left and that this is one of the original wings, but nevertheless, the Alt Left masses completely rejected this as a sort of “left-wing fascism,” which is probably not a bad way to describe it. Adamson distances himself from the Alt Left now and refers to himself as Dissident Right.

The purpose of the Alt Left is to convince the liberal-Left that race realism is a viable, proper, and decent philosophy. We can’t do that if it’s associated with real ugly racism.

In addition, White nationalism is a White Supremacist movement. That’s the whole purpose of it. They obfuscate this a lot, but face facts: if White nationalists did not consider themselves a superior race (White Supremacism) there would be no desire to “save the race” and promote their separate state, which is after all designed to save the race. Saving the White race or saving any race is ridiculous to me and probably to everyone on the liberal-Left. Races have been changing all down through time.

You have only to go to Silicon Valley to see that a highly diverse multiracial class of individuals can do amazing things. Even if Whites mix with other races, assortative mating will be the norm, with most higher IQ Whites mating with higher IQ non-Whites. In particular, a mixed White-Asian race seems to me to be an upgrade from the present White race as I consider Asians to be superior to Whites. Hence an Asian-White mixed race would simply improve the White stock. What’s wrong with that?

There is also a tendency on the Alt Left towards the view of the British take of things: “Oh well, I suppose we will muddle through this” – towards the “extinction of the White race.” Anyway, pure races have been going “extinct” all down through human history, and we are all still here and thriving. It’s a tempest in a teapot. When it comes to White genocide and White extinction, as Stein said about Oakland, there’s no there there.

White nationalists think that the White race is so superior to any other race that the end of the White race will mean devastation and decline for humanity. This is the down and dirty truth about White nationalism that none of them will admit. I’m not buying it and in particular, I’m not buying that we are superior to Asians.

Another problem with White nationalism is their idea of nation and state. Usually states have been carved up colonially out of many different nations or since the Peace of Hapsburg anyway in 1848, into nation-states made up of discrete groups of people that shared an ethnic heritage, language, religion, culture, and long history.

Obviously the nation-building efforts of nation-states caused all manner of problems, mostly that all of the non-members of the titular ethnicity were ordered to become hyphenated members of the main ethnic group. Or perhaps not even hyphenated. Nation-states have historically been allergic to the idea of minorities within their borders.

White nationalism involves neither a carve-up of colonial lands and arbitrary lines on a map nor a nation-state in the traditional sense. I am sorry, but “American” is not an ethnicity, and “Whites” are not a nation at least in the Leninist sense, which is the one I use. People that are not part of a nation generally have no right to a state.

More particularly, no ethnically race-based state has ever been tried anywhere except maybe in the Americas with Jim Crow laws and in South Africa. Neither one worked very well, and the latter needed continuous tinkering because people just wouldn’t stop interbreeding, not that there wasn’t a lot of that under Jim Crow, but the fallacious one-drop rule was instituted in a poor effort to deal with human nature, that is, the tendency to breed outside of one’s race.

All race-based states or pseudo-states failed and they were known for massive injustices at the same time. That hardly seems like a model anyone on the Left would sign onto.

Most Whites laugh at the idea of a White state. I can’t imagine the non-Whites of the US going along with such an ultra-radical scenario either. It seems preposterous and unworkable.

Further, White nationalists are putting the cart before the horse. They are like athletes who are trying to master a 6 foot high jump when they can’t even get over the 2, 3, 4, and 5 foot bars. They remind me of the Communists in Afghanistan who wanted to bypass the socialist phase of Communism altogether and go straight to Communism. That didn’t work either.

How about first things first? All proper arguments and movements start from the bottom and work up. For God’s sake, we can’t even get Americans to believe that race is real, Whites are more intelligent than Blacks, and Blacks have a very high crime rate. Stating any of these scientific truths will get your career wrecked. How bout we focus on the absolute basics first? Like getting Americans to even agree to those three basic concepts. Then we can talk about what comes next.

Further, the views of White nationalists are extreme. They oppose Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act, the Housing Rights Act, and even the 14th Amendment! Many support the South in the Civil War and downplay the horrors of slavery.

Almost all say that Jim Crow and segregation were better than the present state of racial affairs. In fact, one of their main arguments is that we need to allow legal segregation under the dubious grounds of freedom of association. Americans want nothing to do with Jim Crow based segregation. They don’t want to overthrow the Civil Rights laws. They like the Brown decision. And of course they love the 14th Amendment.

Further, in America, we don’t go backwards and deny rights already granted, which is why the anti-abortion argument is un-American. Here we started with a basic set of rights which we have historically continually expanded upon, which is proper and even in accordance with the Left Hegelian view of the March of History. We don’t go backwards and take away rights already given. White nationalists are asking Americans to do something they don’t do.

Other White nationalist views are quite extreme. I regularly see comments on American Renaissance that would not be allowed in even the most un-PC White household. Most Whites have gone beyond that.

White nationalists oppose miscegenation between Whites and non-Whites. First of all, no one uses that word anymore, and uttering it enough to clear most any room full of Whites. They call it race-mixing, which is about as toxic. Only 9% of American Whites oppose miscegenation of Whites with non-Whites.

In 2008, I read that there that 15% of Whites said they would never vote for a Black president. This was considered to be a starting base for White nationalism. The problem is that all views like this – support for segregation and dismantling civil rights, opposition to race-mixing and miscegenation, refusal to vote for a Black for president – are declining. The number of Whites thinking this way probably declines every year for decades now.

In this sense, White nationalists are fighting a war against Time itself. They are like a dog chasing after the runaway train of History. As Abe Lincoln said when he saw a dog doing that, “What do you think that dog will do if he catches up with that train?” But it’s worse than that. For White Nationalists, the train will forever be out of reach.

Sorry, Computer Was in the Shop

That’s why I haven’t been posting all this time.

It’s been ready sine May 28, but I just got it back the other day. Apparently there was some sort of a power surge or hard shutoff possibly while Windows was updating itself. I got most of my data back but I did lose a folder of old uninstalled programs. At first I thought I lost all of my passwords, but then I found them. I never back up my data, but now maybe I need to start doing that.

What about surge protectors? I have a surge protector on there but obviously it didn’t work very well. What about Universal Power Supplies? I used to have one of those too.

Any advice from anyone other than chuck this Windows garbage?


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)