Month: October 2022

And how many nonracist women have figured this out? Zero percent! On the other hand, racist White women have looked carefully at the crime stats and realize that White men are safer. Oddly enough, this seems to imply that there is some benefit to White women in being racist. At the very least, being racist forces White women to think logically, while if they are nonracist, they seem to just roll in the emotional mud their whole lives. It’s sad that it takes racism to sharpen one’s eyes and direct one’s attention, lazer-like, in the right direction.

Polar Bear: I’ve seen vids of Blacks knocking girls out after they reject them. They have a different view on hitting women, that’s for sure.

See? Black and Hispanic women hit women way more than we do. They harass, assault, rape, and murder them a lot more than we do too. By a very large margin. Women are at much greater risk dating a Black or Hispanic man than a White man. But what is Western feminism all up in arms about? White men flirting with, asking women for their numbers or out, looking at women, etc. The popular culture says the White man is a creep that is inherently dangerous to all women. In fact, next to Asians, we White men are some of the safest men a women could engage with on any level, whether casual conversation all the way to long-term relationships.

How many women have figured this out? How many White women who are not racists have figured out that we White men are much less dangerous than Black or Brown men. I’d say almost zero. That would require women to think logically and way the odds in a scientific way, and they’re not really capable of either. Society tells them to fear White men as all of us are serial killers in disguise, so that’s what they believe. Examine their beliefs in the light of logic. Get out of here. Women don’t use logic. They can’t.

The definition of sexual harassment is when you won’t leave women alone. You keep bothering them, flirting with them, hitting on them and coming onto them over and over and over. She keeps telling you no and you don’t know the meaning of the word no and keep asking anyway! That is harassment! The US government definition of sexual harassment is “extreme, ongoing, and persistent.” This is clearly to be used in only the worst cases.

But nowadays, feminists have trashed this definition so badly any man making any woman uncomfortable ever for any reason is harassing her!

Looking at women, if they don’t like it, is sexual harassment!

Flirting with women, if they don’t like it, is sexual harassment!

Asking women out, if they don’t like it, is sexual harassment!

Asking women for phone numbers, if they don’t like it, is sexual harassment!

Of course coming onto and hitting on women, if they don’t like it, is sexual harassment. It’s utter madness.

The “unwanted sexual advances” definition is completely insane! Notice how it is at odds with the government’s sane official definition?

The thing is you never know if flirting, coming onto or hitting on women is unwanted until you try! And if she does give you the message that it is unwanted, you need to stop doing it. Permanently!

But the point is that every time you are flirting with, coming onto or hitting on a woman, you are risking being accused of harassment. And there’s no way to avoid this!

Truthfully, none of this is illegal yet. It might get you fired from a job or banned from a store, but it’s not against the law. Everybody thinks it is but it isn’t. There’s no such law as Illegal Talking or Illegal Talking to Other Humans or Illegal Asking Personal Questions. Have no fear though, the feminists are busy drawing up all of these laws right now!

You never know if looking at a woman is unwanted unless you try! And really, you ought to be able to keep on looking at her anyway. We don’t have an Illegal Looking law yet, but the feminists and the cucks are working on it! Really though, if a woman hates me, I’m unlikely to keep looking at her too much. Sometimes they are so hot that you just cannot not look at them. At least I can’t. I find myself asking myself, “How can I not look at her?” If she’s that hot, it’s like you have to look at her. Your mind keeps forcing you to do it.

But the point is that every single time you look at a woman nowadays, you are risking a sexual harassment accusation! It’s sheer madness.

You don’t know if asking women for their numbers or asking them out is unwanted until you try! So every time you ask a woman for her number or ask her out, you are risking being accused of sexual harassment! We don’t have laws against this yet, but don’t worry, the feminists are busy drawing one up as you read this!

So you try, she doesn’t like it, and now you just harassed her. There’s obviously no way to interact with women at all nowadays without risking a sexual harassment charge.

As you can see, we men cannot win. We have to change the definition of this sexual harassment madness or get society off this kick. It’s catastrophic for us men. And a lot of women don’t like it either. Typical woman. Put in some crazy, emotion-based law, and then get mad when it starts harming women as well as the men it was intended to harm. They still won’t change it though. They’re too stubborn.

I can’t believe I actually did that. I haven’t done that in forever. In the next post, you can maybe see why that is.

I was at a large mall in a nearby city recently to return some shoes and I wandered through the mall a bit while doing so.

I went to this one stand where they were selling I think pretzels and started to talking to a guy who worked there who was outside. I am extremely friendly, and I talk to all sorts of people in public quite often. Not always but I’m definitely known to do it sometimes. He was from Bangladesh. I was talking to him about his country, and I looked over at his store and there was this really hot Indian-looking woman working there. I’m not sure if she was looking at me or not.

Anyway, not sure what came over me, but I asked him to go ask that woman if she liked me. He kept saying, “Go talk to her, go talk to her,” but I kept saying I was too shy. I don’t really like to go up to women and ask them if they’re into me. It’s too forward. He tells me she’s 30. I ask him if she’s single and he says, “Yes!”

Later on, I was walking in the store and I saw this booth manned by this one hot young chick. For some reason, I wanted to go over to the booth to talk to her, not sure why. She was dealing with customers so I had to wait ~20 minutes until she was free. I just sort of hung out in the background trying not to be too conspicuous. You should try to be inconspicuous when you do this because otherwise you give off “creeper” vibes. Look away a lot of the time and pretend you are looking at other things. Put this idea in your head, “I don’t want to come off as a creeper,” and act accordingly.

She finally got free and I went over to talk to her. Somehow I ended up talking to her for maybe half an hour. She was extremely friendly and even shared a lot of personal information with me. She seemed like a typical unsure-of-herself young woman. She was 21. At some point, I left on good terms.

So anyway, I went away and came back to the same mall to return some more shoes.

I went by the shoe booth and walked over and see that another young woman is working there. I asked if she is the only one, and she said, “No, there’s another woman who works here.” I asked around about her name and she said it’s Lolly. I asked if she was Indian, and she said, “No, she’s Mexican.”

She gave me the same “not interested” vibe I get from young women all the time, which, honestly, I don’t necessarily mind at all as long as they are polite. Except a lot of them aren’t. I get it. Because the reason I went back there was because I was going to ask the 21 year old out. If you don’t want me to ask you out, you might as well be curt with me or however you want to put that message across. I am very good at getting that message.

Then I walked past the pretzel place and the Bangladeshi guy called me over in an excited way. He said, “Hey, I asked that woman, and she said she likes you!” I was like, “Damn, this is my lucky day!” Then I thought I will definitely ask her out next time I see her at this mall. Of course, people have told me, “Hey, that woman/girl likes you!” quite a few times in my life, though it was never something I heard all the time. But I’m used to it. Only thing is, I haven’t heard, “Hey that woman likes you,” in just about forever! Like, decades! It was music.

So I went back to the same mall again with the intention of asking out both women if they were at work.

I’ve asked out women and girls hundreds of times, so it’s no great shakes to do it. Plus, I know how to do it very well. And lately I only do it if I get a serious “green light.”

I had to return some slippers this time.

Before I went there, I bought some pens and a pad of paper because I had neither. I needed the pens and paper in case they were going to give me their numbers and they didn’t have paper or pen. You can always find paper but it’s much better if you have prepared paper. Often neither one has a pen so you have to go looking to borrow one. This way I’m prepared. Before I go in, I write my name, address and phone number on two sheets of paper. I figure I will trade this for her number. Neither will probably ever call me because women just don’t call men, but it’s always nice to give her your number anyway.

I walked down to the end and I saw the 21 year old. She greeted me and was extremely friendly. I cut right to the chase and more or less asked her out, but not in those explicit terms. In a sentence or two, I described the advantages she might get by dating me. I’m pretty good at selling myself and there’s nothing wrong with pitching yourself.

She said, “Wow, that sounds like a really appealing idea, but I have a boyfriend.” She’s had the same boyfriend for four years. I smile and say, “Darn!” Then she thanked me for asking her out! And she had said the idea of going out with me was a “really appealing idea!” What the Hell? We are 44 years apart! She had a big smile on her face as I walked away. She acted like she was flattered that I asked her out!

I went back by the pretzel place and I saw the Indian woman. I walked to the side of the place and she was just a few feet away. I motioned her to come over. She did and I said, “I want your phone number,” with a huge smile. She quickly said, “I’m sorry. I’m “taken.” She was smiling while she said it. She also acted like she was flattered that I asked her out!

Ok, this woman makes no sense. Her coworker asks her if she likes me, and she says yes. That pretty much means she wants to go out with you. Then I go back and it turns out she’s got a boyfriend. Her behavior doesn’t make sense but women do this all the time. By the way, any time you get a message that some female likes you, you absolutely have every right in the book to ask her out or for her phone number!

About giving them my personal information, I would almost like to give them more. How about my driver’s license number? Glad to. Social Security number is stupid. I’d be happy if she took a photo of me.

I’m giving them all of my information in order to make them feel safe. If they want to date me, they can write it down or make a note of it and give it to a friend or pin it on their wall or whatever. This way if anything goes wrong, she will be making it totally obvious that I’m the number one suspect. This doesn’t bother me at all.

I’d even be happy if she gave my information to her friend, made a note of it, left it on her desk, pinned it on the wall. I would even encourage her to do all of these things because I want her to feel safe and I’m pretty sure I’m not going to do something violent and creepy to her. She can even take a photo of me and keep it in her phone. I don’t care what information she needs. I’ll give her whatever it takes to make her feel safe.

I’ve never done anything violent or crazy to a woman on a date in my entire life, so I doubt if I will start now. I just don’t do stuff like that. Like, ever.

I get why so many women blow me off. If a young woman acts like she’s really interested in me and talks to me in a very friendly way to half an hour, especially if she reveals some vulnerabilities, then, yeah, next time I see her, I might just ask her out! So I can see why they shut me down and act businesslike or unfriendly in order to not lead me on. It makes sense. They’re trying not to give me any ideas.

By the way, if they are acting unfriendly or deliberately businesslike to give me an “I don’t want to go out with you” message, which I seem to get all the time, I definitely don’t ask them out! They get filed in this “not interested” category, and I don’t even try anymore unless they change their attitude, which it seems like they never do.

Turns out most of the women in the mall have to act friendly to customers (unlike Starbucks, the meanest store in the US!), so you don’t get many seriously unfriendly vibes. And nowadays, I am on alert for that vibe all the time, any time I interact with any woman.

As soon as I get that vibe, I tone it down and just act businesslike towards them. I might talk a little bit about this or that, but no way am I going to flirt with, or hit on or come onto her! And I can read messages very well, perfectly really. At the same time as you get the “I don’t want to go out with you” line, you often also also get this, “I don’t even want to talk to you!” message. I get this a fair amount of the time if I try to make conversations, and I’m always watching out for it. I especially get that at Starbucks, but it’s not limited to there.

It’s hard to describe this attitude. They might cut you off as soon as you start to say something.

They can act excessively “cold” or “too businesslike.” This sort of translates into “icy.”

A lot of the time they pretend that they don’t hear you even when they do. That is very hard to figure out and one is tempted to think she didn’t hear and repeat it, but a lot of the time, I just assume she is pretending she didn’t hear, and I just shut down. I used to always think they didn’t hear me and repeat what I said, but several years ago, I figured out that they were just pretending that they didn’t hear me. I now see that I get this a fair amount of the time from people.

Sometimes simply return her shutdown with my own shutdown. I stop being friendly and I just act businesslike or maybe even worse, a bit sullen, which is totally called for if she’s being unfriendly. Another message you might get is, say, she finished with your order and she’s moved away a bit, and then you ask her something else. She looks at you with disappointment and often fear. The look says, “Why the Hell are you even talking to me?!…It’s frightening to me when you talk to me!…I’m shocked that you are even talking to me at all!” on and on.

I pick up on that right away and I label her as “hostile” and I try to have as little conversation with her as possible. I put her in the “does not want any conversations” category and have as few words with her as possible. Plus I’m pretty unfriendly because anyone who sees me regularly and gives me this, “I do not want to talk to you, ever!” I label, quite correctly, as hostile, and you have a right to return hostility with hostility. I get that quite a bit nowadays too.

Sometimes I’m not sure if some woman likes me or not. If she was super friendly the last time I talked to her, maybe I look at her while she’s working the second time. If she likes you, next time you go in, you just start looking at her. It’s ok to keep your gaze. I don’t call that staring. It’s more like looking. If she still likes you, she will wave to you in this very friendly way, often with a little flutter of her hand. This often means she really likes you, like maybe she even might go out with you or have sex with you. That fluttery, feminine wave seems to be flirtatious or seductive. I haven’t seem them to it that much when they are just being friendly.

On the other hand, if you are watching her the next time you come in, it’s not unusual for them to completely ignore me when I am doing that! So she was super friendly at first, but then when I was looking at her, she treated me like I wasn’t there. That means she was just being friendly, and she doesn’t want to date me at all. It might also be risky to even try to talk to her because Starbucks got me in trouble for “asking personal questions” and threatened me with a ban. Everyone does that to everyone all the time anyway, and there’s no way that should be reason for a ban.

And no worker or customer should ever complain about such a thing. I would never try to bust any customer at work or say they made me uncomfortable. People don’t “make me uncomfortable.” That’s a woman thing because women are children. Young women are notorious for this.

After age 30, they get somewhat immune from “being made to feel uncomfortable” and if they don’t like the vibes they get from some guy, they just ignore him and go about their business. A lot of them seem to think that men are going to look at them, flirt with them, come onto them, and hit on them all the time anyway, and they just put most guys on ignore and move on.

It’s young women who are the great big crybabies. I can’t believe that there are “men” who would say, “That guy makes me uncomfortable.” I’d say you’re not much of a man if you say that unless some guy is being menacing towards you. If you’re not a pussy or a fag, you should be allowing other people to “make you feel uncomfortable.” That means you’re acting like a woman!

This whole “no man can ever make any woman feel ‘uncomfortable’ at any time for any reason, no matter who he is and who she is” is simply insane. I have a right to make people feel uncomfortable, as does anyone. Anyone has a right to make me feel as uncomfortable as they want. Knock yourself out! You have no way of knowing if you are making people uncomfortable when you are looking at them and possibly even when you are talking to them. You might not know until the end of the conversation.

I’ve hit a couple of women, but they hit me first, and plus, I didn’t hit them all that hard. I figure if I don’t cause serious or permanent damage, it’s ok. If a woman, hits me, I’m gonna hit the bitch back! A few of the times I did this, the bitches threatened to call the police on me but other people got them to calm down. In one case she kept threatening but never did it.

One time a woman was chasing me through an airport waiting area swinging at me and hitting me and yelling at me. I was just retreating backwards and trying not to get hit. Some older Black man saw it and started laughing. I love those older Black guys! No White man would do that but some Black men definitely would. That’s one thing that I really love about Black people. Anyway, at one point, I got tired of retreating and I punched her in the face just to stop her from chasing me and swinging and kicking at me. She freaked out and she got a bloody lip.

I do admit that one time, and so far only one time, I threatened to kill a girlfriend over the phone but she was so out of line, it was just insane. She wasn’t just trying to start a fight. She was taking nuclear weapons and deliberately shooting them right at my Achilles Heels in order to deliberately push me past my limits. She was “trying to get murdered.” I had no intention of doing it of course. I was just trying to scare her and plus, she deserved it.

If you do it over the phone, deny it and there’s no recording, they won’t arrest you. Hell, they won’t arrest you for that a lot of the time. Women have called police to the house over and over saying their men threatened to kill them, and the police kept saying, “We didn’t hear it.” Everybody threatens everybody all the time anyway. I don’t see the point of the law.

Reddit post in Purple Pill Debate.

Women have a hypocritical bias against homosexual male behavior

CMV

Insert “but I’m not like that’ useless comment here.

Most women that I know have a strong aversion/disgust to homosexual behavior or past actions in their romantic partners. It doesn’t even really need to be proven, it can just be an assumption and that is enough for women to look at men differently. I asked multiple women if they would take a man seriously if he had photos of himself cross-dressing online, or pictures of himself at gay clubs dancing and they also said this would immediately disqualify him as boyfriend material.

Yet most women I know also have no problem doing homoerotic things with their girlfriends, including kissing, grinding/dancing, spanking and teasing, etc. There are even full out songs like ‘I Kissed a Girl’ that are literally a bi anthem, and when it comes on in clubs are the girls sing it. These are the SAME women who will unequivocally judge men harshly for doing similar behavior once. A man dancing sexually with other men would get no pussy.

This is enormously hypocritical, yet happens all the time. Why is this hypocrisy not called out more?

I’m not sure what to say here, but we all know this is true. If any men have any done any gay stuff (and a significant number of men have), I’d advise them to shut up about it with their girlfriends and wives. They just don’t want to hear about it. More important than that is to not tell other straight men about it.

The truth is that the number of straight men who have experimented just a bit with gay sex is quite large. I’ve had 5-10 male friends who told me they had sex with guys once or twice. They all said:

I wanted to try it to see what it was like and whether I would like it or not. I did it and decided I didn’t like it. Turns out I like pussy, not dick.

Surveys have shown that up to 25% of men have had gay sex at least once. Another survey showed that by age 18, 25% of men had done some sort of gay act. So it looks like a lot of this happens among teenage boys. And I’d imagine a lot of the men in the first sentence just did it a few times and then quit. I’d say that for straight men to have experimental gay sex is almost normal. On the other hand, women flip out about it, so I wouldn’t talk about it.

By I had a few Chad friends who did this once or twice and they often told women:

Hey, tried it a couple of times and didn’t like it. And I played the male role. Just let a couple of queers suck me off.

The weird thing is that many women were quite accepting of Chad having some experimental gay sex. One said:

This is the type of man I want! A man who is daring enough to do something like that.

A number of the others should shrugged their shoulders and tee-heed.

On the other hand, I’d imagine that for normies and homely men, such an admission might be deadly.

Another interesting thing is that they all played the male role. Most of them just lay back and as one put it, “let some fag suck my cock.” Playing the male role in gay sex, in many parts of the world, isn’t even gay. In fact, it’s considered straight. The only thing that is gay is playing the female role in gay sex.

Those men are the “fags” and they are basically used as surrogate women for men who don’t have access to real women. This is quite common in the Arab World, especially in Morocco, Egypt, Syria, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia for starters. I think this is what the bacha bazi in Afghanistan is all about. Those men who use the bacha bazis (teenage boys that they dress up as women to be surrogate women) obviously only play the male role.

If you think about:

Lay back on the bed, let the fag go to work, and fantasize it’s Seka.

as one friend told me is probably something a lot of straight men could do fairly easily.

Anyway, if you read the article, you will see that many folks report that while most women don’t seem to care about lesbian sex and a fair number have done it, almost all of them were extremely opposed to the idea of their boyfriends having gay sex to the point of rejecting men if they had even done it once experimentally. But as noted above, perhaps they let Chad fag off a bit and it’s no bother.

Unanimously, women across the country avoid men with a sexual history with other men. I actually have male bi friends, and while some places are certainly more accepting than others, women by and large are still extremely homophobic.

100% agree. I offer, anecdotal evidence. My fiancé is the same. Progressive. Yet she would never date a man who has done homosexual stuff.

Well, I think we all know how the average men reacts to their gf/future gf saying that she did lesbian stuff back in the day.

We also know the reaction of the average women will have when they hear their bf/future bf tell them they did gay stuff back in the day. On a more simple level I would argue that a large percentage of women would not be happy with even the thought of their partner enjoying pegging, which is physically very similar to gay sex.

Plenty of women read mangas about homosexual men stories yet they despise that in their mate. That’s what OP is questioning: the homophobic reaction of women when it concerns their male partner’s sexual history and the hypocrisy of shrugging it away.

The vast majority of women wouldn’t be comfortable dating a man who also sucks dick

This is widely known in Sociology circles. People do speak out against it, but that kind of acceptance just isn’t mainstream yet. It is, however, perfectly normal in more leftwing, queer and hipster social circles.

Men and women are different. How does sticking a dick up another man’s ass really fit into the heroic romantic ideal for a man, either women’s version of that or men’s? It just doesn’t.

Women are accepting of gay friends. They are much less commonly accepting of bi boyfriends

Women are accepting of gay men, absolutely. Many women will not date men who have engaged it homoerotic behavior, even if they themselves have delved into such behavior with other women.

Most non-liberal men also have a aversion to men making love. A man relieving anal sex is seen as something horrid.

Heterosexual men see lesbians as hot. But they see gay men as disgusting. Heterosexual women see lesbians as hot. But they see gay men as disgusting.

A lot, maybe most, self-identified male bisexuals are submissives bottoms with other men and that’s what women are put off by. It’s basically the same way gay guys relate to bi guys, the masculine tops are desired.

We are more liberal than ever yet women are the one’s who hold onto their homophobia the most. Why is that?

No, women just like gay men as friends. They are extremely homophobic when it comes to their partner selection. This is common knowledge. It’s not just that it isn’t sexy, it’s that women are disgusted by it. It’s straight-up homophobic and hypocritical, period. Most women would not date a man that has had gay sex or entertains other men sexually. It’s socially unacceptable because women are disgusted by it. That’s the homophobia.

Women secretly are disgusted by homosexuality or else they would have no problem with it in potential partners.

You’re missing OP’s point which is the vast majority of cishet women see bisexual men or men who have ever done anything sexual with another man as a turn off/repulsive as romantic partners.

Nah I’m 25 and most of my female friends still make fun of bisexuality men, discredit their masculinity, and refuse to date them. Meanwhile dudes care way less about dating a bisexual woman.

Anyone who thinks bisexuality in a partner isn’t a bigger turnoff for women vs men is delusional.

Women aren’t generally attracted to effeminate men who give off feminine signals, it’s really as simple as that.

Women are not disgusted by homosexuality. Women don’t want to end up with a guy who is actually more into men than women, or may be only pretending he’s into women to appease family or to have children, and might wake up one day and think ‘actually, I am gay, not bi’. Women also think that guys can easily cheat, and they don’t want to double their competition. Basically, women want to reduce their chances of being used or cheated upon. (With this I do not mean that bisexual people lie more than straight people or that they cheat more, but only that their options are double, and they may be more open to be fluid than strictly heterosexual people

A.) Men are more likely to be, all else equal, more disgusted by homosexual behavior in men.

No, I’m implying he’s hot, rich, successful, and famous which overrides the bisexuality, which is the same for Kim K. Harry Styles could probably murder someone and women still go crazy for him. Using a top .001% man as your defense of anything is moronic.

Women have a strange relationship with homosexual male behavior. On the one hand they’re repulsed by it but on the other hand they like to pretend that being gay is the most fantastical thing in the world just to poke at the insecurities of certain heterosexual men…and then on the third hand they use homosexual slurs to insult straight men. It’s hilarious to watch them cycle through all three of these personalities like Sybil.

Personally I think the aversion towards gay men is a natural response if you are wanting to procreate. Looking for security and a strong father for your children. Homosexual men are looked as a weaker male species in comparison to a straight man.

Because women kissing women is still feminine. Men kissing men becomes feminine. And cis women don’t want a fem man.

I agree with your point though, that is why I think one of the first insults thrown out by a female after she is rejected is “WHAT? ARE YOU GAY?!?!”, it is also why females are threatened by “bromances”, they fear that two men caring about each other, possible more that about the random females around them, threatens their access to those men’s resources and time.

Bisexual men have complained about this forever. In fact, I hear that most bisexual men simply have sex with men most of the time because there are so few women willing to put up with their gay stuff. I saw one little survey where 19 out of 20 young women said they would not date a bisexual man.

Many such cases. Bisexuality does seem to turn off a large percentage of women regardless of whether they’re progressive or conservative. It’s heard some bisexual men talk about how they pretty much only date men, but not because they prefer them, but because women oftentimes lose interest in them as soon as they find out they’re bi. I find that very interesting.

Search “bisexual men” on Reddit and you’ll find dozens of discussions on this and how even some bisexual women won’t date bisexual men. First post that comes up in the Bisexual sub with >1K upvotes.

Op has a bit of a point though. As a bi man it’s irritating how even “liberal” girls switch up once they learn I’ve been with guys. Many bi men can attest to this, it’s not made up.

I would hate to be a bisexual man on a dating site. If I put bisexual in my profile, it would be deadly. It’s hard enough on those sites anyway.

But maybe Chad can be bi too! I’ve met a few bi women recently. One was 30 and another was 27. The 30 year old got rid of me because she said I was a homophobe. She was of the “I don’t date homophobes” persuasion. Pretty common amongst millennial women around age 27-33. Both of them were disappointed that I didn’t fuck guys. They were both bisexual and they sort of wanted a bisexual guy.

And I met a 17 year old girl while back. I talked to her a bit but of course I didn’t touch her or trade pics, and I was careful what I said. She said I was hot as Hell and in fact, I was so fucking hot that I really needed to fuck guys too, whatever the Hell that means! She was another bisexual woman quite happy with a bi man.

So it’s ok if Chad’s bi maybe, but it’s deadly for any other guys! Damn, Chad just gets to do whatever he wants and women just put up with it, huh?

“Poly” would be just as bad as “bi” in a dating profile. If I put that I was “poly” on there, that would kill it all. I probably am poly, as I try to cheat on girlfriends as a habit because I’m a bit of an asshole (just a bit), most women absolutely want a guy for themselves and quite a few demand monogamy from men. I go on dating sites and every woman I meet on there wants a monogamous relationship with a man, hopefully a long-term one.

So what I do a lot of the time is lie to women by assuring them that I am completely monogamous, and then I go ahead and try to cheat anyway. I might add that sometimes I am not successful at cheating, so I might go years being monogamous not by choice but by circumstance. Women on here have said I’m an asshole for promising monogamy and then cheating, but I would say that I’m just a man. And I’m afraid that a lot of men do exactly what I am doing. They all said,

Why don’t you just tell women you’re poly?

LOL because then I’d probably never get a date?

On the other hand though, maybe Chad is an exception. I don’t say I’m poly, but I often ask for open relationships.

Look I don’t care what you do or if you go out with other guys, I just don’t want to hear about it, ok? What I don’t know can’t hurt me. And I want the same freedom for myself.

What’s odd is given the opportunity, a lot of the women I’ve been with didn’t want to take me up on it.

But I don’t want to date anyone else! I only want you!

Well, that’s flattering. Is that another Chad thing? I also hear:

I don’t want to share you with anyone! I want you all for myself!

Is that another Chad thing? Women don’t want to share Chad?

What’s weird is how many women and even girls have been going for this notion my whole life.

Me: I want an open relationship.

Girls and women: Sure, thing.

and she nods her head. A lot thought they were “modern”
or “groovy” or “hip” and went around bragging that they were in open relationships with me. I guess they thought it made them cool.

So I guess women demand monogamy for Normies and homely guys, but Chad can cheat all he wants.

After all, he’s Chad! No matter what Chad does, women put up with it anyway!

Polar Bear: Ted Bundy struck me as a very primal straight man in some ways. On instinct, many of us are likely to think and even act like he did, but we suppress it.

He proved women intuition is wrong in a way. They have no clue what’s inside of a man. Though it may be more down to specifically White women’s naiveté, as non-Whites are often less trusting of men.

Obviously. Women always say,

Ladies, go with your gut! Your gut is never wrong!

LOL it’s wrong all the damned time. The main way I see it as wrong is when they see the most harmless men of all as the most dangerous men of all. Women do this all the time.

For instance, in my town there are a few guys who I have been told that many women think are really creepy and dangerous. I’ve been told to watch out for them as possible molesters, rapists, predators, and killers. Of course, me being me, I just had to find out who these guys were. So I did.

And then, me being my somewhat fearless and definitely insane self, went up to those men and talked to them. First I told them what people said about them. They said they knew in exasperated voices. And they all told me they were harmless and had never done anything dangerous with women. I spent some time around these guys and as I am good judge of people (much better than most women) I figured out quite quickly that these guys were utterly harmless, so harmless it was almost comical, especially after what people were saying about them.

But here’s the thing. A few of the men were very unattractive, ugly even. And a couple of the guys were simply these extremely shy introverts who barely even talked to people. They probably couldn’t even talk to a woman, much less rape and kill her.

Then I put it together. Women think ugly man = dangerous man. Unattractive men are dangerous! They might kill you! Why they feel this crazy way, I have no idea!

And another thing is that women think that very shy and quiet men are dangerous as Hell. I have no idea why they think this because those guys are almost always harmless unless they are angry.

But mostly they are the nicest people in the whole world because shyness correlates with niceness. Usually the more shy someone is, the nicer they are. This holds true for both sexes.

Shy, introverted women are pretty cool. And I finally realized that I really hit it off big with women like that.

I dated a 19 year old girl recently, and on the first date, we were talking about how much we needed to exercise. She was complaining about her belly fat. As I had already seen very explicit nudes her even before the first date, I knew what she was talking about. I said you can do sit-ups to get rid of that. She said, “Maybe we can do them together.” Then she suggested that we do them naked. This is a few hours into a date and there hasn’t been any sex yet! And she’s already talking about doing naked sit-ups with me on my floor! WTH. But it was weird that she was that comfortable with me to say something like that.

And at the end of the date, at 5 PM that afternoon, she very shyly asked me if she could move into my apartment! WTH. End of the first date and she already wants to move in? No way. That’s a dream. I said sure, because having a hot 19 year old girl living with me who wants sex all the time is a dream at my age. Anyway, we hit it off amazingly and especially she warmed to me very quickly. Then I realized she was a super introvert. I think she warmed to me so quickly because she was an introvert. And sadly, I’m probably more introverted than I think I am.

Some of my readers have come to my town to meet me in public. A group of three of them even came to town to have dinner with me. They wanted to have dinner with the legendary Robert Lindsay! One guy said,

One thing that really shocked me was how introverted you are. I didn’t expect you to be that way at all as you don’t come off that way when you write.

I had another introverted girlfriend and she was also extremely nice. Sure, they can be bitches sometimes, but even then, they are not that bad.

And women who are more extroverted than that can be serious bitches. Some can be unholy bitches from Hell. It’s almost like the more extroverted they are, the worse monsters they can be. Which actually makes sense if you understand about extroverts and introverts. Anyway, shyness does no harm to a woman. At least men don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. Shyness is deadly for men.

On the other hand, I’ve noted that Chads can be shy. Women just think it’s cute as shyness can be rather touching, especially to women.

Woman: Can you believe it. Chad’s shy!

Her girlfriends: Awwwwwwwwww, that’s so cute! Maybe you can bring him out of his shell teehee wink wink.

In my 20’s, supposedly I was very handsome. And women would remark sometimes about how quiet I was. One time on the first date we had wild sex that when on for hours. I kept it up the whole time and was a sexual acrobat. The next morning she was rather amazed. She shook her head and said:

I guess still waters run deep.

Another was the girlfriend of a friend, but she would have probably had sex with me if I wasn’t such an idiot. She looked at me and said:

Ahhhh. The quiet one.

She was acting pretty horny when she said that.

Get it? Shy Chad is cute! He’s adorable! He’s touching! Everyone says, “Awwwwwwwwwwwww,” when you mention it. Women get these little half-smiles around him.

But if a man is unattractive, it’s twice as deadly for him to be shy. A shy, unattractive men is literally going to wear your skin!

Why do women think ugly and shy men are going to murder them? I have no idea. But they often think goodlooking men are harmless. See Bundy above. And they go for actually dangerous men all the time, in fact, they prefer them over nicer men. Knowing all of this, allow me to be just a bit cynical about women’s “radar that spots the dangerous men.” If it works so well, why do they keep picking psychos and felons over decent men? Why do they keep thinking that the most harmless men of all are the most dangerous of all?

Look, I’m not saying women should not use these tools. Go ahead and use them all you want. I’m just saying that they don’t seem to work a lot of the time. I’ve been accused of being dangerous myself. And I’ve never done anything dangerous to women in my life. I think women are just paranoid.

Younger ones are the worst at this. They are notorious for doing the unattractive man = creepy, dangerous man thing. It’s almost as if women think that unattractiveness or ugliness in and of itself is somehow creepy or scary. Which I don’t get.

Young women are also awful about figuring out men. Older ones screw this ugly = dangerous thing  too, though they get better at sorting it out as they age.

I heard a couple of 40 year old women talking, and they were talking about some guy, saying he was good weird, not bad weird. And they frowned when they said bad weird. The fact that they could even make that distinction at all is amazing, and it shows that women do learn and get smarter as they get older, especially after 30.

Women can judge your character in a lot of other ways though. Even young women can be scary good at this. Maybe even teenage girls! They’re almost scary good at this. I just think they get the dangerous thing wrong. Like they get way too many false positives.

Young women are just idiots. They don’t understand people or especially men. They believe in this idea of a utopian society, and they are all in collective rage that men are the way that they are instead of how young women think they should be. But they’re  fighting a war with a wall or trying to bail out the ocean. Raging at men for acting like men and demanding that they act different and trying to force us to act different is folly.

I think young women believe in “just world” theory. They think the world should be this “just” utopian place that women think it ought to be. But it isn’t and this drives them to rage.

This is what feminism is all about. It’s about trying to get men to stop acting like men and start acting like this “new man” thing that women demand we become. But it’s never going to happen. Men are never going to stop being men, and most importantly, they are never going to stop being real men. What feminists hate is not so much men per se as real men. They like cucks, fags, and wimps just fine. Most male feminists are really wimpy. They’re pathetic idiots.

Polar Bear: I’ve heard Jews had a hierarchy of Gentiles. and Slavs ranked low, Germans ranked high. This may be just Western Jews.

I’ve never heard of this. I’ve never heard that they ranked us at all. I don’t think Jews care much about us Gentiles, sorry. Most of them are all wrapped up in thinking about themselves all the time. That’s what it means to be a Jew, bottom line. LOL how well do you know these people called Jews? What makes you think that they think much about us at all?

Jews do care about White Gentiles, especially Christians, but mostly it’s hostility and resentment because face it, we don’t have a great record of being nice to them. Rather the opposite.

They don’t seem to care anything about Hispanics or Asians. Obviously they don’t like Arabs at all, but can you blame them? The Arabs are trying to kill them. I wouldn’t like them either if I were a Jew.

To the extent that they do care about Gentiles, a lot of Jews are really anti-Black. The way so many Blacks act is so contrary to the ultra-civilized view Jews have of themselves! To a lot of Jews, Blacks are just gross.

The Jews don’t mind that Blacks are thieves; after all, many Jews are too. But Jews think you should steal with a pen, not a gun. Stealing with a gun is rude, uncouth, and almost evil. Something goes wrong and someone is hurt or dead.

Steal with a pen and nothing happens. No one gets hurt. You get away with it, and you live in a nice house. You don’t and you go to Club Fed Prison which is full of other Jewish white collar crooks. You get to sit around and bitch all day about how you did nothing wrong and the only reason you got caught is anti-Semitism. No, seriously, this is what Jewish white-collar crooks do. They go to federal prison and become obsessed with this idea that evil antisemitic prejudice put them in prison, instead of, you know, maybe just them being criminals?

Also, in the big cities back East, the Jews tended to live in the inner cities and had lived there a long time. After the 1960’s, ghetto Blacks moved into these Jewish neighborhoods in large numbers, and things were not real cool. Young Jews grew up around a lot of ghetto Blacks and often turned very racist.

One of the most virulent anti-Black racists I have ever met was a Jewish guy from Detroit. He was totally unashamed of his racism, too. No guilt at all. A lot of Jews from Detroit don’t like Blacks much. My old girlfriend was a Jew from Detroit. She wasn’t wild about Blacks. She called them svartzes. One time this Black man was flirting with her in line at the grocery store, and she told me about it, “Yuck. Why would I go out with a svartze? Ew.” Then later she moved to Atlanta and had a Black boyfriend. Who of course was cheating on her the whole time with another woman, a friend of hers.

Many of the younger Jews moved out of these inner cities, but often their parents or grandparents stayed. These people were older Jews, and they were easy prey for young ghetto Blacks. Many older Jewish parents and grandparents were badly victimized by ghetto Blacks. Younger Jews heard about their parents getting preyed on by Blacks and were not happy about that.

Most Jews don’t like Blacks very much. They just harp on this “White racism against Blacks” thing as a club to beat White Gentiles over the head with because they don’t like White Gentiles getting racist. The reason is because it eventually tends to boomerang back around on the Jews. And historically speaking, that hasn’t been good for the Jews. So they want us to be completely nonracist against Blacks, while they get to be as racist as they want against them. Typical Jewish hypocrisy, but all ethnocentric groups are very hypocritical. And the more ethnocentric you are, the worse the hypocrisy.

In fact, this is the major problem with Identity Politics because all IP types end up turning into the worst hypocrites. The other day it dawned on me that Jews practically invented Identity Politics. Jewishness and Judaism were the original Identity Politics movement.

For a while there, most of the leadership of the NAACP was Jewish. I wish I could say their motives were pure, but I think there was something underhanded about it. It was always “smash White Gentile racism to protect the Jews.” I’m not sure they cared about Blacks very much.

However, during the Civil Rights Era, a lot of those idealistic young Jews who went down to the South, some of whom got murdered, had very pure motives. Likewise, a number of the antiracist Jews in the hippie movement of the 1960’s had pure motives.

But Jews fighting anti-Black racism among White Gentiles has always been a lot more about bashing racist White Gentiles than about helping Blacks, sorry.

Incidentally, there are Black Jews, mostly converts, and they face a lot of discrimination in the Jewish community. Like bigtime. In Israel also there are Black Ethiopian Jews, and they have been treated terribly by White Jews. In fact, there has been a major effort on the part of the state of Israel to deny that they are Jewish so they can ship them back or not allow any more in. Ethiopian Jews often find the racism in Israel to be bald, naked, and obvious, while such things in the US are much more undercover and hidden.

The “brows” – highbrow, middlebrow, and lowbrow refer to culture, entertainment, recreation, leisure, etc.

Lowbrow is lower class or working class culture.

Lowbrow culture is stuff like pro wrestling, NASCAR, car shows, drinking beer and watching football, meth, rap music, Danielle Steel, tailgate parties, barbecues, and other dumb stuff.

Middlebrow is middle class culture.

It sees itself snobbiliy above lowbrow which they look down on as working class (which it is). I’m having a hard time figuring out what middlebrow culture is, but it’s in between lowbrow and highbrow. Basically the culture of suburbia and white picket fences.

It’s not idiotic at all but it is pretty damn provincial and especially it is insanely conformist, kiss-ass, climb the corporate ladder, don’t rock the boat, the 500,000 things we don’t talk about and the 200,000 things we don’t do although there’s nothing wrong with any of those things. I haven’t the foggiest idea what middlebrow people do for fun but I think they would go to the movies that the critics recommend instead of the idiotic popular entertainment action flick. Camping trips. Expensive pot. Wine. John Irving. On the other hand, very highbrow stuff like dubbed European movies are too much.

Highbrow is elite culture.

Opera, obviously, the theater, poetry readings, academic conferences, literature, classical music, philosophy, and perhaps Parisian or European cafe culture, European movies with subtitles, literary, art and film magazines and criticism that no one understands, cult movies, books, and culture in general, jazz music (“jazzholes”), home decoration with expensive objects, often from overseas, psychoanalysis, birdwatching, LSD, expensive wines or especially hard liquor, James Joyce, overseas travel, retreats, especially people sitting around talking eruditely about history, culture, religion, politics, sociology, psychology, anthropology, linguistics, and better yet, WHERE THEY ALL INTERSECT.

Beyond highbrow is made up bullshit, some name I made up for my blog just to piss off as many people as possible.

But to me it means thinking like a Jew, arguing with your father, studying the Talmud and questioning and arguing about everything in it, pretty much just not taking anything at face value, questioning everything, not being afraid to question the status quo, the mainstream media, taking unpopular stances on sociology, politics, and geopolitics.

Pynchon, Umberto Eco, Heidegger, Hegel, Nietzsche, Marx and other writers of stuff that its authors themselves don’t even understand. Philip Glass and Lori Anderson. Bergman, Fellini, Truffaut, Resnais, Godard, Wim Wenders, Fassbinder, Cassavetes, Warhol, Welles, Kurosawa. Last Tango in Paris, Blow-up, Last Year at Marienbad, Death in Venice and other movies no one understands. Outsider art. and DMT. Absinthe. High IQ, top 1% minimum. Feeling like an alien in a society full of morons and retards.

Where everyone in society is supposed to think one particular way, and you stick your finger in the air and say, “I’m not going along with the crowd,” and then all your friends leave you for being a nonconformist but at least you are alone with your pride. Talking about things you’re not supposed to talk about. Bravely or idiotically smashing taboos and pissing off everyone around you.

It’s an Ubermensch! I hate to quote Nietzsche but it’s someone who rises above “slave mentality” to “rise above” and become his own man intellectually and in a societal sense. Thinks for himself. Makes up his own mind. Doesn’t follow trends. Isn’t a sheep like everyone else.

Just spitballin’ here. I hope this sort of explains it!

Polar Bear: For us straights, it isn’t wise to just abandon the opposite sex. Women are less important to gay men, that bond isn’t critical.

I have a gay friend who hates or at least doesn’t like women. He’s one of those fairly masculine ones. Usually the more masculine ones are more likely to be woman-haters and the more effeminate women’s are more likely to love women. I guess there’s a reason for that, but I can’t think of one offhand. I would estimate that ~20% of gay men are pretty hardcore misogynists, and the fact that many gay men are woman-haters is well-known all through the gay male community.

Hating women or misogyny doesn’t work. Sadly, I went through a phase like that about 30 years ago*. It completely failed. Whatever problems I had with women being hostile, standoffish, unfriendly, bitchy, cunty etc. (and all of us men have to deal with quite a few women like that at any time in our lives) were simply multiplied or potentiated. It was a complete disaster and after a while, it makes you start disliking them even more.

And women tried to get back at me a lot at the schools I taught at. An Hispanic teacher’s aid put a piece of chalk in my coffee. I totally hot teacher who came up to me and tried to talk to went away pretty quickly, and then when I wasn’t looking, took out some sharp object and sliced up the outside of my briefcase. What a bitch!

Anyway what goes around, comes around, and if you go around acting like an asshole or are bigoted against any group of people, I figured out that people tend to return aggression with aggression. You act aggressive and people often fight back in all these little ways. So being an asshole doesn’t work. You just end up in a war. It might be fun to walk around being at war with the world and shooting people with an emotional sniper rifle, but at some point, your victims are going to start fighting back at people, and what was once a fun shooting gallery is now a dangerous war.

*You notice how feminists say that almost all or all of us men have an extreme hatred of women, but few men admit to being woman-haters? I think a mixture of love for an anger at or even hatred towards women is extremely common in straight men. In fact, other straight men have told me that it’s the default for straight men.

Also, have you noticed that society beats the living crap out of any man brave enough to admit to misogyny, but women get to hate us men all they want, and nobody cares one bit about it? Many of them are even lauded and rewarded, seemingly getting more accolades they more they wish us will. And the feminists who make such an ungodly fuss about all of us supposedly hating them (most men I talked to are shocked to learn they are woman-haters because that’s not their internal experience) tend to have an extreme hatred of us men. In fact the ones who scream the loudest about misogyny tend to hate us the most of all!

Of course this is just normal Identity Politics and it’s the reason why all Identity Politics everywhere at all times has sucked. Identity Politics is a mental disorder. The more you get into it, the more disordered you become. You can’t be a mentally healthy person as long as you are deep into Identity Politics.

But if hating women is the worst thing on Earth, why is hating men so groovy. Obviously women hating men sucks just as much as men hating women.

You notice this with misogynist MRA’s too. The more they hate women, the more they rail against misandry. All of this behavior smells like serious projection to me and as such it’s it’s de facto mentally unhealthy.

Obviously if I reserve the right to hate some group of people, they must be accorded the right to hate me right back.

Identity Politics is all about “it’s righteous for  us to hate them (the designated enemy), but it’s evil for them to hate us back.” That obviously makes no sense at all.

Misogynistic men should shut up about female misandry. Those women are just the other side of their mirrors. And obviously misandrist feminists (man-hating bitches) should shut up about misogynistic men.

What goes around, comes around, folks. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

For some reason, humans can’t seem to wrap their minds around the “it’s ok for me to hate them but it’s evil for them to hate me back” notion, but sadly it and the bullying and double standards that logically follows this mindset everywhere seem to be an essential but pretty terrible part of the essential human condition. People basically have a bullying nature at least part of the time, and most adults bully others at least some of the time.

I call this “8th grade never ends.”

Of course kids are bullies, but as adults, we are supposed to grow out of this bullying crap. But we can’t seem to nor can we ever see our own bullying because the bully is always snow white innocent and the nicest person around, and his victim is always starting it first, and the bully’s always just fighting back against this maniac called their victim.

Angry people in general cannot see their angry nature. Rage and hatred seem to blind the person who wields these weapons to recognize that he is doing so.

This is another essential part of the human condition. It might seem like I hate people, but it’s not so.

I believe humans are 50% good and 50% bad, sort of like that ying-yang symbol. People who seem more one way than the other are probably just burying their other side.

For instance, if I walk around acting like the nicest guy in town, I can assure you 100% that I am burying a burning hatred for the world and everything in it that is so black it would shock anyone. I’m simply locking that Ted Bundy-like freak away in a dark cage where I can’t even see him most of the time. But he’s there all right, and as a consequence, one of the mottos of this harmless, passive, soft-spoken guy called me is Don’t Push Me. You don’t even want to see me angry. People have told me that it is a terrifying site indeed, chilling you to your very bones.

If you don’t want to bring this monster out, it’s real simple. Just be nice. It’s really not that hard, people.

As noted in the previous post, Theodore Herzl said that when Jews rose in society, they “succumbed to the power of the purse,” and became obsessed with making money and getting rich. This tended to make Gentiles angry.

Well, they are greedy and especially they are absolutely obsessed with becoming successful and many of them define that as “getting rich.” I’ve had Jewish counseling clients in their 20’s who told me their goal in life was “to get rich.”

I’ve noticed in life that people who have that explicit goal and work diligently towards it in their 20’s and 30’s tend to make a lot of money.

Most of us don’t want to be obsessed with money like that. Also, if you go down that path in life, you run into a huge number of greedy asshole business types who stab you in the back, steal your money and ideas, and do all sorts of other sleazy stuff. These types tend to be very short-tempered and irritable, which goes along with a hypercompetitive nature.

Bottom line is I don’t really like people who are totally into money, as in money is the only thing they care about. How are they going to be friends with me anyway? I’m poor. That’s going to be a constant source of conflict. When you’re poor, you have to have poor friends. You can’t have rich friends. And when you are rich, you need to have rich friends. Poor friends doesn’t work.

Jews who end up being poor or homeless God forbid are treated like utter garbage by Jewish society, which pretty much just spits on them. So poor and homeless Jews tend to resent their own people. I know this because I hung out on a JDL site once and read all their comments. Behind closed doors when they think no one is listening, Jews really bash their own people.

They say stuff that if I said it, I would be tarred, feathered, and ruined as an antisemite like Kanye is right now.

I think Jewish women are just women. Most races and ethnic groups of women are just women. Women more or less act the same everywhere. Men seem to be driven more to extreme outlier behaviors, while women tend to settle in the moderate middle as is their nature.

However, I think Jewish women do push their men to be successful, and they can definitely be bitches, that’s for damn sure. My Jewish girlfriend was like that (the woman behind the man type), and I actually liked it because I thought she might get me off my lazy ass and somehow get me to make some money in life.

I think Jewish women are perhaps under pressure to marry a rich or successful man, but they’re not under pressure to succeed themselves. Also they don’t seem to be nearly as aggressive as the men.

But many Jews, men and women, are just very nice, quiet, introverted, brainy nerds.

Anyway, this obsession with success is drilled into Jewish men’s heads from an early age, and every time you go to a family gathering, it’s all about how Cousin Abraham became a doctor or how Uncle Issac became an attorney. If you’re not successful, all those uncles with pinky rings won’t treat you well, and they will always compare you to the successful folks.

This makes Jewish men absolutely driven to succeed in life, and many of them do just that because as I said, if you dedicate your life to success, you often succeed. Most of us don’t want that obsessive, degrading hassle.

But the problem is that this tends to make Jewish men totally driven and uptight, short-tempered, rude, and very aggressive. Behind all of it is this terror of failure, which lingers over Jewish men’s heads their whole lives and probably drives a lot of the aggression too, fear being the handmaiden of rage after all. So Jewish men are a lot more aggressive, rude, belligerent, etc. than Gentile men. You will notice that a lot of Jewish men in academia or business have this almost “thuggish” vibe about them. They almost sociopathic. I don’t think they’re more likely to be psychopathic, but I think they would score higher on the PCL.

That’s the reason for the stereotype of the rude, belligerent, loud, offensive, obnoxious, aggressive Jewish man.

Of course this aggro behavior makes a lot of Gentiles not cotton to Jewish men very much, but on the other hand, I don’t think it causes severe or homicidal (“obsessive and conspiratorial”) antisemitism. This is mild “watercooler” antisemitism, and while it may be annoying, I don’t think it does any serious harm to Jewish people because most people don’t get too roused up about people who act like assholes.

After all, assholes are everywhere you look, and most of them aren’t even Jewish. Gentile assholes are a dime a dozen. You can’t  go around killing them. You’d barely make it down your own block before the cops came. Hell, you might not even leave your house because you’d have to kill the assholes you live with first. In life, you can’t even punch assholes. You’d end up punching people everywhere you go, and cops would get called real quick.

Most people just make their peace with the esssential assholiness of many humans and figure the only thing to do about them is to avoid them. That’s my position.

 

Polar Bear: I’ve heard Jews had a hierarchy of Gentiles and Slavs ranked low, Germans ranked high. This may be just Western Jews. I heard this on a racial site this year, with much talk Russians this year.

No, that was just the German Jews. They divided themselves into “Westies” and “Easties.” The Westies from Germany and further West saw themselves as more assimilated, civilized, cultured, educated, and wealthy and looked down on Easties from Eastern Europe and the Slavic lands saw them as stupid, backwards, excessively religious, superstitious, lacking wisdom, uncivilized, ignorant, and poor. To some extent of course, there was truth to both stereotypes. Many of the shtetls of Poland were very poor well into the 20th Century. The stereotype of the rich Jew is not always true.

I actually respect Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism. All he did was write a book. He was a German Jew and he considered himself a German first and a Jew second. No dual loyalty! He absolutely loved German culture and he considered himself to be an integral part of it. In other words, he saw himself as German though and through! Nevertheless, he thought that Gentiles and Jews were doomed to never get along.

Interestingly, he blamed a lot of the conflict on the behavior of Jews themselves which seems to arouse Gentile anger. He said “we Jews succumb to the power of the purse when we rise.” He meant that when Jews rose in society, they were greedy and obsessed with getting rich and tend to end up being a lot more wealthy than the Gentiles they live amongst, which logically angers the Gentiles, as they think it’s not fair.

“And then,” he said. “When we fall, we become revolutionaries” (I forget the exact working). Well, a lot of Gentiles are conservatives, and they don’t dig revolutions, especially the leftwing ones that Jews specialize in. This also pisses a lot of Gentiles off and leads to the stereotype of the Jewish Communist or Jewish Bolshevik.

As he saw no hope of Jews changing their behavior (I don’t either really), he felt that Gentiles and Jews were doomed to never get along.

In his theoretical Judenstadt (that was the name of his 1897 book – Der Judenstadt or The Jewish State) he wanted to import German culture to this new state, so der Judenstadt would be a Jewish country outside of Europe with a German culture!

So weird considering the genocide that came 40 years later.

I actually think Herzl would be appalled at what der Judenstadt (Israel) has turned into and he would renounce Israel, saying, “My God! This is the opposite of what I had in mind.” It’s turned into the biggest Jewish ghetto on Earth (one they built for themselves in fact!) and it’s taken a bunch of assimilated civilized Jews and turned them into backwards, ugly, screwed-up, superstitious, ghetto Jews.

Herzl thought that when the Jewish state was created, all the Jews would leave the Diaspora and go there, so antisemitism would go away, as it was caused by Jewish presence in Gentile society. Take the Jews out of Gentile society, there goes the antisemitism.

He thought most Gentiles would welcome the Jewish state if only to rid of these pesky, annoying Jews in their midst. In fact, many early Gentile promoters of Zionism, particularly in the UK, felt exactly this way! They are on record as saying more or less, “Great! Let’s create a Jewish state for the Jews and hopefully they will go there and we won’t to deal with this problem people anymore!” I believe attitudes like this were still common in the teens around the time of the Balfour Declaration.

Problem is that the Jewish state has turned into the world’s largest Antisemitism Manufacturing Factory, and it has created a lot of danger for Jews that would not be there if Israel did not exist.

His frank talk about how Jews play a role in antisemitism (an obvious truth) is considered by Jews to be an “antisemitic canard,” which often means a truth about the Jews that they don’t want to hear about. Hence, a lot of Jews nowadays call Herzl an antisemite, though I doubt many Israelis do. Unfortunately, a lot of Left anti-Zionists also think this idea is a “canard” and they call Herzl an antisemite as a way of saying that Zionism itself was self-hating or antisemitic.

I don’t want to get into a match with the contest Leftists and Jews have over who can scream about antisemitism the loudest. Zionism is bad in many ways, but I don’t it is self-hating at its very nature. Rather the opposite in fact. And neither do I think Herzl, who very much loved his people, was an antisemite. He was just telling the truth about Jews. Problem is if you tell the truth about these people, they call you antisemite, so most folks prefer to lie about them so as not to get called names.

I don’t like self-hatred and internalized misogyny in women. It’s not a good look.

Sure, you can play around with that as a kinky game in bed, but once the sex is over, it’s right back to equality. I think that men and women are equal, and I don’t care whether that’s a “true statement” or not. It’s my opinion! I bitch about women, but I know that men are at least as bad or maybe worse. When you are dealing with women of any kinds from the one at the counter to your girlfriend in a deep long-term relationship, things just go smoother when you tell yourself that women and men are equal.

Misogynist MRA’s and MGTOW’s try to claim that science has proven that men are superior to women, but whether one sex is superior to the other is not a scientific question. It’s a value judgement, and all such judgements are subjective and non-scientific. So any way you answer the question of whether the sexes are equal or whether one is superior to the other, you’re basically correct. You get to write your own truths as with all subjective opinions.

I don’t care what the “science” says. I’m just saying that things go a lot better with women when you tell yourself in your mind that she’s your equal and you’re not even 1% better than she is.

Everyone Should Support Their People

My motto is, in general:

Everyone should support their people.

That means that as a good general rule, people should not be self-haters. Women should support the women and men should support the men at least where their own gender is being oppressed. Good self-esteem is a good look on a woman. Low self-esteem is a bad look on anyone.

Polar Bear: Do Berbers support of Israel more or less than Arabs from the same country?

One site says their struggle for legitimacy is the same as Jews in Israel, but I doubt that very much.

Well, all of the North Africans are Berbers. They call themselves Arabs, but take a look at an Algerian, Tunisian, Libyan or a Moroccan. Other than the Blacks, what do they look like? They look like Berbers! North African Arabs are just Arabized Berbers. That’s all they are.

If you mean the ones who speak the Berber languages, one thing you need to know is that many are deeply conservative Muslims, almost Al Qaeda types.

I talked to one young woman like that who was working as a prostitute and in a long-term relationship with her father since age 11! Yeah! She’s was fucking her own Dad! They were in love with each other. As long as they don’t have kids, it’s ok by me.

She thought females were very much inferior to men, and she was dedicated to providing males with sexual pleasure and could care less about her own sexual pleasure. I wasn’t really happy about that stupid self-denying mindset. You don’t want to get off? Why not? Orgasms are fun! Why deny yourself that pleasure?

She was from Mali, the most misogynistic country on Earth. She was a Berber from the northeast of the country and she was a mixed Black-White type as many in that area are. It was pretty much a lawless area ruled by gangs of either organized criminals, local militias, or even Al Qaeda types. They all sort of blended in and moved around between groups and it was hard to figure out where one started and the other ended or who was in charge at any given point. Also it was also deeply secret and you weren’t supposed to talk about it because pretty much everyone was involved with some illegal armed gang or another.

I didn’t really like this young woman’s self-hatred and internalized misogyny. It’s not a good look. I don’t like most self-haters including the White and male latest models. It’s usually not a good look on anyone.

Polar Bear: Israel doesn’t belong there but still wears the pants. Imagine a stranger wanders into your house and takes over. Then then the head of the household of most of your neighbors (except Iran, Syria, and Lebanon) sides with the stranger. Resisting and trying to reclaim your house is natural. It’s most pathetic how these ancient nations answer to the modern state of Israel. Gollums of their former selves, opposite the three healthy Hobbits. Israel really is the bagel to rule them all.

Master-slave dialectic. Read Nietzsche.

By the way, the master-slave dialectic in Germany in the 1930’s was Nazis were the masters and German Jews were the slaves. Now it’s reversed. The master-slave dialectic in Palestine has Jews as masters and the Palestinians as slaves. There’s all the same masters bullying, tormenting, torturing, mocking, and humiliating of the slaves as there was in Germany. As with all bullies, the Nazis claimed that they were the victims and were just fighting back and their Jews were attacking them and started it.

Same bully as victim complex in Israel. The Jewish bullies there claim that they are the victims and are just fighting back. They claim that they people and bully and victimize started it and they’re just fighting back. Notice how bullies are snow-white innocent? Notice how they’re always just fighting back? Notice how the people they torment always started it first? Same process here in Germany and Israel.

I befriended a prominent anti-Zionist Jew on Twitter, an attorney from New York named Stanley Cohen. I really liked him a lot! He was a real mensch! He told me that his parents were Holocaust survivors from Europe who went to Israel to escape prosecution. They soured on Israel pretty quickly and left in 3-4 years for America. They said, “This (Israel) is what we were trying to get away from.” In other words, to some extent the Jews over there were acting like the Nazis who persecuted them.

Don’t get me wrong. Nazis were far, far worse, maybe a million times more murderous that the Israelis, but the mindset is the  same. The Israelis are just practicing a vastly less murderous version of it.

The Jews have turned into their worst oppressors and enemies and are treating the Palestinians the way their oppressors treated the Jews. I guess it makes sense. They say abused kids can grow up to be abuser adults. I suppose they are getting revenge for their victimization in a sense.

The Jews are the masters and the Palestinians are the slaves. Problem with slavery is you tend to get these things called slave rebellions.

The Palestinian resistance against the Jews is basically just another slave rebellion or a typical revolution of the oppressed class (serfs, proletarians, or peasants) against their oppressors and class enemies (lords, bosses, and landowners). It’s not really an economic war but it resembles the economic wars of oppressed versus oppressors. I always side the serfs, proletarians, and peasants against the lords, bosses, and landowners. Why on Earth would I support those oppressor Jews who act like a ruling  class? Why wouldn’t I support the Palestinians who act like the revolutionary lower classes?

Polar Bear: Israel doesn’t belong there but still wears the pants. Imagine a stranger wanders into your house and takes over. Then then the head of the household of most of your neighbors (except Iran, Syria, and Lebanon) sides with the stranger. Resisting and trying to reclaim your house is natural. It’s most pathetic how these ancient nations answer to the modern state of Israel. Gollums of their former selves, the opposite of the three healthy Hobbits. Israel really is the bagel to rule them all.

They might have gotten tired of fighting Israel.

Mostly they just want access to (((money))) and (((military weaponry))), both of which the Jews have in abundance. If the Jews didn’t act like such assholes, I think an alliance of Arabs and Jews would be great. Think of if those Jews over there were cool people instead of fascist brownshirt pogromist ultranationalist psychos. Think if they were dedicated to living in peace with the Arabs.

They could share their considerable brains and innovate powers in research, medicine, business, technology, on and on, with the Arabs. The scholars, of which the Jews have many fine ones, could even collaborate. Jewish writers, of which there are also many fine ones, could collaborate with Arab writers, of whom there are a surprising number. Further, the Arabs could share Jewish military technology, which is among the best in the world.

For the Jews, there may be some benefits too. Think about it. Jews could go anywhere in the region. They could go to Baghdad, Damascus, and Cairo and be part of scenery and sit in cafes and debate religion and politics with the Arabs just like they used to.

Baghdad in the 1930’s was just like that. Jews had 20% of the money and Jews, Muslims, and Christians would sit in cafes sipping thick Arab coffee and smoking hookahs and debating religion and politics. The debates were spirited but not full of spite. Jews ran important ministries in Iraq and Egypt. I think a Jew was the Finance Minister (LOL) of Iraq at this time.

Things got a lot worse in 1947, but most Iraqi Jews took off when Jewish Zionist agents from Palestine went to Baghdad and started throwing grenades and cafes full of Jews. They then began a propaganda campaign to blame Arabs. 500,000 Jews panicked and left the country.

The Farhud was in 1947, but about as many Arabs tried to save their Jewish neighbors as tried to kill them. This happened in all Arab countries. In every country, Arab neighbors intervened in the pogromist mobs to risk their lives to give shelter to their Jewish neighbors being attacked. There was good and bad on the Arab side.

Also in Poland. Sure, Poles were antisemites and many, many Poles turned Jews in. They spotted them on the streets and buses and turned them in to the Nazis. But Poland has the largest number of Gentiles given Heroes Among Nations by Israel for risking their lives to save Jews.

They could go to Beirut and Algiers. The Israeli Jews have adopted Arab cuisine, architecture, music, on and on. They’ve become a Middle Eastern people and the only way to do that is to Arabize. As long as they’ve moved in and adopted the customs, they may as well make peace with the neighborhood and become part of the community physically as well as culturally.

חבורה של פרחחי בן גביר שהגיעו לשכונת שייח׳ ג׳ראח ביום חמישי בשעה 23:00 ותקפה את החאג׳ מוחמד זהראן וגרמה לפציעה קשה בראש. כיום הוא מאושפז בהדסה. המשטרה טרם גבתה עדות וסירבה להגיע למקום . pic.twitter.com/WWbSzBnZdX

— Ahmad Tibi (@Ahmad_tibi) October 15, 2022

Above, Jewish brownshirt followers of Ben-Givr the Kahanist assault a Palestinian man standing in his driveway. He got stitches all across his head. The attack was unprovoked.

מאחורי היורה צעדה קבוצת מתנחלים לתוך הכפר, חמושים, לפי תושבים. הם החלו לשבור בתים ולהכות אנשים (בתיעוד).

"הוא הגיע ברכב וירה כשלא היו אבנים", עאיד אמר, "מאחוריו מתנחלים פלשו לכפר עם אלות והוא ירה כדי למנוע אפשרות שנתנגד להם. להזהיר שהמתקפה החלה ואם נזרוק אבנים הם יהרגו אותנו" pic.twitter.com/xH27ArCsSP

— Yuval Abraham יובל אברהם (@yuval_abraham) October 15, 2022

Above, in the first video, an off-duty soldier in the Jewish Army gets out of his car in a Palestinian neighborhood and starts shooting into all of the houses with his automatic weapon. In the second video, a mob of Jewish settler pogromists attack a Palestinian house with rocks. They’re trying to take over his house so they can steal his land.

85% of US Jews support this crap. Most support (((AIPAC))), the (((ADL))), and the (((American Jewish Committee))). All of those organizations support the garbage you see below to the hilt. There really cool US Jewish organizations like J Street, but they have little power, and most passionate US Jewish Zionists (most of them Democrats!) hate, hate, hate, hate, hate them. Sure US Jews hate conservatives and Republicans, but when it comes to the Jewish state, they all go fascist, every last one of them. Hypocrites.

US Jews (even liberal Jews!) give extreme support to (((AIPAC))), an organization of rightwing Jews that tries to elect Republicans. Every prominent Democrat goes to (((AIPAC))) and bows to them on bended knee and kisses their feet in a yearly ritual. AIPAC is the second most powerful lobby in the US. Most US Jewish pro-Israel money goes straight to (((AIPAC))).

The (((ADL))) and the (((AJC))) will never say two words against the Jewish state. Even US liberal Jews are typically strong supporters of (((AIPAC))), the (((ADL))), and the (((AJC))), all rightwing pro-Israel organizations. US liberal Jews hate Republicans, but they give (((AIPAC))) a pass because AIPAC works for Israel. Hence, US liberal Jews help elect Republicans all to help their crappy little country! Good job, guys! Way to go! Keep on electing Republicans! Everything for your shitty little country, huh?

As does the (((US government))). The (((US government))) is a nearly fanatical supporter of the Jewish state. The (((Pentagon))) works very closely with the Israeli Army. Top US officers take tours of Israel every year, hosted by the Jewish state. Almost all of the US military’s top leadership is completely compromised, effectively agents of the Jewish state.

We share all of our latest military developments with them, and what we don’t share with them, they steal with their spies. No country spies on our country worse than the Jewish state. I once spoke on the phone with a US Marine with extensive experience in the US Security state who told me that the (((US government))) was gone, totally penetrated by Israeli spies.

Yeah, we got totally penetrated by Israeli spies all through the (((Executive Branch))) in 1983, and they’ve been there ever since. No one even tries to get rid of them.

Our entire government is compromised by Jewish spies spying for one of the worst countries on Earth. These spies have penetrated every inch of the (((US government))) and we won’t lift one finger to get rid of them. Israeli agents (US Jews with extreme dual loyalty like most Jews) are implanted deep in every single US government. Biden? Blinken anyone? (((Victoria Nuland)))? (((Sullivan)))?

The Jews have owned the (((US State Department))) forever. Even the (((CIA))) works very closely with the Mossad. (((Trump))), a so-called antisemite (that’s laughable) was the most pro-Israel president we have ever had, by far. What’s so antisemitic about that? (((Jared Kushner))), the Jewish husband of Trump’s daughter, effectively ran the (((US government))) for some time. He was even referred to as (((“President Jared.”)))

Both parties are controlled by Jewish money. 60% of the money going to the (((Democratic Party))) is Jewish money, all pro-Israel. 30% of the money to the (((Republican Party))) is Jewish money, all pro-Israel. (((Kushner))) made the worst deal for the Palestinians and then signed the document for them.

The (((Abraham Accords))) were a complete failure, but Trump paid the (((Saudis))), (((UAE))), and (((Morocco))) to sign onto it. For (((Morocco))), Trump agreed to support their despicable settler-colonial war in Spanish Sahara, where (((Morocco))) has genocided the Polisario people.

Even these few countries that have made alliance with Israel – (((Morocco))), (((UAE))), and (((Saudi Arabia))) – can only do that because they are dictatorships. A minimum of 65% of the population in all of those countries opposes these close relations with the Jewish state.

At least 57% of Arabs in every single Arab country seriously hate Israel and want nothing to do with the country. If these countries were democracies, not one of them would be pro-Israel now. Even the Israeli peace with Egypt and Jordan is a very cold one. Most Jordanians are Palestinians and they seriously hate Israel. The only reason there’s a peace treaty is because King Hassan was a dictator and he could push it through.

Most Egyptians feel the same way. The only reason there is peace with Israel is because Egypt is a military dictatorship. If they had a democracy, Egypt would sever ties with Israel. Tunisia and Algeria are extremely, almost fanatically anti-Israel. It’s the same with Syria and Iraq.

Syria will never make any sort of peace even of the coldest sort with Israel until Israel vacates the Golan Heights that they stole from Syria in 1973.

Lebanon is wildly anti-Israel and in fact, like Syria, it is still officially at war with Israel as Lebanon refused to sign a peace treaty with them. The Jews stole Lebanese land at Shabaa Farms in addition to the three Lebanese villages they stole and ethnically cleansed in the 1949. Israel is presently occupying this stolen land, and Lebanon wants it back.

Hezbollah controls the Lebanese government. Hezbollah and its allies control 65% of the Lebanese government. The (((US))) and (((France))) have tried to blackmail the Lebanese government. They have put (((sanctions))) on all of Lebanon’s banks until Lebanon gets rid of Hezbollah. Hezbollah has 65% support. Why should the Lebanese get rid of them? Also, half of the Lebanese Christians are in an alliance with Hezbollah. They don’t like Israel either.

It’s a lie that only Muslims hate this country. I knew a Syrian Christian and a Lebanese Armenian Christian recently and they both hated Israel, especially the Syrian. He really despised that country. I dated an Assyrian Christian woman from Iran recently. I was shocked that she absolutely despised Israel.

Libya is a failed state, but Ghaddafi always refused to make peace with Israel. I don’t think any of the factions battling it out now like Israel. One faction is the Muslim Brotherhood, and if there’s anything the Ikhwan hates, it’s the Jewish state.

In the Gulf, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and Bahrain have no relations with Israel. Yemen is split between a sell-out pro-(((Saudi))) government supported by Israel (naturally) and the pro-Iran Houthis, who are as anti-Israel as Iran. There are also factions of the Iraqi Army that are as pro-Iran and anti-Israel as the Houthis. These were formerly private militias that have now been folded into the Iraqi Army. You can be imprisoned in Iraq for even advocating peace with Israel! And this is with Saddam gone! The Jews traded the devil they knew for the one they didn’t!

Mauritania has an Arab nationalist regime that hates Israel and has no relations with it.

Afghanistan has no relations with Israel.

The peace between Turkey and Israel is a cold one indeed.

Israeli relations with Iran are notoriously bad.

To add insult to injury, (((Morroco))) now works closely with the Israeli military. As does the (((Sudanese government))), but that government came in due to the military coup and the promised elections were never held. Most Sudanese despise Israel and want nothing to do with it. If Sudan were a democracy, it would sever relations with Israel.

The (((Saudis))) and (((UAE))) are just rich Arab countries who have sold out Islam, the Arab people, and their own dignity in search of the almighty dollar or shekel in this case.

Why did they establish close relations with Israel? For the money, baby! Furthermore, Gulf states are pulling away from the Palestinians because they think the Palestinians are with Iran. There’s nothing Gulf Arabs hate more than the Shia and Iran. They have even made a strong alliance with the Jewish state in order to fight Iran. They’ve sold out everything, all because of “Kill the Shia!”

I don’t know much about other Muslim countries, but I know that Malaysia and Pakistan have very poor relations with Israel.

Israel controls every (((US Presidential Administration))), every single (((US Congress))), and many US (((state governments))).

I’ve really had it with these scumbags. They say antisemites turn genocidal, right? Well, maybe I’m one of them. See those videos below? Look at how those soldiers and settlers act. The Palestinians can kill as many of those damned soldiers and adult settlers as they want. Leave the minor settlers alone – they did not choose to move there. Leave the Jewish civilians inside the Green Line alone – they’re not the problem. Do you see them acting like those maniacs below?

In general, I do not want to see one Jew in the Diaspora harmed. Most Jews in the Diaspora are just walking around, minding their own damned business. I don’t care how much they support Israel. I don’t care how much money they give to pro-Israel causes. If they’re not squatting in Palestine re-enacting Krisstallnacht every day like those creeps in those videos, leave them the Hell out of it!

The Jews with bullets with their names on it are starring in those videos below.

Well, maybe I’ll make an exception for a few of those Diaspora Jewish neocon warmongers. I’m looking at you, Bernard-Henri Lévy. I won’t kill you myself, but I won’t weep if someone else does. This man is simply Satan personified. Everywhere he goes on Earth, some sort of mass murder follows. He’s like the Pied Piper of death and mass murder. He’s a demon in human form.

Yeah, he’s a Jew, but there are plenty of Gentile neocons too, and they’re just as bad as the Jewish ones. Neocon is just the norm now. Almost all Democrats are neocons and a somewhat lesser number of Republicans are too. Even Trump was a bit of a neocon. He wavered between neocon and isolationist. NATO is a neocon organization. So is the OAS. So is the (((State Department))), the (((CIA))), and the (((Pentagon))).

Neoconservatism is the official foreign policy of the US ever since the adoption of the (((Wolfowitz))) Doctrine in 2001. Most of the people who wrote that notorious paper were Jews, but there were a few Gentile maniacs in there too, like (((James Woolsey))). (((John Bolton))) is an excellent example of a classic Gentile neocon. Neocons ran US foreign policy during the Reagan Administration. They get coincidence marks because they’re both hardline rightwing Zionists.

This would never happen, but suppose it did. It wouldn’t bother me at all if hundreds of thousands of those settlers and soldiers died. I don’t care if that meant hundreds of thousands of Jews got killed. Just certain ones is all. Not just any old Jew. Those ones in those videos below are asking for it by now. If they don’t want people trying to kill them, they can quit acting like they deserve killing. Real simple. Don’t want to get murdered? Real simple. Don’t act like you deserve to get murdered. This stuff’s not hard, people.

For the videos in Hebrew below, you have to click the video to see it in Twitter and then click translate below the Hebrew to translate it into English.

Escalating terrorism by Jewish settlers, enabled & often joined by the IDF, targeting Palestinians – people, their homes, cars, business land, animals – is raging across the West Bank. This thread will pull together recent video/pix. Nobody can saw they didn't know.

— Lara Friedman (@LaraFriedmanDC) October 17, 2022

The Israeli occupation settlers attacked a house in my village(Tuwani),also under the Israeli occupation army protection even!The army should prevent them from doing that but it’s a occupation apartheid against Palestinians,they are supporting the settlers to do this terror work! pic.twitter.com/IdxXt0Zg3F

— mohammad hureini (@MHureini) October 17, 2022

In the second video below and the ones  that follow, gangs of settler pogromist Jews raid the town of Hawara and start a pogrom against the Palestinians there. The soldiers of the Jewish Army just stand there and don’t do anything. They only interfere when the Palestinians try to fight back! This is in fact, similar to Nazi treatment of the Jews from 1933-1939. After that, it’s another matter.

כך זה נראה: אחד עם אגרופן, אחר רעול פנים עם אקדח, אחר עם מוט, אחר עם גז, על פלסטיני שליד ביתו, בכפר. שימו לב לחייל.

"מי שמנסה להגן על עצמו, לזרוק אבן, כדי להרחיק אותם – הצבא יורה בו", עאיד אמר "תוקפים בבתים שלנו, ואסור להתגונן. הצבא מצפה שנרד לברכיים, ונתן למתנחלים להכות". pic.twitter.com/iMB9c8iCoB

— Yuval Abraham יובל אברהם (@yuval_abraham) October 15, 2022

"הצבא הגן עליהם גם בעבר, אבל לא ככה", עאיד סיפר, "חיילים מוכנים להרוג אותנו עכשיו כדי לאפשר למתנחלים לתקוף אנשים".

הצבא ירה ב2 פלסטינים אתמול. אחד קיבל כדור בגב, שני באגן. הם מאושפזים עדיין. "הם אומרים 'לא רוצים טרור'. אבל הם מייצרים את הטרור" עאיד אמר. > pic.twitter.com/cm7MtnFegh

— Yuval Abraham יובל אברהם (@yuval_abraham) October 15, 2022

Watch: Israeli settlers, backed by the army, attack Palestinians in Hawara #westbank pic.twitter.com/2Rj9I5a8Bk

— Oren Ziv (@OrenZiv_) October 13, 2022

Today: Israeli settlers backed by Israeli colonial forces attack Palestinian cars and shops in Huwwara village, near Nablus. Since Tuesday, there has been an Israeli military closure on Nablus, after one Israeli soldier was killed.

Photos: Oren Ziv/ Activestills pic.twitter.com/iRhkpJhz4d

— Activestills (@activestills) October 13, 2022

"Appears to be a combined militia: settlers descend to carry out an act of revenge inside the Palestinian village of Huwwara, claiming stones thrown at them, beat Palestinians w/ clubs, smash vehicles & attack residents, alongside soldiers guarding them."https://t.co/o8GstK067a

— Lara Friedman (@LaraFriedmanDC) October 17, 2022

Pogrom in Huwara. Armed Israeli settlers are attacking the Palestinians in the town right now.

No Israeli settler lives in the town, they are here for trouble.

pic.twitter.com/Gjk4jbJIob

— Younis Tirawi -يونس الطيراوي (@ytirawi) October 13, 2022

Settler terror is rampant tonight all over the West Bank. Reports of cars attackedband injured Palestinians from areas of Nablus, Salfit, Ramallah, Jordan Valley, & others.

This video is from Huwwara from shortly ago.

Notice the settlers are aided by the Israeli military. pic.twitter.com/IdehGhCBXj

— Jalal (@JalalAK_jojo) October 11, 2022

The videos below depict settler terror in other parts of the West Bank. A couple of videos were shot in Jerusalem inside the Green Line where the situation is sometimes as bad as in the West Bank. Note that those Jews are not settlers. In fact, they are Jews living inside the Green Line, but they are acting like 1930’s Nazis too. Notice them ganging up on and taunting a Palestinian worker hapless enough to be caught in their neighborhood.

התקפות המתנחלים והצבא נמשכו היום בחווארה, האירועים אתמול בהם מתנחלים חמושים תקפו תושבים כאשר חיילים עומדים בצד לא גרמו לאף אחד בצבא או במשטרה להתאמץ כדי למנוע מראות דומים גם היום.
בתיעוד: רכב של בטלוויזיה הפלסטינית שהותקף באבנים. pic.twitter.com/sGgZds6BTG

— Oren Ziv (@OrenZiv_) October 14, 2022

אלימות מתנחלים בכפר קוסרה ליד שכם: במהלך עימות אלים עם עשרות פלסטינים, שרפו המתנחלים 3 לולי עופות בבעלות פלסטינית – ובתוכם שרפו בחיים כ-30,000 עופות. צוותי כיבוי במקום.
המתנחלים ביצעו ירי חי לעבר הפלסטינים ופצעו שניים מהם קל, וגם פצעו במכות אדם נוסף.
הפרטים המלאים ב-@GLZRadio pic.twitter.com/bukxaGuOAt

— דורון קדוש | Doron Kadosh (@Doron_Kadosh) October 12, 2022

Part 2 of that video – watch Israeli police NOT going after assailantshttps://t.co/9OBjtC4K1F

— Lara Friedman (@LaraFriedmanDC) October 17, 2022

Israeli settlers on a rampage in the northern Jordan Valley… and bypass roads north of Ramallah, south of Nablus and west of it. Dozens of Palestinian cars were pelted with rocks and at least one Palestinian was wounded. pic.twitter.com/Yy3G5x1jAx

— Rania Zabaneh (@RZabaneh) October 11, 2022

Stones thrown into this man's bedroom last night. "Settlers wearing face masks stoned four family homes in his community, Sanjel. They were captured on the cameras on his house. I spoke with 'Ayed, and I put here a transcription of his important words >>"https://t.co/BXgACt4oVc

— Lara Friedman (@LaraFriedmanDC) October 17, 2022

More than 30settlers from the illegal Susiya settlement, accompanied by the occupation army, stormed the village of Wadi Jaish in Masafer Yatta, destroying at least 3 tents and stole trees from families. pic.twitter.com/7PBoDKMuuA

— #SaveMasaferYatta (@basel_adra) October 9, 2022

October 08, 2022: Israeli forces attack Palestinians picking olives in Wadi Rababa, central #Jerusalem, in support of ownership claims presented by far-right settler organizations. Photos by Activestills (1/2). pic.twitter.com/SzialqGcjy

— Activestills (@activestills) October 10, 2022

Residents of Urif, a village in the occupied West Bank province of Nablus, woke up this morning with their school vandalized and partially set on fire by by a mob of Israeli settlers the previous night. pic.twitter.com/jkm4HcXei9

— Wafa News Agency – English (@WAFANewsEnglish) October 16, 2022

I will say that almost all of the Jewish civilians in the videos below are Orthodox Jews. Non-Orthodox Jews don’t seem to be engaging in this brownshirt pogromist gang behavior.

You know, I could pretty much give a flying fuck about Jews.

There are the usual “watercooler antisemitism” – the good (mild) antisemitism – complaints about these folks, but nobody’s perfect, and Jews have so many good qualities too. Anyway, these complaints are fairly minor, and you can make similar complaints about many ethnic groups.

I’ve known many Jews in my life, and I’ve even been friends with quite a few of them. They didn’t seem all that much different from anyone else, but these were all assimilated Jews. Your average assimilated Jew may well be a pretty cool guy and even a good friend.

Sure, there are plenty of asshole Jews out there (mostly the men – Jewish women are just women), but I don’t cotton to such folks anyway. The kind I make friends with are the quiet, brainy, nerdy, scholarly Jews. They really like me, too! I’ve always felt an affinity for these people because of the extreme value they place on the intellect and the arts. Of course the longest relationship of my life was with an assimilated Jewish woman.

And – a dirty little secret here – I’ve always wanted to be Jewish! My mother was always saying I should have been Jewish because I always argued with my father. Jewish fathers supposedly encourage their sons to argue with them, which is pretty damn cool if you ask me!

I’m serious. It’s true. I wanted to be one of those introverted, nerdy, brainy, scholarly, academic-type Jews. In fact, I wanted to convert to Judaism, and my girlfriend was going to help me with the process. She knew rabbis who would work you through the six month course.

The truth is that as a liberal American, there are not many serious complaints you can make about Jewish people in our country. Sure, they’ve got some money, and rich Jews are dicks like any rich person, but I’d much rather be ruled by rich Jews than by rich Gentiles. Rich Jews, oddly enough, are some of the most progressive and leftwing rich people on Earth! This is largely historical, but it goes against their class interests, and I’m proud of them for taking that brave stance.

Of course, as a man of the Left, I can hardly hate the Jews, as Jews played such an important role in the Left from liberalism to communism in the last century. Even in the 21st Century, there are few righteous liberal Jews out there holding a shining lamp in the dark, being a light unto nations, and leading us Gentiles towards the dream of a better world.

The truth is that antisemitism is rightwing. Yes, some Leftie morons have taken up “obsessive and conspiratorial antisemitism” – the severe or bad antisemitism – which is the real ugly stuff, but it’s always a bad fit for the Left. Every time you try to ram this nasty antisemitism into a Left theory, you end up shoving square pegs into round holes. It never fits right.

And trust me, I’ve know quite a few Lefties who went antisemitic. They almost always slowly drift over to the Right as the antisemitism sets in over the years. This always puzzled me but the only explanation I can come up with is that antisemitism basically a rightwing complaint!

From the Left, there’s not a whole lot to bitch about with these people, and they’re usually on our side anyway. Study the arguments of any antisemite on the Web. They’re all rightwing, often far rightwing or even fascist, racist, or sexist. There’s no basis for any leftwing complaint about the Jews! Hence any serious antisemite on the Left can’t help but move to the Right over time. He almost has to. It’s almost a law, a physical law you could draw on a chalkboard.

That’s why I always yawn when I hear about the “new antisemitism” – decent people who’ve had it up to there with that fascist shitty little country, the Jews little “hate state” over there. Do we single them out? This is a complaint. I have no idea! Maybe we do! Sure, there are lots of other shitty and even monstrous, sick, and wicked countries on Earth. I suppose they’re about as shitty as blighted Israel or perhaps they’re worse.

What is the argument of the Jews? Hey, there’s a bunch of other horrid, nasty countries out there as bad as Israel, and you don’t talk about them? LOL. Well they just admitted what sort of country they are. When you are ranting against some terrible raping murderer criminal on trial, are you singling him out when you rant against his monstrous behavior but fail to give equal time to all the other monsters rotting on death rows?

The argument makes no sense! And I do bash all the other crappy countries. You’re damn right I do! Those Jews over there aren’t the only ratfucks on the planet. The whole damn please is teeming with monsters in human form!

Sure, some Lefties got in on the Jewish World Control thing, but that’s a stupid argument. The only people who think Jews run the world are Jews and antisemites. Some of them have decided that World Imperialism, Globalism, or Globohomo are all Jewish schemes. This is just lousy thinking. Imperialism, global and Globohomo are the problems, and I don’t think the Jews have much to do with any of them by now. I call this “the anti-imperialism of fools.”

Of course there is always the populist Right who looks out at the capitalist Hellscape and sees a Jewish plot. And now, yes, there are Left antisemites who look out at the capitalist world and see a bunch of hooknosed Jews. Get rid of them and we can have our marvelous socialism! This is indeed “the socialism of fools” because looking at capitalism and seeing a bunch of Jews is not even an analysis. It’s false on its face. And if you get rid of these Jewish capitalists, you will get a bunch of Gentile capitalists, and I assure you they act worse!

The problem is capitalists, not Jews. Jewish capitalists are some of the nicer ones! You think the Gentile capitalists are any better? Gentile capitalists are like Donald Trump! Give me a rich Jew instead please! The new fascist government of Italy of course has no understanding of economics other than that somehow people called “financiers” or “financial capitalists” are ruining everything.

In other words, the problem with capitalism is a bunch of Jewish bankers. Get rid of them and everything will be hunky dory. No it won’t. Nothing will change. Things will probably get worse. Jews don’t run the banks anymore anyway.

And how are these mysterious financiers or financial capitalists wrecking the world anyway? You mean like Wall Street? How exactly are they wrecking the world, and how do we reign them in if they are, and what will we do with them when we round em up, anyway? None of this makes sense as political economy. This antisemitic BS is “the economics of fools.” There’s no analysis there at all. The theory is empty of content.

There are people looking at the Ukraine-Russia War, rightwing supporters of Russia, who see a Jewish plot behind the whole war. Jews are behind the Ukrainian Nazis. Jews are behind NATO and the Anglosphere. They have to do this because they’re Hitlerian antisemites and any pro-Russian analysis has to take note of and condemn the Ukrainian Nazis as the main cause of this conflict.

This is an anti-Nazi, antifascist war that Russia is waging. Because antisemites are usually fascists and often Nazis themselves, they can’t see these Nazis as a problem, so they have to say it’s all just a bunch of Jews. Once again, that’s not an analysis. That’s like saying 2 + 2 = 5. It doesn’t address the essential questions of the conflict.

As you can see, most antisemitism ends up being rightwing in some way or another, and there are many rightwing angles to take if you’re down for blaming the Jews. There’s just nothing in that complaint for the Left, as much of this antisemitic argument against the Jews is that they are liberal, progressive, socialists, and communists and that they lead revolutions.

I’m sorry? This is a bad thing? Oh yeah, and the Jews imposed Bolshevism in the USSR. That’s the main complaint and one Hitler used to kill millions of Jews. And don’t forget, Lenin was a Jew! Ok but I like Lenin. And Trotsky was the worst Jew of them all! And a damn fine general he was, leader of the Red Army!

Why do I care about this? I like the Bolsheviks. The Jews were some of the top leaders in the Bolsheviks? Well, bully for them!

Whereas watercooler antisemitism is pretty harmless to Jewish people as it lacks the passion that leads to intense hate, the obsessive and conspiratorial kind of very bad for the Jews. This is the type of antisemitism that the Hitlerites used, and that very philosophy continues to this day. Jews always make the mistake of conflating the harmless antisemitism with the bad stuff, but that’s because they’re a nation of paranoids.

One difference is that while the mild antisemitism is largely true (hence it is “good”) the bad antisemitism is, well, just flat out wrong most of the time. Believe me, I’ve given these guys a chance and looked into all their arguments. There’s nothing there. They vastly overestimate the power, money, and control that the Jews wield. The strongly exaggerate the Jews’ rather minor role in Identity Politics, immigration, anti-White racism, porn, cultural degeneration, the drug trade, etc. All this stuff’s gone on automatic now.

The bad antisemitism is lazy thinking. The culprit behind every damn problem on Earth is the Jooooos. And what’s the solution every single time? “We need to get rid of these people.” They usually don’t elaborate on that chilling phase, but most folks like this end up being pro-Nazi and going over to Holocaust Denial.

Most such folks that I followed eventually advocated killing Jews, and most of them went over to genocide advocacy at some point. They usually wanted to kill at least ~200,000 Jews or so. There’s only one endgame for the bad kind of antisemitism, and that’s some sort of genocide or mass murder. They just can’t go partway with it. Once they’ve dove that deep in, they’ve got to keep swimming all the way til they touch bottom before they can come up for air.

If I were a Jewish person, I would regard this type of antisemite as a dangerous person, and many of them I would regard as a sheer menace, my worst, most deadly enemies.

assface, our friendly local hebephile in the Comments, responds to my earlier post with a number of criticisms. I respond to his criticisms below. It’s an interesting debate if you are interested in this area of Sexology. I’m a bit of an amateur sexologist myself which is why I’m into this stuff. I find it fascinating.

assface tries to promote a theory that men are maximally attracted to girls age 12-17 (hebephilic to ephebophilic range) and that sexual arousal declines after that (ephebophilic to teleiophilic range). I don’t agree with that, and I cite the science that sense that men are most aroused by adult women aged 18-24 (ephebophilic to teleiophilic* range) and less aroused, ranging from 54-80% of maximum, to 12-17 year old girls.

assface: A recent study on dating sites found that the most popular age for women was 18, i.e. the lowest age allowed.

What would the graph look like if girls under 18 were allowed on the sites? Like this?

Or like this?

Obviously, what the market really wants is girls under 18. Blindingly obvious to anyone with a bit of common sense. Most sexologists don’t look at real-world data like this. Most of their data comes from self-report surveys in which men are obviously lying or those willy tests were they put an elastic band on a man’s knob and show him pictures. Real precise science, yeah. There’s lots more real-world data showing that women peak in attractiveness before 18 not the early 20s, which is what biology predicts we would see.

You mention the Yanomamo tribe quite a lot on this site. Do you think the men in this tribe find women in their early 20s the most attractive? LOL. Anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon, author of the famous book, The Yanomamo, the Fierce People, reported that when the girls got to about 12 and grew some perky boobies all the men noticed and they would have to be closely guarded to stop the getting raped or abducted by raiders.

By the time they’d got to their late teens or 20 and started having babies the men would say they were past their prime and “growing old”. The men would lose a lot of interest in them and they would no longer have to be closely guarded.

We see the same pattern in our society. Girls are most likely to be victims of sex crime between about 12 and 17. What’s happening is that the males in our species are focusing on the females just prior the beginning of their reproductive lifespan when their long-term reproductive potential is at its highest.

In one of his papers, prominent Ray Blanchard actually mentions that in primitive foragaing societies the pubescent girls are often closely guarded and claims this is evidence that the men aren’t attracted to them.

LOL RUT?

If they DIDN’T have to be guarded and could freely go about with no danger of being raped or abducted that would show that the men aren’t interested in them. The fact they have to be closely guarded just goes to show how much they’re sought after by the men.

The man just isn’t that bright, and that’s the norm for sexologists. The whole field of Sexology is filled with third-rate intellects who went into it because that weren’t smart enough to become proper scientists.

I don’t think teenage minor girls should be allowed on those sites. Although, a dirty little secret, Grindr for gay men is absolutely flooded with teenage boy minors, many of them underage. And no one cares! Furthermore, gay clubs are typically crowded with a lot of 16 and 17 year old boys, even in states where it is illegal. Notice the feminists don’t care about that though! They only want to police us straight men!

Well, the studies show that 84% (Almost all!) men are aroused by 12-14 year old girls, but they are only 54% as aroused by them as they are by grown women. So they’re turned on by those girls about half as much as they are to women. However, that 50% arousal is enough for many men to want to have sex with them.

Keep in mind that 23% of all men test “hebephilic” in the lab. That’s almost one fourth of all men. These men are as aroused by 12-14 year old girls as they are by grown women. This group of men is called “undifferentiated.” They’re extremely turned on by all females – little girls, Lolitas, teenage girls, and grown women.

23% is a Hell of a lot of men who get extremely aroused by Lolitas. So there are always going to be quite a few men in any society who want to have sex those girls really bad. It’s not a majority, but it’s a Hell of a lot of us men. This is just biology talking and there’s nothing any of us can do about this but put in strict laws limiting all but the very youngest men’s access to most of those girls. If you want to stop men from following their bodies towards immoral behavior, put in some serious laws to prevent it. What else are you going to do?

I don’t think adult men should be having sex with 12-13 year old girls. I would not allow any adult man to have sex with a 12 year old girl. I might let an 18 year old man do it with a 13 year old girl, but beyond that, I would ban it. We just can’t let men screw these Lolitas. Almost no modern society allows that. You want grown men picking up their 13 year old girlfriends from the local junior high? Screw that!

For 14 year old girls, I would be a little more lenient. I would let men up to age 20 have sex with them. Beyond that, sorry, but nope.

I read Chagnon’s book at university for a Social Anthropology course I took. Great book! Those Yanomamo men above are hebephiles or ephebephiles. That seems to be culturally constructed in their case because evidence from our labs does not line up with that at all.

In the endless lab studies we have performed, men become increasingly aroused by females from little girls -> Lolitas -> teenage girls -> grown women, especially young women.

In our society, men don’t feel that women in their late teens or 20 years old are “old.” We feel that they are at their absolute prime in attractiveness.

assface: Obviously what the market really wants is girls under 18.

The evidence from lab tests shows that this is false. However, there is the illegal or taboo factor which drives a lot of men towards jailbaits. A big part of the turn-on is that they are forbidden, illegal, or taboo. Making a sexual behavior taboo often gets a lot of men aroused by it. People want to be bad.

However, if we allowed porn with jailbaits on the Net, even 16 and 17 year old girls, it would be a disaster! The day after the law passed, the porn sites on the Net would be flooded with ads for 16 YEAR OLD GIRLS!!!! and 17 YEAR OLD GIRLS!!!!! I do not want to live in a society flooded with porn involving minor females. Just forget it! No no no no no no no!

The penile tests in the lab are excellent science, and they get replicated all the time. They always come up with the same findings, so I don’t think the tests are fake.

You can also do eye dilation tests, and there’s no way to fake that.

Sure, men say they want 18 year old girls, but evidence from labs shows that all women from 18-24 are equally attractive to men. Also men are extremely attracted to 25-29 year old women, though not quite as much as to 18-24 year olds. As mentioned, there’s a pretty serious drop-off in female attractiveness to men at age 30. Sorry ladies!

The men sequester those girls away at 12-13 in South America, but the marriage may not be consummated for a while, say age 15. The anthropologist who lived with the Yanonamo sequestered his girl and married her at age 12, but he did not consummate the marriage until age 15. However, sometimes the men start having sex with those girls at 12-13.

12 year old girls getting pregnant is disastrous. Pregnancy is also quite dangerous for 13-14 year old girls. It can tear them up inside. I recommend that all 12-14 year old pregnant girls abort their babies. By 15, the pregnancy is pretty much safe or at least it won’t rip them up inside.

assface: The man just isn’t that bright, and that’s the norm for sexologists. The whole field of sexology is filled with third-rate intellects who went into it because that weren’t smart enough to become proper scientists.

Sexologist Ray Blanchard is a colleague, and I have corresponded with him before about sexology because it’s a big interest of mine. One thing I will say is that he’s one Hell of a smart man!

I just think there is just a lot of bias going on. Guys like Blanchard and Seto think Hebephilia is a mental disorder and are quite biased towards making it seem to be very abnormal behavior in order to promote their theory.

There’s also a seedy element to the debate. If you don’t believe me, just utter the word “hebephilia” in a crowded room and watch the room clear out. That’s if someone doesn’t punch you in the face first. People are wildly emotional about this subject, and 95% of the population cannot talk rationally about it and will either shut down the conversation or start yelling.

The psychiatrists saying that Hebephilia is not a disorder or is not even abnormal are taking a risk. They will be called pedophiles, sex offenders, and child molesters, and they will be accused of “promoting” hebephilia, which probably isn’t even possible as it seems to be a developmental matter that is set in the womb before birth.

Can you “promote” blue eyes? Blond hair? Short height? Tall height? Wide feet?

See how dumb that is? You can’t promote hebephilia more than any of those other things because all of that is set up before birth. No one has a choice about any of those things. Hebephilia, like those things, is not a condition that can be acquired after you are born.

Both Seto and Blanchard probably also think that saying Hebephilia is not disordered is a creepy statement, though being scientists, one wonders how much that clouds their vision, as they’re supposed to be above that. For instance, Seto has done some superb work on pedophiles showing that it is a developmental disorder and that these men cannot help it. As long as they do not offend, they should be left alone. You can hardly hate a man for something he did not choose!

To show you how toxic the debate is, I’ve been pounded all over Hell and high water for simply reiterating the official position of the American Psychiatric Association that hebephilia is not a mental disorder and it’s not even abnormal. I’ve been called every name in the book, threatened, and turned in to the police and FBI so many times I can’t count them just for following psychiatric science on this matter,.

There was a big hebephilia debate going on among psychiatrists when they were making DSM-5. You can read the debates online. One group said it was a disorder, and another group said it wasn’t. The group saying it wasn’t was led by a psychiatrist named Dr. Francis. Psychiatrists Seto and Blanchard were on the other side. It’s really interesting reading if you are interested in this stuff.

*Despite all the lies you read about me on the Internet, I’m just a regular old teleiophile like 77% of all straight men. I’ve never been tested in the lab, but I assume I’m maximally aroused by 18-24 year old women, and less so by degrees to 12-17 year old girls. I don’t know about little girls. I’m not sure I feel much at all towards them. Sorry to disappoint, pedos! Maybe next lifetime I can come back as a pedophile and we can hang out as pedo bros!

I’m ok with dating sites for teenagers aged 13-17. That’s just fine. Problem is how do you make any money? Teenagers don’t have any money at all. How are they going to pay to get on the sites?

Also, states could allow dating sites for 13-17 year old teenagers and also whatever age range the Romeo and Juliet law would allow.

For instance, if the Romeo and Juliet law allowed adults up 20 years old sexual access to some of those minors, I would allow a site for 13-20 year olds. 13-14 year olds would be illegal for all adults. 15 year olds would be legal for 18 year old adults. 16 year olds would be legal for 18-19 year old adults. And 17 year olds would be legal for 18-20 year old adults. I don’t see why this would be a huge problem. You could allow the users to police the group and screenshot adults hitting on or even flirting with illegal girls. The minors could turn in adults who were bothering them in if they want to.

In Colorado, I would allow a dating site for 13-23 year olds. You would have to show some ID to join or perhaps get permission from parents for 13-15 year olds. Everyone else would have a driver’s license or could get an ID card easily. Obviously it would only be legal for some of those adults to have sex with some of those girls.

For instance, in Colorado, 13 year olds would be illegal for all adults, 13-14 year olds would be illegal for adults 21+, 13-15 year olds would be illegal for adults 22+, and 13-16 year olds would be illegal for the 23 year olds. With enough safeguards in place, I doubt if a site like this would cause a lot of problems. Young adults aged 18-23 generally often have a pretty fair amount of spending money, certainly enough to join a dating site, so this site could be quite profitable with the young adults alone.

The adults would have to police themselves to avoid the really young minors, but I doubt if it would be a big problem. They could have policies saying no hitting on or even flirting with minors who are illegal for you. The minors could turn any illegal adults trying to hit on or flirt with them. That adult would then be banned from the site.

There would be a huge fuss about evil older men joining these sites to prey on poor innocent teenage girls to rape and murder them, but if you made it so you needed a driver’s license or state ID to get on the site, in most states, the only adults allowed on there would be 18-20 year olds. 18-20 year old adults hardly pose any more risk of rape and murder to minor girls than the boys their age. It wouldn’t be a problem. Those girls would be legal for them in society anyway, so why would this site serve as some hunting ground for maniacs? Doesn’t make sense.

Assface is our resident hebephile. As long as his condition doesn’t cause him to break the law, I could care less about his sexual orientation. I don’t think he can help it. Research seems to show that true preferential hebephilia is a developmental disorder caused by conditions in the womb before birth. In other words, hebephiles can’t help their condition any more than most gay men and lesbians can.

RL: Studies have shown the women reach their peak attractiveness for all normal men between the ages of 18-24

assface: LOL this is the PC crap that gets taught in sexology courses. The true age girls peak in attractiveness is closer to 12.

No, it is true that most men are maximally aroused by 18-24 year old women and a lot less aroused by 12-14 year old girls (Lolitas). I’ve done a ton of research on this lately and waded through every paper I could find.

When I say hebephilia is abnormal, I mean preferential hebephilia, men who are extremely aroused by Lolitas and show lesser, little, or no arousal to grown women.

No, this is not true at all, and research studies show it. In fact, though 84% or the vast majority of men react to 12-14 year old girls (Lolitas), they only react to them at 54% of maximum (reaction to females 18+). So while it is extremely normal for men to be sexually aroused by Lolitas (in fact, it is no normal that it is almost banal), it is only extremely normal to about half as aroused by them as by grown women.

Although 26% of men are extremely aroused by Lolitas, this does not make them hebephiles because 80% of them are also extremely aroused by grown women. The maximum arousal to grown women is a prosocial desire that allows such men the option of functioning well in society, whereas their maximum arousal to Lolitas is in a lot of places what I would call an antisocial desire because you may well go to jail if you get caught.

Many people, especially men, have competing social and antisocial desires. If the prosocial desire can be substituted for the antisocial desire, then most men will suppress or repress the antisocial desire and focus on the prosocial desire. This is a good idea as it helps them to stay out of jail!

On the other hand, I think it is less normal to be among the 26% group, though it is not pathological.

There is a question about actual hebephiles, men who are more turned on by Lolitas than by grown women. Up to 5% of men may be hebephiles. The American Psychiatric Association has stated that Hebephilia as a way of thinking is not a mental disorder, and in fact, it is not even abnormal!

We can put out What If Everyone Did It? test to hebephiles. What if all men were hebephiles, that is, they were extremely aroused by grown women and had little or no reaction to grown women? A society of men who regard 16 year old girls as grandmas will be one in which a lot of 12-15 year old girls are going to be getting fucked by men all the time, and most men are going to be screwing Lolitas or at least trying to. That doesn’t sound like a society that’s going to function well at all. In fact, it may well collapse.

So I disagree with the APA that hebephilia is not abnormal. I agree it’s not a mental disorder, but it’s definitely not normal.

As far as men who act on these hebephilic urges, the APA states that in much of the world, this is criminal behavior, and such men are best described as criminals as opposed to mentally ill.

I agree with this statement. Most crime is in fact “normal” in that it is not indicative of a mental disorder. Most criminals aren’t nuts. Criminal behavior is illegal and often morally wrong, hence it violates our laws and morals, and this is problem. In other words, criminals are a problem because they break the law and act bad, not because they’re nuts, because they aren’t.

I have to put this up there because my views get so misrepresented everywhere. The following positions are not even particularly controversial, and a number are simply scientific fact. Others are simply very moderate views. In fact, what I am advocating below was the normal view when I was growing up before the world went insane about this nonsense. A person advocating these very mild reforms is certainly not a pedophile for God’s sake!

My basic position is this:

Every man on Earth wants to fuck those (teenage minor) girls, it’s just that you’re not supposed to do it if they are underage.

I said just that to my increasingly feminist mother (Perhaps she is becoming demented; that would surely be a reason for her increasing feminism) recently. I was eating dinner with her, and I said about this topic:

Every single man on Earth wants to have sex with those (teenage minor) girls. It’s just that you’re not supposed to do it is all, and if you do, you might get in a whole Hell of a lot of trouble.

My 89 year old mother looked at me across the table and nodded her head like I had just said the sky is blue or fish swim and birds fly. All of her life from girlhood until late senescence, this has been an obvious fact that no sane person would debate.

This is my Mom! She’s 89 damned years old! And even she thinks society has gone stark raving bonkers on this subject. If my Mom said that out loud, she might have a lynch mob at her door trying to murder her for being a “pedophile.” That’s ridiculous and insane! That’s what I am arguing against!

My Mom grew up in a time when we had a real society and a real culture, both based on the wisdom of the ages, the stuff that everyone knows is true even if they might not talk about it. We don’t have that anymore. When you toss out all of the wisdom of the ages and spit on your ancestors like these modern narodniks are doing, you don’t even have a culture or a society at all. Instead of a culture, you have a shithole or a stinking sewer and instead of a society you have a clusterfuck with the lunatics ruling the asylum and everyone nodding their head and saying that the Emperor is indeed wearing clothes.

Sure, you might still have a culture and a society, but you don’t have a real culture or a real society. That’s my point. You have a stinking shithole for a culture and clusterfucked madhouse for a society. You basically end up with the sort of “culture” and “society” that Pasolini portrayed in Salo. A debased, depraved, twisted, irrational mess with totalitarian overtones.

I think we as a society should acknowledge what I said to my mother above. I would also advocate a position that there’s nothing pathological or abnormal in having these desires or even acting on them. It’s not disordered behavior. Perhaps it’s wrong, evil, or illegal, but it’s not psychopathology.

We are in the midst of a completely insane mass hysteria and moral panic and the sexuality of teenage girls, and I am dead set against it, and no, I will not stop talking about it! It’s basically the Salem Witch Trials all over again. I’m here to point out the insanity and even immorality of that point of view, which is now normal in our society. You all think it’s ok to live in a society that is just like the one in the Salem Witch Trials? Because that’s what we’ve got now in the West.

What do I want? I simply want society to have a normal view about this sort of thing like we had in the 1970’s. Society can keep its laws and guys who violate them might just go to jail. I also think the sentences for this stuff are completely out of line. But I’m not advocating that any man break those laws.

If you an adult male within a few years of those girls, I wouldn’t object to you trying to jump on them, but even then you might get caught. If you’re an adult male within two years of them, you can probably get away with it. Anymore than that, and you’re looking at trouble, and I absolutely do not advocate that any man engage in that behavior because I don’t like to see my brothers going to jail.

Guys on the Net were saying that a whole bunch of 18 year old senior guys at their high school in Arizona just got arrested for fucking 14 year old freshman girls. Come on! No, no, no, no, no, no, no! Senior boys and freshman girls? That’s as old as dirt. For God’s sake, man, leave these damn kids alone!

I am absolutely advocating a Romeo and Juliet clause of at least three and better yet four years to cover young lovers.

As far as lowering the age of consent, I’m not advocating that. The states can put it wherever the Hell they want. Obviously I’d like to see it reduced to 16 or 17 all over the country, but that’s hardly a controversial idea, and I’m not here to advocate for that. But I absolutely do not want to see any US states raising their damned Age of Consent laws and I will come out strongly against that.

I also don’t think adult-JB sex is rape of any kind, molestation, pedophilia, or “child sexual abuse” (LOL!). It’s “illegal intercourse” because society finds it distasteful to infuriating, as is their right.

The girls don’t get harmed and any harm they get is their own damned fault, and I have no sympathy for those silly little twats. They need to grow the Hell up.

Bored: More teenage girl sex obsession.

Yawn.

There are no “teenage girls” referenced in that post. In fact, all females referenced in that post were full-grown adult women. Sorry to disappoint you.

There are seven women mentioned. Their ages are: 51, 48, 39, 37, 33, 27, and 28.

There is a quote that I did not write from a commenter referencing a college coed, probably between the ages of 18-22. But those are all women, not girls. Yeah, we talk about college coeds here. They’re legal adults and grown women after all.

As you can see, the posts where I get called to the carpet on this teenage girl obsession bullshit are ones like this one, where I reference my experiences with seven women aged 28-51. Apparently 28-51 year old women are really teenage girls!

Actually I have no teenage girl obsession! I’m non-discriminatory, I like all women from 18-65. I talk to a variety of women about sex all the time, and I talk to new ones constantly, sometimes every day. Lately these women are in their 20’s and 30’s, lately from 20-37. My girlfriend is 65. They’re all just fine.

And to be honest, those high school girls look a bit young for me nowadays. I talked to a couple of them the other day. I thought they were sophomores or juniors, but they were seniors! Even they looked awful damn young.

I always think they’re younger than they are. I see them leaving the school and they look “too small.” They’re not as tall or filled out as a woman, so they look like “kids” to me, which is not as attractive. I absolutely like 17 and 18 year old high school girls though. They look out of this world. The younger ones look ok if they are well-developed.

I barely talk to high school aged girls. What am I supposed to say to them? It would be dumb to have an obsession with something I can’t have.

Quite honestly, I really have a thing for young women about ages 18-25. Of course in general they want nothing to do with me, but I do talk to them sometimes. They’re fun to talk to. It’s not a preference, but I definitely like young women around those ages. A lot of them need a mentor too, and that’s where we older men come in.

I know men who you might call “ephebephiles” who like em young, supposedly with a preference of 15-19 year old girls. A man obsessed with teenage girls would probably be an ephebephile. I’m no ephebephile.

That’s not a disorder, but it seems odd. You want to spend your life banging teenyboppers, giggly teenage girls? Why? Then even more idiotic than women, and that’s saying something!

This seems ridiculous to me, but keep in mind that 18-19 year old girls are the women who men are most turned onto of all. And some rich men do nothing but have sex with 18-25 year old women. They keep recycling them to get new ones.

Leonardo Di Carpio seems to be one. J. D. Salinger was another. There are middle aged and even elderly men who move to Thailand and live there to spend the rest of their lives fucking 18-25 year old women. I can’t fault them for that. They’ve simply decided to spend their lives fucking the hottest women of them all.

I’ve seen some of these guys talk though, and they’re weird. They think women used up to 21 or at best 30. They say things like, “Women are grandmas at age 21.” That’s what ephebephiles say!

That’s silly and a bit discriminatory. There was a segment with Kim Fowley at age 70 saying about how he had regular sex with women in their 20’s who he picked up. Of course being worth $3 million helped. He said after age 30, women develop “cellulite.” I thought that was dicky. And what does your 70 year old body look like, Kim? Justin Bieber? That’s not fair. His body looks like crap, but he demands women with perfect bodies.

I think the whole thing is ridiculous as I like women in their 30’s, 40’s, and 50’s just fine. Their bodies still look good to me.

But studies have shown the women reach their peak attractiveness for all normal men between the ages of 18-24. So the females that men are most turned onto of all include some “teenage girls,” except they are really women. Why on Earth is it patriarchal for men to be attracted to, or, Hell, even “obsessed by” the most attractive women of all?

The Cultural Left is fighting a war against Nature.The Cultural Left hates, hates, hates, hates older men who go after perfectly legal teenage girls or even young women. They’ve revived some sort of “age gap” nonsense whereby if any relationship has a significant age gap, especially if it an older man and a younger woman, that relationship is sick, abnormal, wrong, evil, exploitative, predatory,  misogynistic, and pedophilic.

Yep, if there are too many years between you and your woman, you’re a pedophile! I don’t know about price inflation but word definition inflation is definitely out of control. I can’t think of any cure except the SJW’s thankfully helping us all out by dying off.

Obviously this is all coming from toxic and insane feminism. As I noted before, feminism is just the worst parts of the Female Spirit, Psyche, Worldview, or Prerogative (pick your noun) weaponized. Most women resent men going for younger women deep down inside because a lot of older women get hurt by this. So feminism pathologizes it and calls the men who do this names like rapist and pedophile to try to get them to stop. But they’re feminism if fighting a war against nature or a War against Male Nature to be precise.

In a proper patriarchal society (patriarchal because that is all that works as matriarchy results in chaos and dysfunction everywhere in time and space), female nature gets overlain with a strong dose of patriarchal culture and values. Hence the women end up burying the deeply held views of their basic nature which would destroy society if implemented. Instead, the women adopt in a modified form many of the saner values of the patriarchy.

Such as that older men’s preference for younger women is a natural and normal thing even if it is somewhat lamentable from the view of women. Women in patriarchal societies come to accept the world as it is, not as their crazy minds tell them it should be.

On the other hand, patriarchies should be basically benevolent towards women in that they should not be the sort of vicious patriarchies we see today. A mild, kind but firm patriarchy that weighs the values of all against all and makes the scales all balance out at the end is what works. I would add that friendly, helpful women can always help men rule any patriarchy.

I was talking to my mother about older men liking young women, and she said with a shrug of her shoulders as if she was saying the sky is blue:

Well, men like young women. The Romans said, “A man can still have a child when there is snow on the roof (when his hair is white), but a woman’s time is short.”

In other words, my Mom believes in “the wisdom of ages.”  My Mom was raised in a patriarchy. As much as she sputters that she is a feminist (and she has grown into much worse of one in old age – someone explain that please), many of her values are of the normal, natural, patriarchal wisdom of the ages.

Everyone calls me evil, degenerate, misogynist, homophobe, racist, transphobe, bigot, reactionary, Republican, fascist, Nazi, on and on, but all have ever been advocating is a return to “the wisdom of ages,” or “what we all know but are too scared to admit.” Otherwise known as “your grandmother was right,” which is one of the mottos of the Alternative Left.

This means an end to the insane and doomed Cultural Left War against Nature, which can also be called a War against Human Nature. The Cultural Left wants to create “new men” like the communists did, but the communists weren’t nearly as nuts.

Notice we only need new men? Women are always just fine, exploding diagnoses of Borderline Personality Disorder be damned. It’s always men who have to change and women who are just fine how they are. Ever noticed that?

Other than the fact that this Culture War ends up declaring war against anyone who dares to act normal, it’s also doomed. They’ll never create this new society of homosexuals, cucks, eunuchs, girlymen, and male feminists, and even if they do, no women will want those men anyway! They want hypermasculine Alphas. Even feminists do deep down inside!

But that won’t happen. All it will do is create a reactionary and even fascist backlash, as we are seeing before our very eyes. Thank you Cultural Left for reviving fascism!

But the Romans could have told you all these things, which is why my “wisdom of the ages” Mom likes to quote them.

The problem with the Cultural Left is they don’t read the Romans. They don’t care about them. Even if they did read them, they’d end up throwing the book against the wall. They’re all racist, sexist, bla bla after all. We at least they weren’t homophobic! Well, maybe not too much.

Romans pretty much fucked anything that moved. However, even the Romans thought that sex with prepubertal children was seriously messed up and wrong. This was regarded as seriously abnormal behavior. Further, most primitive cultures have drawn the line at child molestation. I think this shows me that adults molesting children under age 13 goes against Natural Law. Sure, there are pedophiles who get wired up that way, but they’re absolutely abnormal.

Studies have shown the women reach their peak attractiveness for all normal men between the ages of 18-24. So the females that men are most turned onto of all include some “teenage girls,” except they are really women. Why is it pathological for men of any age to be aroused by the sexiest and hottest women of all, 18-19 year old women?

By the way, the same studies show a high level of attractiveness to men of all women between between 25-29. The studies also show a sharp drop-off in attractiveness of woman at age 30. So there is something to the PUA notion of hitting the wall after all!

The same studies showed peak male attraction for 23 year old women. Peak female attraction was to 28 year old men. And gay men like em real young, aged ~19. As you can see, women like men a bit older, and men like their women a bit younger, and gay men like em real young, barely adults. This shows the basis for the frequent depiction of gay men as pederasts (men who have sex with teenage boys). Pederasty has been an essential aspect of gay male culture since Antiquity.

One way whether we can determine if something is abnormal is to ask ourselves, “What if everyone did it?” By that metric, trannies, gays, and lesbians are absolutely abnormal, no doubt about it. No matter if many of them quite naturally get wired up that way in the womb. Lots of people quite naturally get wired up in all sorts of terrible ways. That’s why we have genetic and developmental disorders. Our Capricious God is a man of chance  who likes to roll the dice! Perhaps He is even a gambling addict with a casino in the sky, who knows?

Murder, rape, and stealing are abnormal though ubiquitous, though amongst the Yanonamo all men have committed at least one homicide by age 40, and the tribe soldiers on nonetheless. So a society of homicidal men where all of the middle aged men are murderers is quite normal. I wouldn’t want to live there, but it functions.

And murder in this societies functions as quite “normal” behavior in enhancing the competition for resources, particularly women. Almost all Yanonamo homicides are fights over women or girls.

Yanonamo men grab a girl at age 12 and sequester her away from the other men if they hope to get a wife at all. Then other men keep coming around with spears trying to steal her from you, from whom you must defend yourself. But though girls are betrothed at 12, the marriages may not be consummated until later, up to age 15 which makes more sense from an obstetric point of view. As you can see, under the What if everyone did it? rubric, marrying off girls at puberty and even having sex with them is quite normal because in societies where every man does just that, things keep chugging right along.

What if everyone had blue or green eyes or blond or red hair? All of those things are normal because societies were everyone was like that would work just fine.

Is dwarfism normal? I don’t think so. A society where everyone 4’9 might not work very well, but how tall are Pygmies? The problem with Pygmies is Pygmies are abnormal! For one thing, Pygmies die at age 23. You think a world where everyone died at age 23 would be functional? Granted, we are probably heading that way due to Global Warming, but that also might be the end of civilization.

In normal societies, people are only very short like this when there is something genetically amiss. Furthermore a tribe of manlets and petite women would be quite easily conquered by other tribes. And Pygmies do get attacked, enslaved, and even eaten by African Blacks. Yep, they cook Pygmies and eat them. Apparently they are quite tasty in the same way that young cows and sheep in the form of veal and lamb are tender and delicious.

A Napoleon Syndrome would not save those manlets. All of the other tribes would be Titans- Goliaths and Amazons. They’d be in a war against physics.

Being abnormally thin or fat are abnormal. Most mental disorders, including the personality disorders, are abnormal. A society of psychopaths or narcissists would unravel pretty quickly. We are probably witnessing the latter here in the Tik Tok West.

In some of these cases, society might chug along nevertheless, but it would have all sorts of problems. That counts too. Something is normal if, assuming everyone did it or had it, society would function quite well nevertheless.

The average Pygmy dies at age 23! I sure hope they don’t follow Western age of consent laws over there. They’d all go extinct. They’d damn well better start knocking up their girls at age 15 or they’ll go the way of the dinosaurs.

This also shows that the modern “minors can’t consent to sex” and “all sex between minors and adults is wrong, evil, and pedophilia and should be punished by death” is not just wrong, but it’s also insane. What if the Pygmies practiced this idiocy? They’d die out. Is that what the bonehead West wants?

“Minors can’t consent to sex” and “All sex between minors and adults is wrong, evil, and pedophilia and should be punished by death” are not scientific statements. In fact, they are wildly anti-scientific.

Science doesn’t wade into the quicksand of human morality. That’s for the moral philosophers, the cops, and the legal system to decide.

And they’re not even true statements. The second is a moral judgement, and those are never true or even false. They’re simply outside of science.

The first pretends to be science but it’s false on its face, and even in the more nuanced sense, it’s anti-scientific as there’s plenty of evidence it’s false.

A comment from Vinyard of the Saker, a great pro-Russian site taking another commenter to task for saying that actually Americans love Russians and everything Russian. Alexander Haig, discussed below, was a Reaganite, a horrendous reactionary dog, a real monster of a man. Same with that maniac Jeanne Kirkpatrick, US ambassador to the UN under Reagan. Both were complete dead-eyed psychopaths, no better than any serial killer. In fact, they were both mass murderers and war criminals, like everyone on Reagan’s foreign policy team.

America will never be a decent country until we bury the foul spirit of Ronald Reagan once and for all. He’s in the ground now, but he was so vile that I always suspected that the Earth itself might reject his body and vomit it up from the soil. Even dirt itself wouldn’t want to be associated with Reagan.

Ever since his mis-reign, polls keep showing that a majority of Americans say Reagan was a great president. The modern Republican party, now an official fascist party, has Reagan as their saint. I would also argue that the march towards fascism began under Ronny Raygun and the Reagan cancer has only metastasized ever since.

I would also point to Newt Gringrich’s “Contract on America” in 1995 as another major advance towards fascism in the US. It marched even further under Shrub Bush the psychopath who tortured frogs in his youth and never developed a moral compass in his adulthood. And it came to full fruition with the election of the toxic waste heap of a man known as Donald Trump, who began as a quasi-fascist Mussolini wannabe with Mein Kamp on his bedstool and finished his term as a full-blown American fascist straight out the famous book from 1935:

If fascism ever comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and a Bible.

– Upton Sinclair, “It Can’t Happen Here.”

Now the entire Republican Party is a full-blown authoritarian fascist party utterly hostile to democracy and determined to put in a permanent Republican fascist dictatorship.

Comment follows:

You were clearly better educated than I was. I was educated in the South, and of course we all know what that was about, especially if you were African American. That said, I remember in my high school we had a mandatory class we had to take prior to graduation: Americanism vs. Communism.

The America I grew up in was nothing but psyops whenever it came to Russians, so the statement that we “have been methodically conditioned from birth to believe Russians are inherently ruthless and immoral” rings true to me. The Soviet Union (Russia) was the enemy. Watch the movie Dr. Strangelove.

You think Kubrick pulled his characters out of his butt? No, these were the prevailing beliefs about Russians during the Cold War. Reagan called the Soviet Union (populated by Russians) the Evil Empire and suggested that the ideological war between the Soviet Union and the USA was a war between “good and evil.” Here is Reagan’s speech from the 80s (40 years ago!) – listen for yourself:

Another good article. It demonstrates Hollywood’s influence on US opinions and shows how Hollywood cast Russians as

“…straight-up evil, stupid, (or) one of several other things: intense, fanatical, tragic, mysterious or otherwise hiding ulterior motives. It’s never a good look.”

To further illustrate the point, check out this scene from the popular 1980s movie Red Dawn – just filled with “a love of Russia,” huh?

I’m not sure how you’ve come to your opinion that Russians were or are beloved by Americans. We can debate about why Americans fear Russians (caused by years of brainwashing), but facts are facts. We have fought major proxy wars against Russia – Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan (the birth of Al Qaeda) and now Syria. Millions of lives have been snuffed out in these wars.

Our military planned a sneak attack against Russia after WWII. Don’t believe me? Check it out:

“The 1949 Dropshot plan envisaged that the US would attack Soviet Russia and drop at least 300 nuclear bombs and 20,000 tons of conventional bombs on 200 targets in 100 urban areas, including Moscow and Leningrad (St. Petersburg). In addition, the planners offered to kick off a major land campaign against the USSR to win a “complete victory” over the Soviet Union together with the European allies. According to the plan, Washington would start the war on January 1, 1957.”

You think our military would plan such a thing because of America’s love for Russian history, novels, music?

How about the Red Scare under McCarthy? Persons were blacklisted if they were communist and believed to be secretly Russian spies. Rosenbergs anyone?

The examples are endless:

Of how about this wonderful film.

It’s true that the “Red Menace,” “Atheist Communist Russia,” and “Totalitarian Russia” were tied to its communist government. But this has just morphed into Putin, a “dictator” who is now branded as the head of an “authoritarian government.”

Today’s headline in the USA edition of the Guardian:

“Russian forces have ‘kidnapped’ 2,389 children from the Russian-controlled territories of Luhansk and Donetsk, the US embassy in Kyiv has said, citing figures by Ukraine’s foreign ministry. The embassy said: ‘This is not assistance. It is kidnapping.'”

Russophobia goes much further back historically in the United States than this current action in Ukraine. It must be remembered that Americans like me were taught to hate Russians during the Cold War. They were evil, sinister people who had no freedom and whose government spied on them, and if they did not agree with their government, they were shipped to gulags where they were tortured.

The one characterization I remember vividly from my childhood was that Russian children were encouraged to turn in their parents to the secret police if they uttered anti-government statements in the privacy of their own homes. Recall that Ronald Reagan, that great rightwing icon, called the Soviet Union an “evil empire.”

Furthermore, as a student of geopolitics all my life, I can attest to you that we were never told that Russia contributed anything to WW2 (The Great Patriotic War). The Germans and the Japanese were defeated by the USA and their little buddies in the UK. Think of all the movies on WW2 made by Hollywood. Can anyone cite a single one that celebrated Russia’s contribution? I can’t. This was what I was raised on.

Creating a new wave of Russian hatred I’m sure was an easy task for the psyop crew in DC. After all, folks from the Cold War era simply recycled their hatred of the USSR and spread it to those younger folks who might not have heard of Reagan’s evil empire but who needed to know that the evil empire was once more raising its ugly head.

I already lost one good friend over the Russian operation. To him, I was a Putin dupe. I’m sure there are many others like me who have lost friendships over their dislike of NATO policy that, IMO, forced Russia into a corner.

But life goes on.

P.S. My love of Russian arts (literature and music) was only developed once I entered the university. But my childhood was about hating communism as practiced by the “Godless Russians.” Non-stop psyops…no different than today…

An interesting tidbit about Red Dawn was that it was co-written by Alexander Haig, a retired US General who had been the Chief of Staff to Richard Nixon and served as Secretary of State under Reagan. Haig was on the board of MGM and took a personal interest in the movie. He rewrote large parts of the script to make it more hawkish.

When you watch it you notice that the Russian are all one-dimensional cardboard cut-out cartoonish villains. The only character on the invaders’ side who is played a bit sympathetic is the Cuban officer who is seen writing a letter to his wife and lets the last surviving but fatally wounded Wolverines go. Red Dawn was a great propaganda piece to go along with Reagan’s hawkish politics of the time (it was released just a year after the Evil Empire speech).

The story was ludicrous of course (the USSR + allies conquering and occupying such a huge landmass as the US would be as disastrous as NATO trying to conquer and occupy Russia). But it served its function well, as lots of young and impressionable Americans were convinced of the “Red Menace”.

Russophobia go indeed much earlier in the time than Cold War.

The British, along with the Americans, were the inventors of Russophobia as after World War 2, the two countries were the major powers in the world. This was nothing new for the pommies, as they also invented the “Spanish Black Legend“ almost 400 years ago when Spanish Empire was in its peak of power and influence as the most powerful force in the world.

The Spanish later fell to the most complete irrelevance, and nowadays nobody cares about them. Since the Russians have maintained the power of the Russian Empire and they still ignore the US (Anglo-Saxon) dominion, the Russophobia never disappeared.

At the end of the movie La Vita è Bella (Life’s Beautiful) by the Italian Oscar-winner Roberto Benigni, in a scene that takes place in Auschwitz, it is the Americans who enter the camp as liberators.

In reality, it was the Russians that did that.

Probably a big chunk of the Italian population despises that movie. A (truly) great Italian movie director, Bernardo Bertolucci, just made this comment:

“It was the Russians liberating Auschwitz in reality, but in that movie, it was the the Americans who did it and won the Oscar.”

This taught me a simple rule: Victors are, on average, the biggest liars.

NATO was conceived by England from the outset as a means of Anglo-American control over Europe.

Lord Hastings (Lionel Ismay), NATO’s first Secretary General, famously said that NATO was created to “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down,” but the formula has acquired today a greater import and a new twist: to keep Germany down and price uncompetitive versus U.S. goods; to keep Russia ‘out’ from being Europe’s source of cheap energy; and as an addition, to keep China ‘fenced out’ from EU–U.S. trade. This is NATO’s mission in a nutshell!

The aim is to contain Europe firmly within America’s narrowly defined economic orbit and compelled to forgo the benefits of Chinese and Russian.

Want to see an enigma wrapped in a conundrum and packaged in a mystery? Get to know a woman really well to where you can take a deep dive into the dangerous jungle cruise called her sexuality or her sexual nature. It’s a complete mess, often senseless, unintelligible, irrational, or counterintuitive. The woman often barely understands it herself.

Women are confounding on a good day, but female sexuality is even weirder and less intelligible than women themselves.

It must be like the Kabbalist Jews’ definition of God as:

That which cannot be known; in fact, that which is so incomprehensible that one cannot even entertain the thought of it in one’s mind.

See how the woman quoted below can’t even answer whether she likes women or men better?

Ask a woman about her sexuality, and you get a lot of these “I don’t know” answers.

Back in the 70’s and 80’s, when women were a lot less orgasmic as they today (studies back then concluded that 25-30% of women had never had an orgasm), I often used to ask girls or women after sex if they had an orgasm. They seemed to be enjoying it. At the very least they wanted to do it all the time. If they didn’t like it, why were they bugging me to do it three times a day as a 28 year old girlfriend who said this did.

The response to whether they hand orgasmed was often this distant thoughtful look followed by:

I don’t know.

I remember the first time I had PIV sex, we rolled around in a bedroom in her parents’ house for hours on end. I kept asking her if she’d orgasmed yet, and she kept saying, “Pretty soon…pretty soon.” A few years later, I had sex with a 27 year old woman who kept saying, “I want to cum so bad…” during the sex. Hey, I was trying my best, baby. If I tried any harder my tongue might fall off!

Recently I had a couple of girlfriends both around 50 years old, one 48 and the other 51. They both frequently talked about being horny or even horny as Hell but when I asked them what being horny felt like, they both answered:

I don’t know.

One woman finally said:

I think you are just aware of it. You become aware of your pussy. That’s how you know you’re horny.

I recently had a 39 year old woman over at my place who told me that she had completely lost her sex drive. I asked her why, and she said:

I don’t know.

I’ve met two women who had completely lost their sex drive, a 37 year old woman at 21, the other a 33 year old who had lost it at 29. Neither could tell me why. One said that ever since then, ever since she masturbated, it caused a lot of pain and she just quit. She had no explanation for this either. I asked my woman best friend about it and she said it sounded like something physical and she should go to the doctor. But if you study women’s forums where they talk about this stuff, they describe these problems, go to the doctor, and the doctor reports no findings. Physically, they’re fine.

Onebelowall: A bisexual girl that I met through a mutual friend in college back in the 90’s, who was pretty open about things, told me that she didn’t orgasm with guys. As she put it, “I’ll have fun but I don’t cum.” She then told me that when she’s with a girl, she’ll “cum like a fucking machine gun”.

She couldn’t tell me if she like women better or not.

A lot of women can make fine distinctions about sexual orientation like that.