Alt Left: I Guess It’s Illegal to Look at Women Now

I figured this was coming. California’s sexual harassment law already says it’s illegal (or actually a tort) to look at women in a sexual manner. As moral panics, of which MeToo is a classic example, only worsen with time until people wake up and blow the whistle on the nonsense, I figured this was just a matter of time. The commenter Polar Bear below notes that older men are now being arrested in his city for “Illegal Looking,” which apparently means looking at a woman in a sexual manner. Details would be nice but I’m not surprised at all.

I’m seeing more old ageist women among the Woke. “An OLD man hit on me, eww.”

It’s especially old White men who are targeted. Going against tradition is a package deal. These women support BLM, trannies r’ us, anti-Russian/pro-Ukraine, etc. while wearing a pussy hat, but are viciously ageist towards White men. The biggest crime in their eyes is an old White man looking at a woman over 18.

They’re mostly Woke, yes. But I had some of these woketard SJW’s who asked me to date them, in one case as a sugar daddy.

She was a full-blown feminist who had this insane modern idea that “co-workers should never date.” This is a toxic byproduct of the MeToo bullshit. Problem is that probably half the couples out there met at work. And now when people are multiple jobs and almost living at work, excuse me, but how the Hell are we supposed to meet people? How are we supposed to date? How the Hell do we get laid?

So she was a full-blown feminist idiot, but then on the other hand, she wanted to be a sugar baby which for all intents and purposes, is nothing but a Goddamned whore. She was trying to be a prostitute!

See the combination of deranged, shrieking puritanism (for men) and the most extreme pornographic sexual license (for women)? That’s Woke Culture in a nutshell.

Of course this is part of the whole fucktarded woke crap, which is an insane mix of out of control pornographic and polygamous sexuality including omnisexuality and every type of group sex you can imagine (except that straight men are not allowed any of this freedom and license), while on the other hand, there’s this other wave that says that straight men are evil for even having sex drives, never mind them trying to get laid because MeToo’s made that illegal by now.

It’s a mixture of ultimate sexual license with a ridiculous, extreme Victorian culture of sex hatred and Puritanism, granted that all of the sex hatred is generated towards straight men because according to feminism, if we try to get laid, it means we are evil.

Women have always hated the sexuality of straight men, but under patriarchy we force them to shut up. Most of them just do it and then incorporate sane patriarchal views of sex and repress all their lunatic female ideas of sexual utopia which is actually a dystopia for men.

Because feminism is simply the politicization, inculturation and legal codification of normative female thinking patterns, of course feminists have always had an unhinged hatred for the sexual drives of heterosexual men. Note that women can do whatever they want, including being total whores or pornstars. Gay men get to fuck thousands of men in a lifetime and lesbians have total sex license which the feminists cheer on ecstatically like kids at a parade.

But once this wildly Puritanical budding whore found out I had all these backwards views, she dumped me.

I was dating a 19 year old girl for a while, and she was great, but she dumped me for hating feminism and being a Men’s Rights Activist, which to her was akin to be an actual Nazi.

I’ve had others around that age (30) who wanted to date me but got rid of me for being “a homophobe.” I just told her I wasn’t into other guys touching me too much, and she said, “I don’t date homophobes!” She was bisexual and she wanted me to screw guys so we could both be bisexual. LOL dodged an arrow.

It is mostly the Woke because all woketards are feminists, and one thing feminists hate more than anything else in the universe is straight men. In fact, feminism is best described as a Hate Movement Against Straight Men.

Even all young men now are woketard feminists and they hate us older men with a passion as they have adopted the feminist attitude that heterosexual male sexuality is evil. So the younger men are as bad as the women. I’ve had a number of them call me pedophile simply for dating very young women. I’ve been called the same thing for pointing out, scientifically, that teenage girls have a strong, adult-level sex drive. I guess that’s a hanging offense.

“An OLD man hit on me, eww.”

This is a young woman thing. It’s one reason that young women are as bad as The Plague. They’re idiots. Any sensible traditional woman knows that all men from 13-90 love hot women. Even my Mom said:

If a beautiful woman walks into the room, all the males from 9-90 turn around and look at her. The old men look at her even if they can’t get it up anymore. But the gay man acts like she’s a ghost.

This didn’t upset her at all. If you pointed out to my Mom that all males from 9-90 like to look at pretty women in a sexual way, she would say:

Yeah? And fish swim and birds fly. What’s wrong with that? One’s as normal as the other.

We never stop being attracted to hot females. That’s what these fucktard young women can’t figure out.

On the other hand, I would be very careful about flirting or hitting on young women. I do it a little bit in an exploratory, nonsexual way, but they often start to shut it down by acting very uncomfortable, which I pick up on, at least after a bit. Basically, they start acting nervous or anxious. It took me a bit to figure out why.

Next time I see them, I figure I’m shut down and I try to never act that way again. I have to be extremely careful of what I say to young women because ever single thing I say, including:

Hey nice day today, isn’t it?



Is somehow a secret message where I am really saying:

I want to fuck you, Goddamn it!

A lot of these young women around here really, really hate me, especially at establishments I go to a lot. And I don’t even look at them much. Not only that, but when I interact with them at the counter, I never say much of anything at all.

One gets mad if I ever look at her a bit too long. In that case, she asks if there is anything wrong. Problem is she is about 20 and flat out, knockout, drop dead gorgeous, so there’s almost no way to not look at her.

This is how young women are the worst fucktards on Earth. They think middle aged and older men looking at them (granted in a sexual way, but so what) are evil and need to be killed.

This is straight from insane feminism. It is 100% pure feminist doctrine that middle aged and older men looking at young women in a sexual way are pure evil and need to be shot. That’s one more way that feminism is completely irrational. It’s a wildly anti-scientific, emotion-driven philosophy the main tenets of which don’t even make sense.

They just can’t figure out that men of that age looking at a pretty female of any age are simply acting like 100% normal human males. We’re guilty of being male mammals who happen to be a bit too old.

I don’t know what happens, but after age 30, most women seem to grow a brain somehow where there wasn’t one before. Don’t ask me how that works. From 30 to old age, women seem to come to terms with men and simply accept their biological nature as normal albeit perhaps annoying creatures. They just start ignoring any middle aged or older man who looks at them, but they don’t hold it against them.

Young women literally demand that we stop acting human!

About Narcissistic Abuse

The previous post is a fascinating story of commenter Shi’s experiences with the former commenter Trash. Trash was one of the most hated commenters who has ever appeared on this site. He hogged the comments section and wrote very lengthy comments every single day. This is actually sort of abusive as I have to go through all the comments every day and if you are flooding my comments section with novellas, I have to go through all of that, and I hardly have time for anything else. I guess I could ignore the comments, but I just don’t do that.

It took me a while to figure Trash out as at first, he was very charming and disarming, very likeable. Funny, intelligent, the whole nine yards. But after a while you somehow get a feeling that there is something terribly, terribly wrong with him.

Once again you can’t quite put a finger on it, but there is something about him that just makes the hairs on the back of your neck stand out. Your body is telling you, “This guy is off in a very bad way. I don’t know what’s wrong with him, but you need to stay away.”

It took me quite some time to figure out that he was a terrible case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. A very, very bad case, and probably untreatable at that. But he had a way of getting under your skin. It was almost like he wore a mask like psychopaths do. The “mask of sanity.” After I figured it out, it hit me like a ton of bricks and everything came flooding in. I figured out his pathology and I even started figuring out the story behind his vulnerable narcissism. See that name “Trash.” That’s him at his ultimate core, but he can’t say that. It just comes out in these weird unconscious ways. Obviously, though he had done well in life, he hadn’t done quite well enough. He had left Michigan at 18 or 19 and he had nothing but disdain for people who stayed in the US and never left when young like he did. See what he did? Only his experience is the valuable one. Everyone who did the opposite of him is a loser and failure. The problem is that even though Trash spent most of his life overseas, I got the feeling that he still felt like a failure. He had been screenwriter on a movie or two. He had owned a bar in the Philippines. Now he was in China running a Chinese restaurant with his wife. He went into great detail about his sexual experiences, but as Alpha noted once, he never once talked about the experiences from the woman’s end? Did she enjoy it? Did she get off? Did he even get her off? It’s was all about him and his dick. Those women may as well have been greased holes in walls and that was probably all they were to him. I kind of got the impression that he tended to destroy all of his female relationships and male friendships, though he never went into much detail about this. He reluctantly admitted that in middle age, he was getting fat around the belly and was no longer the male beauty king of his youth.

Bottom line is Trash had to prove to himself that he did the right thing by leaving the US and going to live his life in Asia. But he suspected that he had made a huge mistake. So he had to put down everyone who stayed in the US as “losers” because he was afraid that they had made the right decision, not him, and their decision was the opposite of his. He had this sneaky feeling that if he stayed in the US, he would have been better off. Obviously he was dead jealous of almost anyone who had anything at all because they threatened to show him up and make him look bad. Very status conscious guy. He had to prove to himself that leaving the US at 18 and spending his life in Asia was a successful way to live your life. Hell, everyone should do it. Everyone who didn’t do it was a loser and a failure! His life had been a smashing success! Except on one level, he felt that it had actually been a total failure. He probably falls into the covert narcissist category even though he was quite extroverted. Trash was the ultimate misunderstood genius, ripped off and shunned by a world of idiots who never took notice of his brilliance. “The misunderstood genius who fails in life because he’s unrecognized” is the classic covert narcissist narrative. In order to convince himself that his life had not been a complete failure, he had to go on the Net every day and blast out what a smashing success his life had been in order to prove that he had actually made the right decision. But it didn’t work very well. He’d get up in the morning the next day and still have the nagging sense of failure. Then he would go online again all day in an effort to reclaim his self-worth. He goes to bed satisfied. But it’s like a drug and it doesn’t last. He’s insecure. So he has to keep doing it over and over.

Trash was also incredibly selfish as Shi notes. We went to a pay model for a while, and everyone had to cough up $10. A lot of people, including Shi (who perhaps may have some self-centered issues himself as I do), threatened to quit over it. Shi had been nickel and diming me for a while, but the effort was nice. Over time, he had surely given over $10. A lot of others just flat out quit. Many others, like Tulio, handed over the 10 bucks but only very reluctantly. A lot of these people have stayed away even thought the pay-to-comment feature has been lifted. They’re welcome back but they took off. Really any regular commenters who were irked at having to fork over 10 bucks when they’d been commenting forever will not be missed. Do they realize how much of my own time I spent dealing with their comments over time? Probably hours. Here in California wages are $14/hour. Looking at it from that point of view, they should have paid me for my time.

Trash went on and on about how rich he was or how he had been rich several times and then lost it all only to gain it all back again. His stories never made much sense. But now he owned a Chinese restaurant and maybe still the Filipino bar and he lived in dirt cheap China with a second income. You telling me that Chinese restaurant brings in such little money that this guy couldn’t fork over 10 bucks. And that with him going on and on about being fabulously rich. He had one excuse after another after another. I didn’t think too much of prodigious commenters who high incomes who wouldn’t fork over 10 bucks, and he was about the worst case.

If you remember Trash, you can see what a bad case of NPD looks like. You can see why it is considered a serious mental disorder. You can see that they are clearly not right in the head. And you can also see how mean, vicious, aggressive, and abusive they can be. In fact this is a core feature of the disorder, and I’d wager that nice narcissists don’t even exist. They sort of can’t exist.

I won’t go on here about narcissistic abuse, but there are articles all over the Net and videos all over Youtube on this topic, as it’s an extremely popular topic. There are many forums out there for victims of narcissistic abuse where they go to commiserate, counsel and support each other, learn about the disorder and themselves, and attempt to heal from the damage.

I’d say that Shi might want to stop by one of those forums and share his story with the others if he so wished.

So here you have it. A classic case of narcissistic abuse!

A Case of Narcissistic Abuse

This piece by commenter Shi relates a case of narcissistic abuse by a former commenter here who had Narcissistic Personality Disorder and Shi the commenter. What’s odd is I watched these guys post for years and I had no idea that Trash was beating up on Shi. Look, I don’t doubt that he was, as Shi wouldn’t make that up. He’s no pussy professional victim imagining abuse where there is none. But I think it goes to show just how sneaky these guys are. I couldn’t see it because I wasn’t Shi. Maybe the only way to see it was to be Shi. But you see how they get away with their abuse as they make it so subtle you can hardly see it.

RL: Maybe I should not desire to be hated so much. That puts me in Trash Territory where I do not want to be.

There’s nothing you could ever do that will put you in Trash territory. No Internet personality can sink as low as Trash. I’ll come to that in a second. I never understood your deal with the Delphi murders audience (nor do I wish), but they don’t represent the Internet in its entirety. No matter how hard you try, you’ll never be the most hated man on the Internet.

RL: That’s interesting. Why do you hate him?

Where do I begin? I blame Trash for messing with my impressionable mind at a young age, which has led to some disastrous consequences in my personal life and career. My life is messed up in a way I couldn’t have done it myself.

Please note I can’t directly connect the dots here because all the bad decisions I made were my own fault. I am aware of this and I take full responsibility for my actions. But without Trash, it wouldn’t have probably been as bad as now. I wish I never knew this guy in the first place. There are no U-turns in life.

Basically Trash is a professional TROLL. He’s highly manipulative and a dangerous emotional bully. Somewhat like Donald Trump, he has a way of getting you wrapped in his web of lies. You would never know what hit you, but it feels real.

Trash is a pro at getting under your skin and making you feel entirely worthless. And that’s just on the Internet. God knows how much more damage he can pull in the real world. This man is toxic, like a vial of sulfuric acid. Trash is the most selfish person I’ve ever met online. All his conversations revolve only around him. He thinks he’s the center of the universe, and wants you to be part of it. This man is just not capable of empathy.

It was around August 2014. I just came back from my first trip to Europe. I was very happy then. I had a steady job. Not that well-paying but I had good career prospects. Anyway I decided to share my experiences online, and that includes your website.

Trash introduced himself to me and started narrating tales of his own road trips in India, Thailand, and many other countries. He’s an American but he knows Asia very well. But that wasn’t what he wanted. He was only there to mock me, write off my travel experiences as trivial, and make me feel as if I’d never be able to accomplish anything of worth in my whole life. He did that slowly and in a recurring manner.

Let us remember I was only 32 then. It was difficult for my impressionable mind to dismiss his subliminal messaging. If you remember one of Trash’s commenting patterns is that he can be quite unrelenting and repetitive. He probably had said it was something to do with his autism, but no, it was well-planned. He really likes to mess with people’s minds. To do this, he will re-package the same negative message in different ways.

Unfortunately I fell into his pattern of harmful TROLLING. It made me question my goals and purpose in life. I spent at least a few months wrangling with Trash almost on a daily basis. I suddenly quit my job and threw away a desirable career. It was one of the best jobs in my life and I regret leaving that company.

I went off to Europe for another extended trip and burned all my savings in the process. Well, I traveled a lot. Saw so much and it did help me improve my life experiences. But it came at a huge personal cost. I was broke. And I was OK with that, as falling from grace is a part of life.

I found another job at another company. It wasn’t as good as the previous one, but I was still determined to rebuild my life. Now I’m 35.

But Trash decides to mess with me ONE more time. It was around 2017. He was following the same pattern. He made me feel worthless and like a nobody. I hadn’t learned enough the first time, and I just had to repeat the mistakes. While last time I went broke, this time I went into debt. And I am still repaying those bad loans.

I wasn’t commenting here for the last 2-3 years because I was in a really bad place – and it’s somewhat Trash’s fault. Fortunately you banned him from commenting here. He still might be lurking around here. I am recovering from all the damage that’s been done. But my beautiful career is over. I cannot be hired again as my name is bad news for the corporations where I worked before.

I let Trash do me over TWICE. “Fool me twice, shame on me” as the adage goes. His TROLLING can cause real world damage, and I have first-hand evidence. Internet trolling is no laughing matter; I am a victim.

The Person Who Argues with Everything You Say But at the Same Time, Insists That They are Never Wrong

I have found that most professor types I meet on Academia (average IQ 145) never accuse me of asking too many questions and always seem fascinated when I come up with some question that neither of us knows the answer to. Their reaction seems to be:

Cool! Now I have a new problem to figure out!

Also, these professor types are some of the only people I have ever known who don’t get pissed off when you tell them they are wrong. A lot of times they say:

Thank you for correcting me. I never knew that.

That’s what I say when someone corrects me with some new information:

Hey, thanks for that! So I was wrong (thinking: and that’s ok)! Thanks for the new information!

Funny thing is these people are usually assholes who have an attitude of:

I can tell you you’re wrong anytime, in fact, I will disagree with everything you say. But at the same time, I am never wrong.

These people never say thank or congratulate or compliment anyone for anything, are very selfish, are takers and not givers, and often have a strong sense of entitlement that they don’t have to play by the same rules everyone else does. They deserve a break on everything because they’re special. They’re basically huge assholes. Problem is that people like this are literally everywhere you look. I have several in my own extended family.

These are insufferable pricks who argue with everything you say. These people are truly toxic and I advise all of you to get the Hell away from anyone like that. Also they’re unreformable. And I guarantee that even though they tell you that you are wrong with every utterance, you can never tell them that they are wrong and if you do, they throw a psycho hissy shit fit.

Basically these are people who are never wrong. Please, whatever you do in life, folks, do not end up like that.

Please don’t become a piece of shit who argues with everything people say and at the same time feels that they are never wrong. You are acting like one of my brothers and my father, two of the worst people I have ever known.

People who are like this are some of the worst people on Earth, and in my fantasy world I would put them all against walls and shoot them. They’re Goddamned monsters!

There are obvious psychological reasons why they do this, but they are rather complex and they are the subject of another post.

Most people are either women, who are too insecure to stand being corrected because they’re generally weak and insecure people, or men that I call faggots, girls, sissies, wussies, women, queers, gaishas.

I call them that because to me an insecure man is a big Goddamned wuss! A man is supposed to be strong and being strong means being secure. Unfortunately, most men are quite insecure, but I do think this is a pussy and gay way to live as a man and I wish they would man up and become more secure and quit being such an insecure little wuss.

But like I said, some professors love to be corrected if they are truly wrong and you can set them right. I think this is because, like me, they don’t want to believe anything that’s not true (except for some ego stuff about myself and maybe others).

But as far as raw, impersonal facts like you read in books or see on the news, all I want to know is what’s true. I don’t care if my side is wrong. Maybe I need to change sides then. I don’t care if my side acts bad. Typically I figure the other side acts worse or maybe I need to change my mind. I’m also always ready to change my mind and switch sides about most anything.

Actually, I have met professors who actually loved it when you disagreed with them or told them they were wrong! They saw it as a challenge. Their attitude was:

Cool! Show me how my theory is wrong! I know my theory is right and this is a nice challenge for me. I’m also confident that you are wrong and I am right.

Game/PUA: The Problem of the Older Never-Married Man

The Problem of the Middle Aged and Older Never-Married Man

I usually relate something like this to new women because especially being a never-married man at my age is rather suspicious and makes me seem like a low value man or an Omega. I’m so lame that even by age 64 I haven’t found a single woman who would marry me! I must be an incel or even a lifelong virgin!

First of all, many women think such men are just gay and probably quite a few of them are, especially closet cases who want a beard wife although this was more common in days past.

Even if he’s heterosexual, being never-married doesn’t look good.

This is normally the type of man who has never married by late in the game, which boils down even to over 30-35 – in many cases he is so sexually and romantically inept that he literally cannot get a woman.

Other men are married to their jobs, and I suppose this might be ok if you’ve accomplished good things professionally.

Another type would be a hardcore woman-hater or misogynist. I’ve seen some of them unmarried far into middle age. This guy was also a 50 year old virgin, so you can see it tied into the other type too.

Another type might just be so weird or crazy that no woman has ever wanted him.

Perhaps he has a long-term disease or deformity.

Perhaps he’s been poor his whole life and has never made a nickel and hence never attracted a woman.

I remember my aunt dating at age 40 and complaining that single men at that age who were straight, sane, and solvent (her requirements) were quite rare.

Most if not all of these things are huge minuses in the minds of women. If you’re single past 30-35, I don’t know what to say. It depends on how you lived your life. Try out saying different things to different women and see how they react. You are under no obligation to tell the truth about your prior love life. You’re free to make up any lies you want about your romantic past. The problem is that if you come off as one of the low value men above, bragging about your romantic success will seem absurd and ridiculous.

There is one type of unmarried man who gets a pass. Perhaps you have one or more long-term relationships with a woman. Maybe even the fewer the better. Maybe you have a kid or two with one or more of these long-term partners. To women, these guys just seem like “divorced men with exes and kids who simply never bothered to tie the knot.” A lot of women might want to snap them up as “husband material.”

Of course the other type of long-term bachelor who gets a mostly but not always complete pass is the Player or Womanizer. The problem with lying about this is if you don’t have the looks or game to back it up and make it seem credible, everyone will see through it.

It’s a cliche that men lie about their love lives and all claim to be players even when they are not. It’s also always said that if you really have a high lay count, you don’t need to brag about so you must be lying.

But the thing is I’ve never met a man who pretended to be more of a player than he was or pretended to be one when he wasn’t. I’ve also never known a guy to lie about his lay count. In fact, lay counts are not much discussed among men due to the potential to make most men feel insecure if one guy has a higher count than the other.

The only men I’ve ever met who even told me their lay counts all had had sex with over 100 women and girls.

You can talk about such things if you are a lucky enough fellow, but you should use the “humble brag.” There is an Internet lie that humble bragging is horrible, but I’ve been doing it my whole life and it usually goes over quite well.

If you have nice accomplishments, simply recite them with a shrug of your shoulders that says they are not important to you. And discuss them in the same tone you would use to say, “I drank a glass of water.” The effect is that your accomplishments will come off as no more important than downing a glass of water.

You can also look at the ground or duck your head shyly and lower your voice. You can even act like you are embarrassed or even humiliated to admit such a thing. This has the effect of making your achievement seem like a failure! People, especially other men, react very well if you discuss achievements of all kinds this way, including date counts and lay counts. You come off the exact opposite of a braggart, very humble and modest. People like a successful but modest man because they are rather rare. They have the best of two opposite qualities!

Anyway, with new women, I generally tell them my date count (with the proviso that dating a woman is not necessarily the same as fucking her) in a humble or embarrassed or ashamed way. Then I say, “Well I never married, so I had a lot of time to build up a high count.” I also say, “I’ve had many long-term relationships over the years, so I lived like a married man much of the time.” Or, “I dated a lot of women. I just never married any of them is all.” All said with an embarrassed shrug of the shoulders in a quiet or even ashamed voice. It works great.

I also say that my Player days were in the past, which is sadly true. I add that now that I am older, I want a long-term relationship and don’t have the energy to run around anymore. That’s not really true because I’m intellectually incapable of monogamy and I will probably always at least leave the door open to infidelity.

I was using the “reformed Player” line from very early in adulthood. “I used to date a lot of women, but it got old and now I just want to be with one woman.”

I say this because in general, women want monogamy. I don’t care what anyone else. People ask my why I don’t identify as Poly, but that’s stupid. I put Poly on my profile on any dating site, and I guarantee no woman is going to talk to me. It’ll scare them all off.

Of course, I’ve been lying my whole life, always telling women that I am reformed and a good boy now and want to settle down with just one woman when all that time, I at least left open the possibility of cheating, which I am notorious for anyway. It’s amazing how easy it is to fool women with this line. I’ve been fooling them for over 40 years, and it still works great. I suppose it depends on your game and approach. It also helps if you have the good looks that make a Player lifestyle seem credible.

Alt Left: The Cyclical and Hegelian/Marxist Views of History

Shi: Wow, that’s some highbrow stuff right there. I’m going to have to go look that up.

Of course it is! History repeats itself. Study the Cyclic View of History as enumerated by Giambattista Vico and later and most famously by James Joyce. Read the first sentence of Finnegans Wake. That’s all about the Cyclical View of History.

Here is the first line of Finnegans Wake:

Riverrun, past Eve and Adam’s, from swerve of shore to bend of bay, brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs.

That’s a reference to the cyclical view of history, which is seen as a flowing river. History is often seen as a flowing river. Face it, it’s more of a river than a lake, right?

“Commodius vicus” is Latin and I am not sure what it means, but that Latin word “vicus” is a nod to Giambattista Vico, the great Italian philosopher of the 1500’s who came up with the idea of the cyclical view of history. His most famous book is called The New Science. And no, I’ve never read him. Joyce is hard enough without getting into the real big boys, the philosophers.

Marx also discussed this by referring to Hegel in The Eighteenth Brumiere of Louis the Fourteenth that begins with the famous line,

History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.

And I’m not even sure what that means!

Oddly enough, Hegel and consequently Marx and Marxists didn’t adopt a cyclical view of history (and perhaps the quote above is meant to mean that it’s a bad idea). Instead, they adopted the view of history as a progressive thing in which people advance in every way possible and old ideas, reaction, and barbarism are slowly discarded. In that sense, it is important to note that all Marxism and all Leftism or even liberalism is basically Hegelian and works according to the Dialectic View of History. Although I doubt most liberals would call themselves Hegelians because they suck too much to do that.

If you study history of the West or US in the last 200 years, you can see that we have gradually been moving forwards, not backwards. Of course this Supreme Court now is trying to make clocks run backwards and go back to the 19th Century. But no one ever said that the forward movement of progressive history won’t be fraught with reaction in response to this forward movement.

Generally speaking, most forward movements in society are met with either conservatism (“Don’t change or go forward! Leave it just the way it is!”) or Reaction (“Stopping things in place isn’t good enough because we’ve already gone too far! We need to go backwards, back the old days!”

This means something like

Hey, looks go back and live in the 1950’s!

of the White Nationalists all the way to the US Republican Party under Karl Rove which wants to go all the way back to the Gilded Age in the late 1800’s. In my opinion they literally want to turn the clock back 150 years.

In general I like the idea of history as a continuous forward movement and in general, I think Reaction is a bad thing. My view is:

Clocks run forwards, not backwards!

I also like to say that reactionaries are:

Literally fighting a war against Time itself

There are times when the old ways are better and reorganizing society actually goes way too far and even makes things worse. Too many liberals and Lefties are like, “Let’s change things! Why? Because the present always sucks! So why change? Just because! Change for change sake! The old ways are always wrong and we must continually move forwards!”

I think at some point you’ve gone as forwards as you can go and wen you start going beyond that, you just get into insanity, as with modern Identity Politics, SJWism, and PC culture. My response to that is they’ve gone too far:

Your grandmother was right (about some things)!


I signed up for revolution, not insanity!

with the latter referring to my embrace of the great cultural revolutions of the 1960’s which then didn’t know when to stop and kept moving forwards into insanity, mental illness, and non-adaptive behavior that in a way is as anti-civilizational as the Right’s dream state.

I also figure that all this new stuff we want to try has probably already been tried at some point by our ancestors or by someone’s ancestors anyway.

The reason traditions exist is probably because they tried everything else, including the kooky stuff the Left wants to do, figured out it didn’t work, and quit doing it. It also probably left them with some elder wisdom along the lines of, “That doesn’t work and here’s why.” They might not recall that they had tried it in the past, but how else would they know it doesn’t work?

And why do traditions exist? Like I said, I figure they tried everything else it either flopped or didn’t work real well, and eventually the tried the civlizational style of this tradition and found that not only did it work but it worked better than all the other nonsense.

In that sense, I am a bit of a social conservative. Liberals and Lefties often want change for change sake.

Me: Hey, why are we changing this thing anyway? It seems to work pretty good as it is, isn’t it?

Liberals and Lefties: Just because! Because we can! For no reason! Because all progressive change is good! Because the present mode is always backwards and barbaric! Because we must always go forwards!

My reaction to that is a cool type of conservatism that says:

Hey, look. A lot of these changes you are proposing don’t seem like good ideas and seem like they won’t work. You seem to proposing change for the sake of change. Be that as it may, tell you what, Lefties. You guys go over there out of sight and do all your wild societal experiments, but just keep me out of it, ok? Oh, and by the way, let me know how it goes!

Wink wink.

As with so many things, it’s often a bad idea to have too much of a good thing, in this case progress, an idea which might surprise a lot of people. The Chinese Taoist view of “All things in moderation” sounds boring to young people and rebellious types, but as I got older, I’ve found that this is the wisest way to live.

I basically hate conservatism but this is a type of “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” conservatism that I think is quite sensible and even wise.

Game/PUA: The Conundrum and Cognitive Dissonance of Female Reproductive Strategies

Manuel Rodriguez: Whenever I see a woman voicing the notion “I can change him” with regard to her male partner, my explanation is that the reason they do this is because female brain recognizes one or more traits in a desirable male that would make him unsuitable as a long term partner. The solution her brain would suggest would be to begin a domestication process.

The problem is that this works poorly or not at all if the man has either Dark Triad personality traits or has had very positive early experiences with females. Both situations will drive him to desire sex with multiple women. The problem here is that all the men they find the most desirable fit in either of these two categories.

There is also the irony that if they domesticate a wild man too much, she will find him undesirable, sort of like a Beta of sorts!

I don’t know how to explain it. Is like you admire a wild animal and would like to have it as a pet, so you try to tame him. But, if you tame it too much and it ends up being too obedient and hence boring, you throw it out on the street!

I guess it all comes down to the complex reproductive strategies and needs of females.

They want a dominant man, but such men are not very fond about the idea of sticking with just with one woman. Women will only pick a Beta if they are forced too, but on the other hand they both need and desire their loyal traits as husbands and fathers, especially if the woman is over 30.

This is so perfect. In fact, I started thinking like this as young as age 19. At the time I thought the perfect man for a hot woman was a guy was a “reformed Player” who had already screwed a number of other females. This “Player” personality and history is what attracted her to him in the first place!

But this leads to a conundrum. Women usually want to keep a hot man for themselves. They also like to get jealous and fight off other women who try to poach their man because women are always trying to steal each others men and in fact delight in doing this.

So she wants a former player who now agrees to be only with her. And why is this? Because she is so hot, so much of a high value woman, that he will give up all of his womanizing ways to be with her and only her because monogamy with her is so much better than trying to screw half the women in town.

Problem is this doesn’t work. Hardcore Players often never reform or get better, although there are many exceptions I’m sure. So the woman has trapped herself in a contradiction. She wants a “reformed Player,” but many Players either never reform or are unreformable. She wants something that either doesn’t exist or is not common.

In fact, I saw young men playing this very game.

I’ve never married, so I’ve racked up a lot of dates. I’ve probably dated ~200 girls and women, but it’s not so great if you realize that boils down to only 4-5 a year. I won’t discuss my lay count, but you are free to let your imaginations run wild.

I’ve seen a lot of women grab an Alpha or a Chad and just figure “He’s going to cheat anyway because he’s so high value, so I have to leave that option open for him.”

My current girlfriend, out of the blue, offered to bring a woman over to join in so they could put on a show and I could fuck them both. I was shocked.

She caught me flirting with other women one time and asked me if I wanted her to find a girlfriend for me. I was like, “What? I though you were my girlfriend!”

This chick is 65 years old too! And still masturbates to orgasm every single day too. It’s amazing how many women in their 60’s are still masturbating up a storm. I also met a woman who did the same thing on a daily basis, but she used a dildo to keep her vagina from closing up. This is sadly what happens after menopause if you don’t go on estrogen or get a local estrogen supply via a device in your cervix. This chick was 65 too. It wasn’t far into the conversation when she asked me how big my cock was. A 65 year old woman asking a question like that right off! Old ladies are hornier than you think!

Some women think, “He’s going to cheat anyway, so I might as well control it.”

They bring women around for him and watch or join in. Perhaps they get into the swinging scene.

Or perhaps they just figure he’s going to cheat but say they will keep him anyway.

I had a girlfriend recently who thought I was a hopeless case incapable of monogamy. I asked her what she would do if I cheated, and she said, “Probably fuck one of your friends to get back at you.”

Later she ended up bringing her girlfriends around and asking them if they wanted to make out with me. They all said yes and I got to make out with them for 10 minutes while she cheered us on. We weren’t supposed to go further than that. She did it because she thought I was Chad. “You’re hot! I want to see you make out with my friends!”

Later she started jumping up and down saying, “I want to see you fuck a chick! I want to see you fuck a chick!” I asked why and she said, “Because you’re hot.” We did find a young woman one night and brought her over. The young woman was ok with it being a performance. I had sex with her on the bed while my girlfriend sat in the corner, rubbed her clit like a maniac and shouted out instructions to both of us, which only got dirtier and dirtier as the sex went on.

So you cans see there are advantages to being an Alpha, or in my case, apparently a Chad (I’m not sure I’m all that Alpha). Life is a beauty contest and some of us lucked out from the start. What can I say?

So you see some women make compromises with Player or Dark Triad types. They get to have an Alpha or Chad partner and keep him around by satisfying his straying ways. They figure, “Guys that hot are always going to cheat anyway. If I want to Alpha or Chad, I’m going to have to put up with infidelity. So be it. I want my Alpha/Chad.”

There really is so much more to write about this but I will stop for now.

Alt Left: Women and Soaps and the Addictiveness and Increased Extremism of Commercial Mass Media

From Manuel Rodriguez in the comments section:

Women and Soaps

Robert, your hypothesis that what women seek more than anything else in life are “peak emotional experiences.” For some time, I was trying to figure out why women seem to like soap operas and dramas soo much.

My mother never was one for telenovelas.

But a few months ago, one of the state channels aired a 18-episode South Korean show, a comedy called The Coffee Prince, on TV. She and my aunt started watching every episode on a daily basis. The channel soon aired a second South Korean telenovela series made by a different company. At first, my mother and aunt didn’t think they would like this new series as much as the South Korean one.

After watching the first two episodes, they started to gain interest in it. They missed one of the episodes, so we they searched around on the Net where they could watch it there instead. After that episode finished, they found that they couldn’t stop watching, and they really wanted to see the next episode. They started watching three or four episodes a day. After the series ended, they were binge-watching South Korean telenovelas on internet. They were hooked!

How Mass Media Acts Like a Drug in Being Addicting and Continuously Becoming More Extreme over Time

This is a good comment here. The commenter is pointing out how mass media acts like an addictive drug in that it seems to be deliberately designed to hook you to it in the same way an addictive drug does. Mass media also resembles addicting drugs in the sense that you need to increase the dose over time to get the same effect. Mass media does this by becoming more extreme over time as viewers build up “tolerance” to the narratives

Mass consumption media seems to be scientifically designed to be as addictive as possible. It is also designed for specific target audiences.

Take porn for example. It’s based around the male’s generally high libido and desire for variety in women and the focus is mostly on the sex itself. There is an emphasis on the physical traits of the actresses, and there is a general lack of context. Sure, women can watch and enjoy it too, but is mostly geared for men, and they are the biggest consumers.

Sure, men can also find dramas interesting, but it seems to act like cocaine with women if they are not careful.

Dramas and soap operas seems to hold certain general characteristics. We have the constant negative scenes and “downer” moments, but there are other moments of comedy and happiness. There are different “flavors.” Comedy shows focus more on the “happy” moments rather than the negative ones. Having two protagonists trying to establish a romance as the central aspect is not always necessary.

The series can start like a standard show, focusing on interesting plots, but sooner or later, there seems to be a couple that become the central theme of the show. The series ends in the same episode where the problems/villains that are preventing the couple from committing to each other disappear.

Depending on the subtlety of the show, you might get the couple re-encountering each other after some time away, giving the viewer only the implication that they are back together or you might get a full blown marriage. The female fantasy brain seems to be more focused on the chase and does not so much take into account whether the marriages and relationships on these shows will actually work out with time. This also reflects the choices women make in real life to some extent.

Dramas seems to share certain things with porn. Just as porn seems to get more hardcore and rough over time, dramas seems to get more extreme over time and have more absurd tragic aspects such as multiple characters all dying in different accidents over the course of a show or series.

Feminists who are opposed in how the hardcorization of porn can teach young men increasingly more dangerous notions about sex with women, which is something I agree with.

There is a similar phenomenon in the Rambo movies with each sequel having double the body count of the previous one.

For instance, here is the plot of a hypothetical new Rambo movie.

Rambo has won a Nobel prize for his exploits in the previous movies. Rambo is initially working with an NGO in Africa to help children, vowing never to go to war again. He watches the news in a TV announcing the start of the Russian operation in Ukraine. He is contacted by a character called The Colonel, who offers to send him on a mission to Ukraine, either to save a friend or for blackmail purposes. Upon arriving, the volunteer training center gets destroyed with a missile in front of him, wiping out all the volunteers and mercenaries.

This leaves Rambo to take the whole Russian army on his own. He ends up getting partnered with a female who is a Black lesbian Azov militant with dyed air. Let’s not forget that wokism is the latest fashion with the neocons and Western imperialism. In the final scene, Rambo ends up in a showdown between himself alone against the entire Russian navy, and he ends up destroying the whole fleet with a single pistol. The end credits state that the movie is in honor of the brave Neo-Nazi Ukrainians in their just struggle against the Russians.

Alt Left: About Venezuelan Immigrants in Latin America

This is a comment from Manuel Rodriguez in the comments section:

There is a detail that neither the leftwing nor the rightwing media tells you about the Venezuelan immigrants now swarming Latin America having left due to the economic situation in Venezuela. Their typical depiction in the media depicts is of immigrants who left their country only to end up abused and struggling in less than ideal conditions in their new lands and living in poverty.

The rightwing media does this because they want to portray the Venezuelan government as a dictatorship that purposely starves his people for sheer kicks, trying to convince the reader/watcher that is necessary and justified to overthrow the government by any means.

The leftwing media does this to show how inhumane the rightwing governments of the immigrants host countries are while also implying that they would be better off staying in Venezuela. The immigrants choice to leave their country is portrayed as due to the mass media putting a campaign to encourage people to leave the country. The Left portrayal is not incorrect, but it doesn’t give the whole picture.

One type of Venezuelan immigrant are the pendejos. They sell their homes and cars to get money to travel without a clearly defined plan to some random rightwing country .

The other type of immigrants referred to as the “smart” ones belong to two categories:

  1. They are workers, which includes unskilled workers who, while making more than in their homeland, would end up working for somewhat cheaper than a worker native to the host country. Comparatively speaking, they would make even more in the host country than they would in a 1st World country due to differential costs and prices. Many of them already had had extensive contacts or even online work via an multinational corporation online before they immigrated. In these cases, the corporation may offer them not only a guaranteed good job but might even throw in housing and a vehicle.
  2. They travel to a specific country where they already have relatives. Their relatives either already run their own business or work for a multinational corporation (see Number 1).

The relatives I have abroad belong to either one of these categories.

We might also want to discuss here the phenomenon of unskilled labor from a Marxist-left wing perspective.

We are seeing a trend where “First World” countries are not just filling their countries with immigrant cheap manual labor to drive the wages of the native workforce to the bottom, while at the same time acquiring a convenient immigrant scapegoat to blame if and when things go south. Recently, this same phenomenon has migrated up the pay scale to the professional or intellectual workforce, like programmers and such, who are also being replaced by cheap Third World “brainy” labor.

Alt Left: The Biggest Cold War Lie of All – The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact

Perhaps the most despicable aspect of this retarded Cold War we lived through is that the disgusting US government, and possibly the rest of the West too, lied to us continually, every single day, all day long, during the Cold War. The Cold War was all about the lies. The lies, the lies, and nothing but the lies. Granted, there were some issues with Communism or even socialism for that matter, but the detractions of these systems were completely exaggerated.

You did not ever, ever, ever hear one positive thing about Communism, socialism, or even labor, workers or the Left for that matter during this period. They were all considered “Commies.” And liberal Democrats were some of the worst offenders, to their eternal shame.

And you never heard one single bad thing about the murderous Nazis, fascists, and other mass murdering maniacs who were fighting Communism. They were all as wholesome as Dick and Jane. Indeed in this respect, the 1950’s US was probably one of the stupidest decades in the past century. I was only three at the time, the early 60’s were not much better. It was truly stupid time to be alive.

Furthermore, US and NATO faggots used the Cold War to attack socialism and every left, worker, and union movement all over the world. The attitude of the Amerifaggots was that anything to the left of center was “Communism.” If not, Communism itself that creeping Communism.

One of the worst ones of all was the Stalin-Hitler Pact or the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Almost all nonbiased historians now view this episode as simply an opportunistic pact between two nations who absolutely hated each other. Stalin thought correctly that that Hitler was going to invade the USSR as far back as the early 1930’s.

This was the reason for the rapid industrialization and collectivization of the 1930’s. Bottom line, agriculture had to be collectivized to feed the workers. The workers had to be fed because the army and nation had to be built up to defeat Germany in the war that Stalin knew was coming in a decade. Hitler had never made secret his intention to defeat and destroy the USSR.

In the decade between 1932-42, agriculture was completely collectivized which enabled the complete industrialization of the USSR, one of the most rapid and complete industrializations of a large country that the world had ever seen, only surpassed later by Mao in the 1950’s.

In addition, to building up a massive army of over 20 million men, Stalin moved all of Russian industry east of the Urals. Almost all industry was west of the Urals and the USSR had to dismantle all of its industry and move it west of the Urals. What a monumental feat! Unfortunately, it was during this period that the Great Terror took place in which the USSR pretty much went inside and executed 800,000 people or 88% of all executions committed by the USSR. Almost 90% of executions in the USSR were conducted in a single year.

Some of them were guilty but most were just nationalists. Stalin did not trust any nationalist intellectuals and he thought they were all traitors. There was indeed a Trotskyite plot inside the USSR during the 1930’s. There were mysterious explosions and sabotages all over the USSR during this decade. Most of the people executed were hardcore Communists, so I’m curious why the anti-Communist West is so upset about it.

Didn’t he do you all a favor by getting rid of all those Commies? Stalin’s responsibility for the executions is still in doubt, though for sure he is responsible for many of them. On the other hand, Stalin himself was appalled in 1939 when he realized the scope of what had taken place and he panicked and blew the whistle on the Great Terror. His idea was that this had gotten completely out of hand. Whether he was responsible for it getting out of hand in the first place is another matter.

One good thing that came out of this was that when war broke out in 1942 with the Nazi invasion, all of the officer corps was 100% loyal. Anyone who was the slightest bit disloyal for whatever reason had been killed in 1938. But a major problem was that many fine officers had been executed in 1938.

In 1939, Hitler invaded Poland. Keep in mind that up to and even after the invasion of the USSR, most of the West had been quietly cheering on Hitler and trying to get him to attack the USSR. The idea was to turn his attention from conquering non-Russian Europe to the conquest of the USSR. The UK was particularly important in this regard and Churchill went to great lengths to try to get Hitler to refocus his war efforts.

Stalin knew that the entire rest of Europe were nothing but capitalist traitors who wanted him and his country dead. He also knew that Hitler was a deadly enemy. The USSR was Hitler’s main enemy, and he mostly hated Jews for being “Communists.” According to him, all Jews were Judeo-Bolsheviks and “Communism itself was Jewish.” So the Holocaust was really anti-Communism of the Cold War type of steroids. Cold Warriors should have been proud of Hitler. Look at all those Jewish Communists he killed!

As Hitler swept across Europe, the Red Army swept into Eastern Poland. This was actually a good thing in many ways as the people in the German occupied West suffered far more than those in the Soviet occupied East.

The whole idea of this creepy agreement was to buy time. Everyone with half a brain knew that Stalin and Hitler were deadly enemies, but the agreement, which no one expected to last, bought Stalin another 2.5 years in which he built up his army to such a massive size that it was able to defeat Nazism. And it was the Soviets who defeated Nazism, not the West. 89% of German casualties were caused by Soviet forces in the East. One of the biggest lies of the Cold War was that the West beat the Nazis, not the Soviets. This lie continues to be repeated by anti-Communist fucktards to this day.

A word about anti-Communists. A famous Russian said recently that the only he hated worse than Communists were anti-Communists. He’s got a point. It’s perfectly reasonable to be a democratic, preferably progressive or liberal, opponent of Communism on all sorts of grounds, humanitarian among them.

But when it comes down the nitty gritty, almost all fanatical anti-Communist extremists were and are Nazis and fascists. All wars against Communist countries were led by fascists, Nazis, or religious fundamentalists, feudal Buddhists in Tibet or Al Qaeda types in Afghanistan.

Anti-Communist armies have never been good guys anywhere on Earth. They’ve always been fascist genocidal monsters, and that includes the US in the Korean and Vietnam Wars, although we were not fascist, but we were surely genocidal. Furthermore, the US funded mass murder campaigns and genocides all over the world all through the Cold War. Most people who were massacred were civilians.

I don’t know why it is, but there doesn’t seem to be any decent way to be an anti-Communist. They all turn into fascists, Nazis, and mass murderers on a dime. I’ve always said, “Scratch a liberal, find a fascist,” and this seems more true now than ever.

Back to the pact. Sure, the Soviets killed some Poles, but the Germans killed 30-35 times as many Poles! Stalin killed 300,000 Poles, which is lamentable, but Germany killed 10 million Poles. For thirty years now, Polish Russophobia has verged on homicidal if not genocidal vibes and the hatred of Russians is so extreme that you can taste it on your tongue in the air. But there is not one word said about Nazis. The real enemy are the Russians. In this sense, Polish Russophobia is completely deranged.

Yet Polish Russophobia is so insane that nary a word is mentioned about Nazi Germany nowadays and in fact, the new government is fascist, albeit not Nazi. But they have a profound alliance with an openly Nazi government in Ukraine who celebrates Nazi collaborators who murdered 100,000 Poles as its national heroes. The Polish government simply winks at this.

The fascist NATO snipers from Lithuania and Georgia who shot both cops and protestors at the Maidan CIA coup were trained in NATO camps in Poland. So Poland very recently was training openly fascist and Nazi killers who murdered scores of innocent people to trigger a CIA coup.

Poland’s new government seems quite fascist. The Polish government at the time of the Nazi invasion was indeed a fascist government led by a man named Pikulski of a particularly nasty sort. Stalin did the Poles a favor.

The new government under this new fascist sleazeball makes constant references to the fascist Pikulski regime. Large, creepy, blood and soil ultranationalist rallies complete with torchlights, chants, and the whole nine yards have rocked Poland since this creep took over. Poland nowadays looks a lot like Nazi Ukraine. On the other hand, the Poles are not actual Nazis and probably never will be. The Nazis just killed too many Poles for that.

In fact as soon as the war was over, NATO was formed and former Nazis and fascists all over Europe filled its ranks. A large number of NATO officers were former Nazis and other Nazi collaborators. The CIA immediately went to work funding Nazis and Nazi collaborators to wage guerrilla war inside the USSR. And the US hired most of the best German Nazi scientists to work on its own space program.

As you can see, all sensible historians now view the Stalin-Hitler pact as a pact between the deadliest of enemies that Stalin hatched in desperation to try to buy 2-3 years before the inevitable Nazi invasion. My mother told me that she had seen a cartoon at age seven of Hitler and Stalin shaking hands. Each had a knife in his other hand hidden behind her back. Her father had told her that Hitler and Stalin hated each other’s guts and wanted each other dead but the pact was just done for some obscure geopolitical reasons.

Furthermore, now that the Soviet archives have been opened up, we can see all of the correspondence during the period of the pact and afterwards. This leads to the obvious conclusion that Stalin hated Hitler’s guts, knew he was going to attack, and was just trying to buy a little time.

But we were lied to all through the Cold War that Stain and Hitler were the best of buddies and Stalin was an ally of of the author of the Holocaust, Adolf Hitler. Now that the Cold War has been revived by NATO dogs, we are back to this retard argument all over again. I see it every day about how Stalin was Hitler’s best friend. The implication is that Stalin was a Nazi collaborator and hence was partly responsible for the Holocaust.

In addition, all sorts of other despicable Cold War lies have resurfaced due to the revival of the fascist NATO beast, a plague on all of mankind. It would take me days to go through the lies. The lies go nonstop all day every day. It takes up all of your time just to refute you, which is probably by NATOfags do it in the first place.

They probably know they are all lies but they just want to make you waste all of your time running around the web refuting. Jewish ultranationalists and super-Jews and Libertarians on the Web engage in similar sleazeball tactics. They all deserve each other and can go wallow in the same mud heap together. And the Cold War NATOfags can join those pigs in the mud.

In future post, we will go into a bunch of lies from Cold War faggots that we thought were dead and buried long ago that have been gleefully dredged up and returned to life like zombies from the graveyard hungry for flesh by these NATOfags.

Alt Left: What Is Rape Anyway?

What Is Rape Anyway?

I had an ex who told me that she was “raped” every day by her boyfriend for five years. I’m sorry, but that’s a bunch of crap! She never once said no or fought back against him. She said, “Well, if I did that, he would just go ahead and do it anyway, so there was no point.” Sorry but that ain’t rape. Granted this guy sounds like a huge tool and from what I know of him, he was a real Cluster B monster. I think he was either a sociopath or he had sociopath traits. He also had some prominent narcissistic traits. He was incredibly manipulative.

Also, it seemed like she rather liked these “rapes,” although she would probably hit you if you said that. We got in a huge fight because she said I was “having sexual fantasies about her rapes.” Well, they didn’t seem like rapes to me. It just seemed like really dirty porn-type sex which she seemed to be quite enthusiastic about. At least that’s how I imagined it in my mind.

If I thought of them as actual rapes, it wouldn’t be hot because I don’t find rape fantasies hot.

Not that there’s anything wrong with men fantasizing about raping women. You can fantasize about whatever you want to. I just don’t want you doing it. On the other hand, I might argue that there are many more wholesome sexual fantasies to have than raping women, and you might want to switch to those instead.

Before you go on about how evil it is for men to fantasize about rape, do you have any idea how many women have rape fantasies? You don’t even want to know. I’ve met them, and there are many of them. Not just women but girls. I’ve had 15 year old girls tell me that they had extremely strong rape fantasies, so it’s not just a woman thing. It’s more a female thing.

That’s what I was fantasizing about – a consensual but pretty rough and dirty type of porny sex that she seemed to be having. I wasn’t fantasizing about any rape because in my opinion there wasn’t any rape. How on Earth does your own boyfriend “rape” you every single day for five years? Why don’t you move out? Why don’t you call the cops?

Granted, the guy was a completely scumbag and she referred to him as “The Psycho” but she seemed to still be oddly fond of him, which made no sense at to me. And she liked the dirtiest, rapiest, roughest sex you could possibly imagine, sex that could only be described as “consensual rape.” She had developed a taste for very rapey sex.

This makes sense to me because I’ve seen over and over that women tend to eroticize their abuse. Women get molested? They develop a taste for older men and often become huge sluts.* They get raped and from then on they develop a taste or even demand for rapey sex and this often becomes the only kind of sex that gets them off. And they often because gigantic sluts* too.

But look. It’s not rape if you are not trying to fight him off or resisting and saying no or stop. We men are not mindreaders. If you’re agreeing to sex but not consenting in your mind, sorry, but that’s just not rape.

Rape is the following:

  • Force or the threat of force. Thank you Mom for drilling that into my head!
  • Fraud or impersonation. Hardly ever happens though.
  • Sex via drugging a woman with a rape drug.
  • Sex with a woman who is so intoxicated that she is passing in and out of consciousness. This usually only applies to alcohol. Women can be high on most anything else but it’s not rape. Feminists keep screaming that if a woman has one single drink, it’s illegal to have sex with her, but feminists are loons, and no DA takes a case like that. Stranger rape cases are hard enough without venturing into the minefield of acquaintance rape.

“Coercion” is pretty much bullshit. Everybody “coerces” or tries to coerce everybody into doing everything all the time. So what.

You can certainly argue or debate women into bed. I’ve done it many times. In fact, I’ve earned international awards for such things. That’s how good I am at this. The point is that once you get her into bed, she ought to be ready, happy, and willing. That’s all that matters. It doesn’t matter so much how you got her there as long as you didn’t violate 1-4 above.

On the other hand, it’s a drag to have to argue or debate women into bed. Sex works so much better when it’s completely free of that BS.

As long as the “coercion” does not involve force or the threat of force, it’s 100% legal.

He’ll fire you from your job if you don’t do it? Not illegal, but you can sue him in court and win if you can prove it.

Do it or I’ll arrest or deport you? Wow, that’s getting pretty bad.

Do it or I won’t love you anymore? LOL not illegal at all.

Sleazy? Sure, all that stuff is sleazy, but seduction at its core is pretty sleazy stuff. It’s basically a con, a trick, a scam. Women just don’t give it up that easily. If they did, I could go get some sex right now, and I sure can’t do that. It’s not like you can go to the Girlfriend Store and buy a date for the night for $10. As long as women make it hard for men to have sex with them (which is part of their programming) men will resort to sleazy ways of seduction.

*Not that there’s anything wrong with being a slut of course, as I’ve had some of the best times of my life with sluts, but let’s face it, some women are simply sluts. Furthermore, I’ve had girlfriends who literally requested or even demanded to be called sluts in bed. These same ones would not take slut as an insult.

We had huge fights and of course I would call her a slut and a whore during the fights because she was being an evil bitch and that’s the least she deserved. But she would always respond that being called a slut or a whore was not an insult, and in fact, it was a compliment. There are more women out there than you think, trust me. I’ve met quite a few of them.

Alt Left: The Ghislaine Maxwell Sentence

She got 20 years.

On the other hand, it looks like they really screwed over some women pretty bad. Sarah Ransome was absolutely trafficked for sex. I even have a problem with her though. She was living in an all-expense paid apartment, paid for by Epstein.

Her initial recruitment, which was pretty much seduction in a very sleazy way, looks illegal. She was taken to Pedo Island on a plane and then she was literally raped by Epstein when she was there. Maxwell was totally in on the rape. They wouldn’t let her go when she tried to flee the island. She even tried to swim away in shark-infested waters. They put her on a starvation diet to force her to lose weight.

She then claimed she was “raped” over and over by Epstein so many times she could not count them. Doesn’t she have to fight him or say no or something? If she’s just agreeing but but disagreeing in her mind, I’d say it’s not rape. Saying “no” in your head doesn’t count.

Here’s the part I don’t get. She went back to Pedo Island several more times of her own free will. Why on Earth did she do that? That hardly sounds criminal. If it was so awful, why keep going back? Did they threaten her if she didn’t go? And when she got to the island, supposedly she got “raped” over and over. OK, so did she protest or fight every time? Something about this doesn’t smell right.

However, she was threatened and one time when she tried to get away, they sent a car and grabbed her off the street and threw her in the car. I believe she was being sold to men by Epstein and Maxwell.

I would say that this woman was definitely being trafficked into prostitution then. I agree with that charge.

Ransome was a grown woman at 22 when this all started, so there was no “sexual abuse.” Sexual abuse just means child molestation. You can only sexually abuse little kids. You can’t sexually abuse teenagers or grown adults. You can commit sexual crimes against them, but it’s not abuse. There are other names for it.

Furthermore, all of this treatment totally messed her up psychologically, and I feel terrible for her.

The other case is a woman named Elizabeth Stein. Her case is even more curious. She looks even older than Ransome, so she must have been an adult when she was recruited. Maxwell and Epstein both seduced her into sex the night they met her, so I guess she had sex with both of them? She calls this “rape” but the details are hazy. She says, “They’re hard to say no to.”

Hey baby, that doesn’t count! “Hard to say no to” doesn’t mean “rape.” Sure, it’s not very cool behavior, but it’s hardly criminal.

Anyway, she kept getting “raped” all the time by these two, and then was pimped out to other men. It’s hard to say if she was being trafficked. She kept trying to move away to escape them, but they kept tracking her down and convincing her to get back with them.

She claims they “brainwashed her” into agreeing to get gangbanged on the stated theory that no woman in her right mind would agree to such a thing. I’ve got some news for you, hun. There are women out there who freely agree to such things. I’ve actually met a couple of them. Apparently these gangbangs were “rapes” too. I guess every time she got whored out, it was a “rape.”

They did threaten her that if she talked to anyone, they would kill her. That’s called Criminal Threat and it’s a crime if she can prove it, which might be hard.

I’m wondering exactly what crimes were committed against this poor gal, not that she didn’t get screwed over by these maniacs. She also ended up a mess psychologically. She ended up with Borderline Personality Disorder, though she might have already had it. She also ended up with a weird physical ailment that is psychogenic. All in all, they screwed her up pretty bad. But that’s not illegal last time I checked.

On the other end, I have a lot of sympathy for this woman and I’m sorry these creeps messed her up.

I wouldn’t want a woman to leave me and end up a psychological and physical wreck due to the way I treated her if I treated her terribly. That would be on my conscience forever. On the other hand, if I didn’t act bad and she still ended up a physical or psychological wreck due to being with me, there would not be much I could do, and I would not feel bad.

This has already happened to me, but she was a complete mess when I met her, so I wash my hands of this. For you men out there, women have a habit of doing this – taking completely non-abusive relationships and somehow turning them into “horribly abusive” ones. Don’t get fooled by these gaslighting types. They’re all nuts anyway and most of them have Borderline Personality Disorder or Borderline traits.

Alt Left: Lie: Russia Deliberately Targeted a Shopping Mall Full of 1,000 Shoppers with a $90 Missile

In Kremenchug, a Ukrainian mall was attacked by a Russian missile and caught fire. Lie.

Why did Russia waste a $90 million missile just to blow up a stupid shopping mall full of 1,000 customers? Apparently Russia did it just to be evil! Keep in mind that none of those “customers” was a woman or a child, and all of them were healthy, beefy military aged men or soldiers in uniform. I’m kind of thinking that wasn’t a shopping mall full of 1,000 shoppers. Furthermore, an important Ukrainian journalist obliquely stated that the shopping mall was full of soldiers.

We get to put our soldiers anywhere we want to, in shopping malls, schools, hospitals, anywhere, and it doesn’t mean you get to attack them!

Above, a fake photo posted by NATO dogs of “the attack on the mall.” Problem? That’s not a photo of the mall, and the photo is not even from the same area as the mall.

Above, a NATO dog from Portugal, a country of NATO dogs, spreading lies about the attack.

Notice there is no crater in any photo of the mall? That’s because the mall wasn’t hit. And if that mall was hit, it wouldn’t just be on fire, it would be flattened. And there would be a huge crater inside of it.

A NATO dog above posts a picture of a “crater” in the mall. Problem is that that’s no crater from a missile strike.

This is what a crater from a missile strike looks like. From the factory arms depot.

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?

Mall permanently closed. No car windows blown out. Mall windows intact. No women and children shoppers. Mall full of intact wine bottles! Missile strikes scientifically located to the ammo depots behind the mall.

We now know what happened. Russia hit a factory behind the mall where military vehicles were repaired. There were also three huge ammunition dumps there.

Above, factory and mall.

The factory was only 300 feet away from the mall. The main reason the factory was hit was because Ukrainian vehicles and ammunition was being stored there. It was the detonation of this ammunition that caused the fire in the mall.

Above, there were three missiles.


The missiles hit the factory, not the mall.

Three missile hits, geolocated.

In fact, some of the worst NATO whores of them all, including the despicable Wall Street Journal, have come out and admitted that Russian missiles hit the factory, not the mall.

A video of the missile hitting either the mall or the railway behind the mall. The railway was right next to the mall. This may have been the hit that caused the fire at the mall.

Above, a Ukrainian dog posted a video of a “missile attack on a mall.” It is actually an attack on the railroad, which admittedly is right behind the mall.

I love seeing those missiles blow up Ukrainian stuff! That makes me so happy! I love to see Ukrainian stuff blow up and burn!

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.

As you can see above, the missile hit the factory next to the mall, not the mall itself, which was empty anyway.

Internet sites of the mall say it was permanently closed.

So it looks like an accident that this mall caught fire.

It also looks quite unlikely that 13 innocent civilians 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. I would assume that most if not all of the dead and wounded were soldiers from the arms depots in the factories behind the mall.

While we are at it, can we have the names of these people who were killed, whether they were soldiers or not, and if they were workers, where they worked? We also want to know exactly what they were doing at the time of the missile hit.

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!

Alt Left: 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.

Alt Left: 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.

The sanctions against Russia do not cover food. Lie. Maybe so, but they cover a lot of ways to buy the food and get the food to other countries. Many countries in Latin America are facing economic catastrophe because they are no longer allowed to export their crops to Russia due to sanctions.

Russia is trying to starve the world as blackmail. Lie. Many countries in Africa are trying to import Russian food, especially wheat, but sanctions have made it difficult if not impossible. The US is pressuring all African countries to not buy Russian wheat, with consequences if they do.

The world is voting against Russia in the UN. Lie. There have been some votes in the UN against Russia. Many of the countries who voted against Russia said that the US had basically forced them to vote that way by threats. America is a gangster state.

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.

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 Buk and S-300 surface to air missiles at Russian cruise missiles.

The Buks missed the cruise missiles and hit their own S-300 missiles instead! One of these hits occurred over an apartment building and ended up damaging the building. Ukraine is completely responsible for the attack. Furthermore, there were no residents in the building. The building had been evacuated months ago and there were no civilians inside. Apparently it was empty.

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.

In Russia, you are not allowed to criticize the government or Putin. Lie. If you do, you will be arrested, beaten, imprisoned, or even killed. This is just not so. An interviewer went around Moscow interviewing people about how they felt about the war. A recent survey showed 17% of Russians opposed the war. No one is afraid to answer any anonymous survey in Russia.

Many of the young people openly told the interviewer that they were against the war. Nothing happened to any of them. 8,000 professors signed a petition against the war. Nothing happened to any of these people. The Duma recently outlawed the treasonous pro-West opposition consisting of a couple of TV and radio stations. I read an article about this on a Russian website and half of the commenters, all patriots, said they opposed making these stations illegal. Nothing happened to any of these commenters.

Putin kills those who go against him, especially journalists. Lie. There have been some attacks on prominent critics of Putin and his administration. Most of these people are associated with the pro-Western opposition. I am opposed to all of these attacks. It has not been shown who is behind these attacks in most cases. Some of them appear to have been done by radical Russian patriots. I doubt if the government put them up to it. There has been only one case of a journalist who might have been killed by Putin. The vast majority of even the traitor opposition blathers on all it wants to every single day and nothing happens to them.

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.

Alt Left: 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.

Alt Left: 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.

Game/PUA: 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.

Alt Left: 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.

Alt Left: 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.

Alt Left: 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!

Alt Left: 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.

Alt Left: 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.

Alt Left: 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.

Alt Left: 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!

Alt Left: 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.


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)