Putin Is Not Rightwing on Economics

Putin has said:

I’ve always liked the ideas of Marxism, of socialism and communism.

I suppose he’s talking in terms of economics and Marxism in a social justice sense. I’m not sure Putin cares a lot about economics, capitalism, or socialism, or communism or any of that jazz. He’s more into nationalism. His concern is with the nation itself, not whatever economic system it has going on.

The present Russian economic system is referred to as Statism. Wikipedia gives the Chinese system the same moniker. Apparently this is an economy in which the state plays a huge role. Many of the largest corporations in Russia are run by the state. And many of the large private corporations have a huge state stake in the firm. The state typically owns 49% of all of a lot of those firms, so if you run a corporation like that, you sort of have to do what the government wants you to do.

Of course the economy of Nazi Germany was something like this too, except it was a lot more rightwing than anyone thinks. Hitler, like Putin, could care less about economics. Nazi economics was not completely bad. But we do not hate Nazis because of their economics. We dislike them for other aspects of their rule which pretty much wiped out any good things they did, and they did do a few good things, of course. It’s an ill wind that blows no good.

Recently a factory was on strike for a long time. Putin went out to the firm and sat down with the workers and the management and heard them both out. Putin then ordered the firm to rehire all of the workers and give them an X amount wage hike.

No economic Rightist would ever do such a thing. They’re all 100% for the bosses, the owners, and the rich, and dead set against the workers.

Fluid IQ and Crystallized IQ

Of course our brains slow down as we age. My brain is much slower than the average 23 year old’s. But I’ll bet dollars to donuts that I’m still far smarter than that young whippersnapper.

You can see it in some respects like memory (mine is going fast), but now, at age 65, I can finally read Nietzsche, Sartre (barely), and Hegel, whereas before, I couldn’t make sense of them. So in some ways, I’m smarter than ever.

Brain speed is maximum at age 23, coincidentally when we have the most brain cells. This is fluid IQ, a measure of raw brain speed. But there’s not much in a 23 year old’s brain. So you have this fast brain zinging around looking for “knowledge blocks” and not hitting anything.

On the other hand, our older brains are much slower than the 23 year old’s, but as soon as the zinging starts, it hits one “knowledge block” after another after another, and furthermore, a lot of the knowledge it is hitting is linked or links up to other knowledge. This is crystallized IQ and it can keep rising in the 40’s, 50’s, 60’s, 70’s, and even 80’s! And the fact that our tremendous knowledge has linked up a lot with other bits of knowledge allows us to form and see patterns.

Otherwise known as “wisdom.”

Was Theodore Kaczinski Schizophrenic?

Somehow or other this man wrangled a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia out of some silly psychiatrists. There’s no way on Earth that is true. True to the modern Zeitgeist, of course now we have a clamoring chorus chiming in claiming he was autistic.

This man was not autistic.

And there’s no way on Earth that he had any type of schizophrenia, much less paranoid schizophrenia. After five years the condition deteriorates into chronic paranoid schizophrenia, and everything they write sort of “doesn’t make sense in some odd way.” Their writing at this stage all has a classic look and feel about it, and you can diagnose from a writing sample.

Kaczinski’s writing is coherent if some of his theories are a bit odd. But odd theory does not a paranoid schizophrenic make. All sorts of people have all sorts of weird ideas and unless those ideas are demonstrably false, they’re not delusions. They’re just a case of one more kooky human with their nutball notions.

There is no delusional thought process going on there. Thinking that technology is the end of man and hunter-gatherer days were better is said to be a delusion. Sure, it’s an odd notion, but it’s not a delusion. It’s simply a matter of opinion.

I believe the correct diagnosis other than Autogynephilia (Yes, the Unabomber was a tranny) is Schizoid Personality Disorder. He didn’t have much to do with other people at all, and he was just fine that way. It’s also commonly misdiagnosed as schizophrenia, and it is best seen as a mild form of that illness.

Most are not violent but a few are. A few serial killers had this diagnosis, including Leonard Lake, one of the psychos in California 40 years ago who, with his Asian army buddy Charles Ng, set up a cabin in the mountains and lured unsuspecting folks out there to imprison, torture, and murder them.

Djuna Barnes, A Typical Crazy Writer

In a previous piece, I noted how many writers were nutty or homosexual/bisexual. And the percentage of poets who leave us via suicide would shiver your bones. It’s almost as if they are marked with doom the moment the bright light hits them when they are born.

Djuna Barnes was one of the greatest writers of the 20th Century. Certainly more bisexual than lesbian, she nevertheless spent most of her life in a passionate love affair with another woman. She was part of the Hemingway – Joyce – Woolf – Stein, etc. crowd in Left Bank cafes in the 20’s. An American, She lived her whole life in the shadow of the Eifel Tower.

She wrote a couple of great books, including Nightwood, one of the best novels of the 20th Century, and then she went away. She faded away into a reclusive alcoholic in her in Paris apartment. She could often be heard by neighbors drunkenly ranting and screaming to no one in particular. She died relatively young, like so many of them. Typical sad, crazy writer story.

“I Don’t Like That Writer Because He Was a Bad Person or Had a Terrible Philosophy”

You’re talking to a guy who has read all of Burroughs’ novels, so I don’t have an issue with objectionable content.

I also tend to think that fiction is devoid of morality. Fiction’s there to tell a story.

Maybe some writers have weird attitudes. Burroughs was a an obsessed homosexual who loved teenage boys and hated women. He shot his wife in the head and killed her while they were playing a game of drunken William Tell with a drink glass on her head. His books are full of explicit homosexual sex. I don’t agree with any of that, but I read them anyway. I sort of skipped over the gay sex parts, but even that was well-written.

I’m a writer so I read for style. I don’t think novelists should have any particular message. I’m trying hard to think of a novelist or poet whose message was truly toxic and I can’t think of one. Sade? Ok, there’s one. A lot of times I don’t agree with the writer’s point of view, but to me that doesn’t matter. I can read a negative book without feeling negative. I can read a depressing book without getting depressed.

McCarthy is supposed to be unspeakably bleak. McCullers was a dyke who probabably hated men. Pound was a narcissistic ass who later became a raving Nazi antisemite. Palahniuk is a degenerate homosexual who litters his books with gross gay sex.

Lots of writers are nutty, bipolar, depressive, or homosexual, often nutty and gay in the case of poets. Poets in particular are any of these things, and it’s incredible how many suicide out.

Roth, Rechy, Mailer, and Koszinski are or were narcissists. Vonnegut was a misanthropic monster who was cruel to everyone who knew him. Wallace and Miller tried to murder their girlfriends or wives. Miller, Mailer, and Bukowski were misogynistic pricks who treated women like dirt. Burroughs was a drug addict. Kerouac drank himself into the grave. Genet was a homosexual, a pimp, and a petty thief. Most of them were quite good writers, but I’m not into Bukowski too much.

A lot of people say that Hemingway was a bad person and this is why they don’t read his books. Hemingway was a lousy person? Lots of writers were terrible people.

Shakespeare was a monster. But that’s not why we read Hamlet!

A Few Great Modern Authors

Give me the first names of the writers I have listed below and at least one of their books. At least as many as you can come up with, that is. See how well you do. I sort of gave you some clues.

Some great writers of the modern era. A few are still alive; most are not. A few old-timers are thrown in there from the 1500’s, 1700’s, and some more from the 1800’s. I count six who are still living.

Barnes, Boll, Bukowski, Burroughs, Camus, Cervantes, Chekhov, Conrad, Dostoevsky, Eliot, Faulkner, Fitzgerald, Franzen, Genet, Goethe, Hawthorne, Hemingway, Jackson, James, Joyce, Junger, Kerouac, Koszinski, Mailer, McCarthy, McCullers, Melville, Miller, Nichols, O’Connor, Oates, Palahniuk, Pound, Proulx, Pynchon, Rechy, Roth, Rousseau, Rhys, Schopenhauer, Stein, Sterne, Stevens, Tolstoy, Twain, Wallace, Warren, Waugh, Woolf

Some hints:

When they wrote:

1500’s: Cervantes

1700’s: Goethe, Rousseau, Sterne

1800’s: Chekhov, Conrad, Dostoevsky, Hawthorne, James, Melville, Schopenhauer, Tolstoy, Twain

1900’s: Barnes, Boll, Bukowski, Burroughs, Camus, Conrad, Eliot, Faulkner, Fitzgerald, Franzen, Genet, Hemingway, Jackson, James, Joyce, Junger, Kerouac, Koszinski, Mailer, McCarthy, McCullers, Nichols, O’Connor, Oates, Palahniuk, Pound, Proulx, Pynchon, Rechy, Roth, Rhys, Stein, Stevens, Wallace, Warren, Waugh, Woolf

2000’s: Franzen, McCarthy, Nichols, Oates, Palahniuk, Proulx, Pynchon, Rechy, Wallace

Still around: Franzen, Nichols, Oates, Palahniuk, Proulx, Pynchon, Rechy

Where they came from (typically where they were born)

Dominica (Caribbean): Rhys

Denmark: Schopenhauer

France: Camus, Genet, Rousseau

Germany: Boll, Goethe, Junger

Ireland: Joyce

Poland: Conrad, Koszinski

Russia: Chekhov, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy

Spain: Cervantes

UK: Eliot, Sterne, Waugh, Woolf

Did Ezra Pound Mentor TS Eliot?

Well, Pound did edit The Wasteland, and the book is dedicated to him. But I think this was more a case of mutual admiration and influence as opposed to mentoring or intervention.

But really you are are talking two giants here, Ezra Pound and TS Eliot, arguing in the captain’s tower while calypso singers laugh at them and fishermen hold flowers.

Pound had a massive ego and was a huge narcissist and a bit of a prick. But a giant of a figure.

Eliot was calmer but he was also a small planet with his own orbit.

Both of these guys were so far advanced into their own poetic worlds that I have a hard time believing that one was mentoring the other.

Also, Pound was off doing Imagism in Paris, Trieste, and Venice and hanging out with Joyce. Eliot was outside of the literary scene in the London fog.

They were both modernists, sure, but Eliot was not an Imagist. They were both rather obscure, but Eliot at least gave you footnotes and was less pretentious. He was also so much more accessible. Pound is way off somewhere else with The Cantos. Eliot never tried anything remotely like that.

Pound was translating works from Chinese with Ernesto Fennelosa and working with Old Occitan troubadour lyrics. Eliot was somewhere else entirely with a lot of background in old stage plays.

That they were both antisemites at some point or other I suppose is one of their major colliding points. Other than that, they were two orbits circling different objects, never to meet.

Putin Never Poisoned Anyone with Polonium or Novichok

Just thought I would point out that Putin never poisoned anyone with polonium. Supposedly he hit Litvinenko with radiation, but that may not be the case.

The former head of French intelligence said the MI6 poisoned him with polonium to frame Russia. The Brits didn’t like him either. Double agents have no friends!

The Novichok Fakes

Nobody ever got poisoned with Novichok. Nobody’s ever been poisoned with it in a chemical warfare attack, and a chemical warfare dose kills anyone in contact with it or in the near proximity.

The Skirpals

Those Skirpals would have been dead several times over if that Novichok was really in that restaurant, on that park bench, on the door handle of their apartment, or on the inside door handles of their rental car. Remember how the story kept changing every time you turned around? That’s how you know you are dealing with a false flag or a fake story – it’s always changing. Real stories don’t change all the time like that.

The MI6 dosed the Skirpals (both double agents again) with BZ, a hallucinogen. Their initial symptoms resembled BZ poisoning. Their blood samples were shipped off for analysis, but the MI6 screwed up and sent it to a non-corrupt lab in Switzerland. They found no Novichok but they did report the presence of BZ in the blood.

Because they got the wrong answer (see how the story is changing?), the MI6 decided to ship off a new sample of blood. This time Porton Down put some Novichok in it (Yes, they have the stuff). It came back positive. However, the Novichok was completely “pure,” lab-grade stuff, and the blood sample was three weeks old. The Novichok would have deteriorated in that time, and a chemical warfare dose of Novichok would have other things in it like all chemical war agents do.

The Russian who invented Novichok said the Skirpals never got dosed. He said they’d be dead if they were.

The British then vanished the Skirpals to an undisclosed location. The Skirpals had been yelling that they wanted to go back to Russia, but the British refused to let them go. They were alive when last seen. They’ve since vanished off the face of the Earth. No one knows where they are or if they are alive or dead.


Navalny. No one quite knows what happened here. Remember how this story changed every time you turned around? First the Novichok was in his tea, then in his soft drink in the hotel room, then in his damned underwear! The Russian doctors who saw him found no toxins in his blood. He raised a big fuss and demanded to be treated out of country for no good reason.

The Germans sent a plane and shipped him to Germany. In Germany, the doctors found no toxins and agreed with the diagnosis of the Russian doctors. The German government then issued a gag order on those doctors for coming up with the wrong answer!

He was then sent to another hospital, one of that is pretty much run by German intelligence. The doctors there claimed they found Novichok in his blood.

The Russians demanded the Germans send them the blood sample so they could look at it themselves. The Germans refused!

Video was released of Navalny in the hospital, and the inventor of the drug said he could not be under the influence of Novichok. Even that long after the supposed dosing, he would still have pinpoint pupils even if he had only been given 1/300th of a lethal dose.

This was followed by a leaked phone call hacked by Belarus where a member of the German government is heard telling his Estonian colleague that the whole thing was a fake and there never was any Novichok in his blood. You can even go listen to that tape if you want to.

Henry Ford and Jewish Ethnic Warfare in the US

Polar Bear: Henry Ford was the ideal.

Ford was a mixed bag. My ex Jewish girlfriend and I had a fight about him. I told her I liked Henry Ford and she didn’t like that one bit! She had grown up in Detroit and she knew all about him. I suppose Detroit Jews are not real fond of the man.

I read Saint Henry Ford’s book that everyone hates him for. It’s actually not that bad and it’s clear that he’s absolutely exasperated with the American Jews.

However, he’s also either credulous or deranged. He devotes an entire chapter to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a fake book commissioned by the Czar in Russia. He acts like this is a recounting of true events!

The US Jews were unassimilated then, and they acted very bad. They waged ethnic warfare against the Gentiles and made runs on whole industries to try to take them over.

They almost took Wall Street but someone blew the whistle on them and the Gentiles got “antisemitic” and stopped them cold. They also tried to take over both commercial and finance banking during this period. They penetrated pretty far into finance banking but they got the whistle blown on them again when they made a run on commercial banking and the Gentiles got “antisemitic” and stopped them in their tracks.

As you can see, one of the worst things about Jewish ethnic warfare is that the only, and I mean only way to stop it is for Gentile groups to wage ethnic warfare against the Jews, in other words, for them to become antisemitic. Any group that refuses to become antisemitic when the Jews are making runs on industries is just going to get bulldozed under. It’s unilateral disarmament against a foe who’s armed to the teeth.

Jews forcing Gentiles to act racist to survive strikes me as one of the worst things about Jewish tribal conspiracies in business. That’s terrible! Not to mention that they’re bringing the antisemitism down on themselves.

Jews in the US nowadays are quite assimilated. Even the unassimilated ones are not nearly as bad as Jews were a century ago. I can’t remember the last time Jews waged ethnic warfare in business.

I call Ford a saint but he definitely failed in at least one way. Ford went over to Germany to meet with Hitler at some point. He sat down and had a friendly conversation with the Fuhrer. Hitler hadn’t started killing a lot of people yet, but Ford should have seen the writing on the wall. I’ll never forgive him for that.

The Jews acted pretty bad with regard to Ford too. In the 1930’s, the US Jews tried to have him killed. They ran his car off the road on a highway. He could have been killed. Even back then, the Jews were playing for keeps.

Ford absolutely opposed pogroms and said he did not wish one Jew to be harmed. Towards the end of the book an exasperated Ford implores,

Jews! Stop being Jews and start being humans. Come join us and help us build a great America!

He wanted them to knock off the ethnic warfare and play fair like the other groups did.

A bit earlier they had made runs on both Hollywood and the media. Both were actual Jewish conspiracies to take over those industries. They didn’t do it to get rich, wield power in some nasty way, or to be evil. Instead, like so many things Jews do, they did it because they were paranoid and they wanted to protect themselves.

In the late 1800’s, the US media was very racist. I did some research on the California media around that time, and it’s incredible how wicked, racist, and even genocidal they were. The papers hated East Indians, Blacks, Amerindians, and even women. They didn’t think any of them deserved the right to vote, for one thing. Giving Blacks the right to vote was met with outrage. They ranted,

Next we will be giving the right to vote to Indians, Hindoos, and even women!

The Jews saw this racism and they were alarmed because the Jews knew full well that every time White Gentiles got racist, sooner or later they went after the Jews. So they took over the press. One of their biggest coups was the Ochs-Sulzberger family taking over the New York Times.

In the 1910’s, early film was very racist. Birth of a Nation was very popular. The Jews were alarmed about this and resolved to take over Hollywood. Four Jews who came from within 50 miles of each other in Galicia grabbed most of the industry, once again, simply for self-protection. A lot of things that groups do that seem “evil” can be explained by other, less malign motives.

Arabs Are Not Nazis

It’s impossible for me to support any anti-Jewish pogroms. In fact, Henry Ford fiercely opposed pogroms and thought they were horrible. Even in his infamous book, he states that he does not want to see one Jew harmed. There are definitely antisemites of this variety, and I have a modicum of respect for them.

The pogromists killed women, children, and old men. No group was spared. In at least some of the pogroms, Jews were killed in horrific ways. I know this was true of the Hebron Massacre in 1929 and the Khmielnicki Rebellion in Poland in the mid-1500’s.

The Hebron Massacre

Reading reports of what was done to those Jews in Hebron almost made me sick to my stomach. Further, many Jews were just regular folks who were not wealthy or driving the non-Jews into poverty. They got targeted just the same. In Hebron, the native Palestinian Jews got massacred the same as the Ashkenazi Jews.

I will grant the pogromists one thing. Before the pogrom started, Muslims went to the homes of the Palestinian Jews and told them that the beef was not with them and was instead with the Ashkenazi Jewish colonists. They ordered the native Jews to hand over the European Jews they were sheltering, but the Palestinian Jews refused, so they got targeted too.

And in Hebron, as in most other recent anti-Jewish pogroms in the Arab lands, there were always Muslims who risked their lives to save Jews. The Jews who survived in Hebron were hidden by their Muslim neighbors. In the Iraqi Farhud, many Muslims hid Jews. Same thing in the pogroms in Libya and Egypt in the late 1940’s. In all of these cases, Muslims who got caught sheltering Jews would probably be killed. I don’t know what the take-home point is here except that Muslims and Muslim antisemitism is not monolithic.

I would also note that it’s not true that the PLO was out to kill every Jew in Israel. I think they just wanted them to leave. Arafat admitted to his friends that most Jews would take off after the Arab victory and any remaining Jews would be slowly terrorized into leaving. Sheik Yassin had the same view.

However, it is important to note that in the original PLO charter, it states explicitly that the PLO has no beef with native Palestinian Jews. Any Jew who could trace their ancestry back to before the Balfour Declaration could stay as long as they were peaceful.

Not sure what the message is here except that Palestinians and Arabs in general are not Nazis. Do you notice how jealously Arab states kept their Jews in recent decades? I know that in a number of states they were not even allowed to leave for fear that they would head straight to Israel. And the few remaining Jews were treated like precious treasures, at least in Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Iraq, and Syria.

Once again, all this shows me is that Arabs aren’t Nazis. Sure, they kill Jewish civilians and some of the time, that’s deplorable, but they’re not out to exterminate the Jews.

A Bit on Pogroms in the USSR

I know that the first official pogrom at least referred to as such occurred in Odessa, Ukraine, in 1821. A Greek Orthodox religious figure was murdered by Jews and Muslims in Constantinople. Odessa was full of Greeks at that time. The Greeks staged a demonstration carrying his remains in a coffin through the Odessa streets. The Jews were on the parade route and they shouted insults at the Greeks as they passed by. The Greeks got very angry and there was a “pogrom.”

Except I think only one Jew died! I’m not trying to play down Jewish massacres, but if you study these pogroms, you will find that some of the most famous ones were nothingburgers. A lot of the time only a few Jews or sometimes no Jews died. However, there were a lot of injuries. I think in this pogrom 1 Jew died and ~100 were injured. However, this “pogrom” basically boiled down to Greek and Jewish toughs fighting in the streets. Many Greeks were also injured.

Other pogroms occurred in Odessa ~1860. The Jews moved to Odessa in the second decade of the 19th Century. Before that there were very few Jews in the Russian Empire and there was no antisemitism. Where there are few Jews, there is often little antisemitism. As the number of Jews rises, antisemitism rises in tandem. Anyway, the Jews had managed to take over most of the industries in Odessa, especially the wheat trade. They also became middlemen. If you wanted to buy a house, a horse, or many other things, you had to deal with a Jew. The Jews worked as a tribe and formed monopolies, driving the non-Jews out of business. The non-Jews were not ethnocentric enough to do this.

At any rate, by 1860, the Jews had taken over most of the business sector in Odessa. The non-Jews were being progressively immiserated while the Jews wallowed in splendor. Furthermore, the Jews were very ostentatious about the wealth and they seemed to be waving it in the faces of the non-Jews, taunting them.

This was the background for many anti-Jewish pogroms in Europe. Economics!  No Jew will ever tell you that though. They will say it was due accusations of blood libel, being Christ-killers, or poisoning wells. Granted, some of the pogroms were based on BS like that, but most of them were probably based on economics.

Now you can argue that ethnic groups should just sit still and smile while an outside group comes in, takes over the town’s businesses, and forms monopolies. While this group gets richer while driving the other groups deeper into poverty. Unfortunately, humans just don’t work that way. There’s such a thing as “cruising for a bruising,” looking for a fight, trying to pick a fight, provoking people into attacking you, etc. Now I can’t support any of these terrible pogroms.

You hear endlessly about how terrible Russian pogroms of Jews were. The pogroms were very bad. I’ll grant that. But did you know that almost none of them took place on what is now Russian territory? After the establishment of the Pale, all pogroms occurred in this region. In fact one pogrom that occurred ~1908 was notable for being the first one outside the Pale.

Few pogroms occurred in what is now Russia or Belarus. They were mostly in Ukraine, with quite a few in Moldovia and Poland too. Even after that extra-Pale pogrom, there were few outside of that region. There was one in Belarus and I think several in Western Russia.

The majority of pogroms in the Russian Empire occurred in what is now Western Ukraine and Eastern Poland. There were also quite a few in the South around Kherson and Odessa perpetrated by Russians called Cossacks who lived down there.

The pogroms during the Russian Civil War were almost all perpetrated by the Right: the Ukrainian People’s Army (a precursor to the Nazi collaborator Banderists), the White Army, and the Green Army (an anti-Communist peasants party that took up arms in protest over collectivization of agriculture).

The Red Army committed few pogroms, possibly 5%. The Jews saw the Red Army as their protectors. When the Red Army came to town, the Jews of the town would all decamp and wait for them in the Central Square, where they welcomed the Reds with cheers and open arms.

Was the USSR Antisemitic?

According to Judeopedia, I mean Wikipedia, it was. I was editing Jewish articles for a while on Judeopedia. All of the Jewish articles got taken over by the meanest, worst Jews on Earth, all Super-Jews, real quick and they ran out everyone who disagreed with them as “Nazis” on flimsy or made-up charges. These unpleasant people had “Wikipedia Nazi” lists that they passed around on which they put anyone who gave these Chosen People so much as a dirty look. I believe I was on one of those Nazi lists at one time.

Those Wikipedia Jews were infuriating! They were as punchable as a human gets. They broke all the rules and then infiltrated a number of Jews into administrator positions. These administrators then let the Jews break all the rules with no punishment, while their enemies were busted on the tiniest charges, often wholly made up.

The bottom line is that any and all articles on Jewish topics are wildly biased.

Also, Wikipedia should be called CIApedia because all of their articles about recent world history are “the world according to the CIA.” They say they’re on the Left, but that’s BS. They hate socialism and communism and anything with even a whiff of that. They love radical freemarket economics and all of the articles on that subjects are badly biased.

The founder, Jimmy Wales, was Libertarian Gentile who was a strong Zionist. He was seen hobnobbing with some of the wealthiest Zionist Jews on Earth. I guess he knows who signs the checks!

The only way those Wikipedians are “left” is on the society-wrecking program of the Cultural Left Freakshow with every sexual and gender minority elevated to sainthood and a strong anti straight cis White male bias. In other words, the Fake Left! Woketards + rightwing economics + the world according to the CIA. That’s the modern Western Left in a nutshell.

One of the Western Jews biggest criticisms against the USSR was that it would not let Jews emigrate from the country.

The USSR wouldn’t let the poor Jewish babies immigrate.

Oh boo hoo! Poor Jews! Wa wa!. Cry me a river, Jews!

Nobody got to emigrate in the USSR, nobody but nobody but nobody. That was the rule. Of course, Jews are special people so there are rules for them and rules for everyone else. Dual morality.

Also, they all wanted to go to Israel! The USSR was hostile to Israel. At first they were neutral but Israel very quickly went to the West, and a lot of liberal Jews started spying for the West against the USSR. That was part of the reason Stalin went anti-Jewish towards the end. He thought they were traitors.

Also, this was a useful Cold War club to beat the Soviets over the head with, and many liberal Western Jews got in on this bullshit.

The USSR finally started letting Jews emigrate, but they made it very hard for people with degrees to emigrate while making it easy for working class Jews to leave. What ended up happening is that Israel was full of Russian Jews who were former janitors, while all the mathematicians stayed in the country.

There was indeed an “antisemitic” period in the USSR under Brezhnev, at least according to the typical line. During this period, quotas were put on Jews at the universities.

Before the new policy, Jews were overrepresented by 6X at Soviet universities. After the USSR went “antisemitic,” they were “only” overrepresented by 3X.

We’re not overrepresented enough!

Boo hoo! Poor babies!

Reportedly the quotas went down to 2% of those admitted later on. I’m sorry that happened if it was true. That wasn’t right.

Wikipedia also discusses the “antisemitic math” problem in the late USSR.

Yes, there was a problem in the math departments in the USSR which went antisemitic at the end. However, this was very controversial in the USSR, and even today, rightwing, Soviet-hating, antisemitic Russian academics now say that this was wrong.

I recall a quote from a Jewish professor at a university during this “antisemitic” period. He said that in his department, there were 300 people and maybe three or four of them were not Jewish. He said no one ever asked  whether someone was Jewish, and the matter never even really came up. In the USSR you didn’t discuss such things. Everyone’s ethnicity was “working class” and everyone’s religion was the state.

Is Putin Going Too Slow in Prosecuting This War?

I really appreciate the Putin is going slow on the retaliations to the endless provocations of the West.

By leaving many of them off the table, he allows himself the ability to slowly ramp up the retaliations as more and more red lines got crossed. As the lines crossed get more severe, so do the retaliations.

Also, it makes Russia out to be the good guys. It’s hard to fight fair in war. The nature of war makes the desire on the part of the soldiers and officers for revenge palpable and hard to control.

Putin lays off attacking the GRU, reserving it for when multiple red lines have been crossed. He’s a good guy! He’s fighting a clean, sanitary, almost humanitarian war.

Putin refuses to hit decision making centers until the last red line is crossed. Nice! He’s a good guy.

Russia fights clean like a civilized country unlike the bestial Nazis and the morally neutered West that supports them. I think the world appreciates Russia for fighting fair while at the same time recoiling at the crimes of the Nazis and the depraved West. And this is very important.

People keep calling for Russia to go all out, fight fire with fire, and carpet bomb Ukraine or even Kiev. Do they realize how many civilians will die in such an escalation? Do they realize how the West would use these casualties? They’d have a field day with them.

The Global South already knows how Western imperialism (basically NATO and the US) and its attack dogs fight. Just look around. It’s pure terrorism. That’s how the West spreads its rule. Rightwing death squad dictatorships, genocidal fascist dictators, reactionary Islamist headchoppers, Nazis – these are the handmaidens of the “civilized” West. Russia gains so much goodwill by being the opposite of that.

The South can look at each one and decide if they want (Russian) civilization or (Western) barbarism.

You Need to Tell Lies and Act Immoral To Function in Society

Manipulation is the art of the few, to be manipulated the passion of the masses. It happens in stages.

For the protection of salary, morals are broken. Then there is cognitive dissonance which must also be overcome lest the person devolve into madness. Eventually, repetition changes belief so that what was wrong is now right.

People can’ t handle being alone because they’re social, herding mammals. The might of right is in numbers.

Why Russia Won’t Use Nuclear Weapons

Russia’s nuclear doctrine that nuclear weapons will only be used if the very existence of the state itself is threatened. That rules out all of these calls for baby nukes, tactical nukes, etc. As I understand it, this means there has to be a threat of the state itself actually falling. On that basis, Stalin could have used nuclear weapons if he had them when the Germans were at the gates of Moscow but not before. Russia also has a “no first use” policy on nuclear weapons.

The only countries that have used tactical nuclear weapons since WW2 are two of the most evil nations on Earth, the US and Israel.

Are the Purveyors of Western Lies Consciously Lying?

I say no.

Some say that the Western whores masquerading as journalists are all on the take, and that’s why they write the way they do. I have a degree in Journalism, and I’ve worked in the field, and I’ve been dealing with these stenographer whores my whole life.

You know there’s this vast set of social rules you have to follow if you want to succeed in life? A lot of them are idiotic, ridiculous, and even non-adaptive, adding a bunch of stupid extra steps to things that could be done much more efficiently. Most of us go ahead and digest those rules and obey them and don’t even think about it because the punishment for being a social retard is so severe.

Same thing with these journalist whores. I know all sorts of people different fields who have these same views. I never felt that even one of them knew that what they believed was a lie but they were just lying consciously anyway. I’m not even sure how many people consciously lie about politics.

Just as people figure out that the social rules are necessary, the political rules for supporting US foreign policy are necessary in the same sense. You don’t obey the social rules, and you will be “fired” socially. You don’t obey the political line and you will be canned for real, and now you can’t pay rent!

You work at a big paper with the ideology that I have, and you won’t last two days. You cannot turn in a truthful foreign policy article. Your editor will read it, scowl, and throw it back at you angrily. You turn in articles like that a 1-3 more times and you’re fired, mostly for not catching on. All the other journalists will know that you got fired for not following the narrative and take note.

I’m convinced that when it comes to politics and US foreign policy, people believe all sorts of BS that is objectively false, that is, they believe lies. But they do not think they are lies! They have convinced themselves that the lies they are saying are actually true! This holds for all forms of politics.

So any journalist working today fully believes in the lying narrative. They don’t know it’s BS and say it anyway. They aren’t that evil.

To be that evil you have to be a psychopath who works in Washington DC for the executive or legislative branch. Now, those people often know full well that a lot of the crap they say is full blown lies, but they don’t care. They are indeed lying consciously but this doesn’t bother them.

In geopolitics, non-sociopaths need not apply. Psychopathy is part of the job requirement.

There are no good guys in geopolitics There are bad guys and worse guys and that’s it.

There Are No Lousy Governments or Cultures. There Are Only Lousy People Who Created Them

There are no lousy governments. There are only lousy people*. Obviously lousy governments were put into power by lousy people*. I’d also add that there are no lousy cultures. There are lousy people and they create lousy cultures.

*I’d say this is true most of the time. For a long time in Latin America, unpopular rightwing dictatorships ran the country. The Duvalierists in Haiti were similar. He was hated by the people but he remained in power due to his terrorist Tonton Macoutes. El Salvador was similar. The Right stayed in power by stealing elections. Paraguay and Haiti are dictatorships right now. There are no elections in Paraguay and in Haiti, Aristide’s party, Lavalas, is banned from running.

Everywhere else in Latin America has more or less free elections, so the people are indeed to blame when a government is no good. A lot of the Arab dictatorships are unpopular. In a popular vote, they’d be voted out of power. Many dictatorships or authoritarian states are popular such as China, Vietnam, Cuba, Iran, Turkmenistan, Syria, and Belarus.

I should have said that in every country where there are free and fair elections, the people are to blame for any lousy government.

Does Putin Have All of the Opposition Thrown out of Windows?

There’s no real proof of this.

Some double agents died this way. Another double agent was attacked by the GRU when he was in a meeting. Agents rushed in, grabbed him, and dragged him away. I take it Putin, former KGB, isn’t real fond of double agents. I believe that Putin had a former president of Ukraine poisoned, but he recovered. I don’t know what to make of reports that other oppositionists were poisoned.

Some opposition reporters have been beaten up. No one knows who sent those people. They reported that 200 soldiers died in 2014 when Russia said there were no Russian troops in Ukraine. Russia said there were no troops there. However, I was in a group of Russian patriots at the time and they all said Putin was lying.

Look, the thing is that Russia actually has a civil society, and investigative and muckracking journalists. These do not exist anywhere in the West anymore, at least when it comes to NATO/Western foreign policy. Try going against the foreign policy consensus in Washington and see where it gets you. Reporters from Germany (Alina Lipp), the UK (Graham Lancaster) and the Netherlands have all been attacked by their own country for writing pro-Russian articles. Lancaster had his bank account locked (his money got stolen) and there is a warrant out for his arrest, so he hasn’t gone home. Lipp also had the money in her bank account stolen and charges have been fired against her too. She hasn’t come home either. The Dutch woman has had a character assassination campaign unleashed against her. As you can see, it is literally illegal in the NATO West to oppose NATO foreign policy and to support Russia. You will literally go to jail for doing so!

On the other hand, on the Russian patriotic Telegram sites, their attitude is that they will uncover any lies the Russian government makes. They’re not interested in being lied to and they only want to hear the truth from the state. Hence, the Russian government can’t lie too much. All the lies get uncovered. This is different from in the West, where few if any journalists ever challenge the US government on its lies. Instead they just repeat them for the state.

An oppositionist was thrown out of a window by a fanatical Putin supporter, but he survived.There have been many journalists murdered under Putin, but it was worse under Yeltsin. I went through the list and out of ~100 murders, possibly one could be tied to Putin, if that. They were victims of common and organized crime and local officials and their hired thugs.

The idea that Putin murders his opposition isn’t really true.

You realize that there are 15-20 million Russians who are dead set against this war, right? Why are they not all flying out of windows? Why are they not all in prison?

I saw a BBC reporter in downtown Moscow a while ago interviewing Russians. All of them were against the war, and a few openly supported Ukraine and hoped it would win. None of them hid their faces. Nothing happened to any of those people. There are too many people like that. You going to put 17 million people in prison?

Fascism: What Is It, Anyway?

More on this subject that I have been exploring for a long time here.

Fields of study are funny things. When you only know a little bit about something, you think you’ve got all the answers, and you are very black and white about things. But my life has shown me that the longer you study any particular thing, the less well you understand it, and the more questions that don’t seem to have answers keep throwing themselves up in your face. You start to develop an “everything is a grey area” view.

Sure, you know a lot about the subject, but you are less black and white than before because so many things, even in fairly basic science, are riven with endless contradiction and confusion. So you do some studies. Then the studies start to contradict themselves. Then you have to figure out why they are doing that, and sometimes you can untangle it. After a while, you start to unwind the lawn of ivy and make sense of some things, but it’s a long, involved process often involving years of deep study.

So it is with fascism. Everyone who knows a bit about it thinks they know what it was but the ultimate experts on the subject in political science and still a bit baffled and keep trying to put the lego blocks together. I do recall my mother and I having a long, “What is fascism?” conversation. Eventually she threw up her hands and said,

It’s just nationalism!

That’s probably one of the best answers I’ve heard. Certainly without nationalism or ethnic nationalism, there can be no fascism. It’s an extreme form of nationalism or ultranationalism if you will. But that’s really just the soil from which the tree grows and gains its sustenance.

Now let us explore a bit:

Trotsky felt that fascism was “a last ditch effort to save capitalism when faced with a threat from the Left.” Trotsky’s work on the subject, now 90 years old, remains some of the finest yet. More recent analyses have described fascism as “a popular dictatorship against the Left.” It has a strong populist flavor to it, and is typically ultranationalist and even expansionist.

It often tries to reunite all of the favored ethnic group within the nation and to suck up those members in neighboring lands, hence the expansionism and the “Greater” this and that. Greater Germany, Greater Albania, Greater Albania, Greater Turkey, Greater Syria, Greater Israel, etc.

It despises democracy, which it equates with chaos, and it hates liberalism and the “degenerate” art and culture it is said to produce.

It is “palengetic” like the Phoenix that rises from the dead in flames. In this way it seeks to escape degenerate modernism and go back to an older order. There is a lot of talk about the history of the land and restoring a glorious state or empire of the past.

It has extreme hatred for communism, socialism, and organized labor, which it regards as the same thing.

Fascists are social conservatives. They are sexist and want women in traditional roles. They typically hate homosexuals. They despise all weakness and there are constant references to strength, honor, duty, etc., all of which the individual pledges to the state.

There is often a sanctification of violence and a belief in its cleansing power. It is often warlike and belligerent. It is always militarist.

It hates and scapegoats minorities but typically will accept them if they drop their culture, language, and ethnic identification and assimilate to those of the nation.

The nation consists of one language, culture, religion, and ethnicity. It is often but not always racist. Mussolini was not particularly racist, nor was Peron or Duvalier, Franco, Salazar, Mobutu, Trujillo, Pinochet, Somoza, Syngman  Ryee, Chiang Kai Shek, the Greek colonels, or Bolsonaro. Nor is Orban or the present Polish state.

I would describe Nazism or National Socialism as racist fascism. There’s much more emphasis on the genetic and biological aspects of ethnicity and race. It engages in ethnic cleansing and is often remarkably violent, with the violence often having a gruesome, sadistic, gleeful, or terroristic character.

I believe National Socialism can unfold in any society. Conceivably there could be a Jewish National Socialism, hence National Socialism or “Nazism” need not be antisemitic.

What Do “Panic Button” and “Polishing the Pearl” Mean In Slang?

Lesson in female sexuality here.

Polishing the pearl? Come on folks. How can that be anything other than female masturbation? Ever seen how they do it? Exactly like it says.

Panic button? The clitoris of course. However, even if you penetrate a woman’s vagina or even put your hand down a woman’s pants, they often react in a stunned, shocked, manner. I had a Black woman in my car not long ago.When I was 17, I put my hand in an 18 year old girl’s vagina (we were in her bed without any clothes) and a shockwave reverbertated through her body, and she said, “Oooh!”

Before I dropped her off, I felt her tits under her shirt and then reached down in her pants and felt her hairy pussy. She reacted like she’d been electrocuted and started squirming around like an eel.

That’s not an uncommon reaction. They react this way all the time, even in porn movies on occasion. I’m not sure exactly what’s going with these ladies in the Land Down Under, but it seems like there’s this “jolt of electricity” reaction when you first start touching them down there.

The Modern Left Are Dour, Sour-Faced Prigs and the Modern Right are the Freeloving Party-Throwers

Feral Finster: Today’s liberals are finger-wagging moralists so dour, priggish and humorless that they make The Church Lady look like G. G. Allin by comparison.

Meanwhile, the pranksters, the subversives, the tellers of Forbidden Truths are largely found on the Alt-Right, and to a lesser extent on the Dirtbag Left.

This is not because of any inherent subversiveness on the part of conservatives or any natural censoriousness on the part of liberals, but is a product of their present relationships with power.

Me: I’ve been saying this for a long time now, but it seemed no one was listening.

I especially like that last paragraph. It goes to show that there is nothing “inherent” about the present Zeitgeist; instead, as the Marxists have always said, this bizarre configuration is instead a result of “the social, economic, and political forces in this particular state at this particular time.”

Which means I guess we should stop looking for the inherent puritanism of the modern Church Lady Left, who after all, used to be the Let’s Do It in the Streets Liberals in the 60’s. Liberals are neither freedom-loving chaos disrupters nor the reincarnations of Dante ranting out of his window. They can be either one or anything in between depending on the particular social-political constellation at this moment in time and space.

Since when is the Right subversive? I suppose when the Left became ruler-waving nuns, the Right did the opposite because they always do the opposite of whatever the Left is doing and became the supporters of free living, parties, unrestricted fun, and sexual freedom at least for straight people.

Guess What? You Can’t Predict the Future

There are people whose response to many questions like this is simply,

Time will tell.

As I age, I’m starting to think they are right. Bottom line is you can’t predict the future! A friend of mine in high school, who had a genius IQ, and was an artist, a heavy pot smoker and LSD user, and on top of that, an extreme bisexual leaning towards gay, and shrugged and casually said,

You can’t predict the future.

when someone asked him one of those “Would you ever do (this transgressive thing)?” questions.

casually said that in high school, and it’s one of the smartest lines I’ve ever heard.

Even for ourselves. Most of us say we would never commit a horrible crime, but theoretically we could go psychotic or get a brain tumor and do something really bad. The best you can really say about things like that is,

I certainly HOPE I would never do such a thing. That would be against my morals.

Are Liberals Closet Fascists? I Say Yes

Here are some comments that followed my comment about liberals, progressive, and social democrats in the West going head over heel to support these depraved Nazi bastards

Squeeth: It goes to show that liberals are fascists in cardigans. C19th liberalism had three bastard children, Nazism, Stalinism and bourgeois liberalism.

Me: I’m starting to think you are right. It’s like there’s this thin veneer of liberalism that’s present much of the time, albeit while still supporting fascism, right wing dictatorships,  death squads, and murderous Islamists! Nevertheless, the thin veneer stays on most of the time and is all we see.

But when push comes to shove and the chips are really down, they rip off that liberal shirt like Clark Kent in a change room and turn fascist in a heartbeat. It seems like whenever there’s a choice between the Left and fascism, liberals always go fash in a New York minute!

The KPD in Germany used to call the Social Democrats “social fascists” and fought them in the streets. They called social democracy “the left wing of fascism.”

I always thought they were stupid and crazy, but now I wonder if they were onto something.

Squeeth: The SPD allied with the Freikorps to kill the Spartacists in 1919. The friends of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg didn’t forget them in the early 30’s.

Small l liberals supported slavery, the Confederacy, arrest and imprisonment without charge or trial, torture and all the rest of the apparatus of rule by the state. John Stuart Mill (of his own free will) didn’t advocate individual freedom. He criticized state repression because social pressure was more efficient.

Western Liberal, Progressive, and Social Democrat Support for These Nazis Is Hard to Figure

The Norwegians are stark raving nuts on this Russia-hating stuff. I had no idea. I always thought Norway was this cool progressive state. In fact, I thought that about all of the West. Now I know that the West is nothing but Nazi-lovers and fascist-lovers and has been since WW2. The Norwegians are one of the biggest Nazi-lovers out there. And the Nazi infatuation that the British have has to be seen to be believed!

We all know the Balts and Finns are Nazis, as are the Ukrainian Banderists and the Belarusian opposition (nationalists like Banderists, Nazi collaborators).

The Balts, Finns, and Ukrainian and Belarusian nationalists all collaborated with Nazis in WW2, and none of them are the least bit sorry for it. The Lithuanians were some of the worst Jew-killers of them all, maybe even worse than the Ukrainians. Like the Ukrainians, the Lithuanians are busy naming all their squares and streets after their Lithuanian Nazi heroes.

Bottom line is that Lithuanian, Belarusian, Estonian, and Latvian nationalism is all Nazism. All of the nationalist heroes of of these states were Nazis and Nazi collaborators. Finnish nationalism is very pro-Nazi too. The Finns had a Nazi-allied government in WW2, and they were sending goods to Germany. They refused to drop their alliance with Germany so Stain invaded. Later, Finland let the Nazis use its territory to invade Russia, and after the Soviets clawed the Germans back, there was yet another war in Finland.

I’m a Leftist. To me this is one of the great antifascist wars, like the Spanish Civil War. Which is why I’m so baffled at all these people on the so-called liberals and progressives are supporting these diabolical Nazis. We tried to get rid of fascism and Nazism in Europe 75 years ago, but it looks like we didn’t clean out the whole place, and Nazi nits became Nazi lice that have infected Europe again. Looks like Russia is going to have to fight the Nazi beast one more time.

I think we should call the Russian army the Russian Antifascist Army.

Almost All Young Men These Days are Feminist Pussies

Recently I approached an attractive 20 year old girl at a sports event and we subsequently went on a date. On that date, she told me that her brother called me ‘creepy’ when she told him that I approached her without first knowing her through a friend or social circle.

I’m well aware of this. This is the puritanism of the Gen Z idiots. It’s all coming right out of 3rd Wave feminism. All of these young women nowadays are woketards, and most of the men are too. They’re almost all extreme feminists, they’ve bought into the White-hating antiracist nonsense, and they’ve elevated sexual and gender minorities to the status of heroes, while denigrating normal people as pathological and in need of disappearance.

That’s pathetic! See? Everything’s creepy.

The fact that any of us men have obvious sex drives is creepy right there. I don’t think they mind that we have sex drives, but they just don’t want to see our sex drive out in public.

I’m not allowed to have an obvious sex drive in public at all anymore. I can’t look at women, certainly girls and young women but increasingly middle aged women too. I so much as look at a girl or a young woman, and people act like they’re going to call the cops. It’s like these silly cunts think men’s sex drive is supposed vanish as they get older. I’ve got some news for these dipshit twats. The male sex drive never goes away! My Mom at least figured this out. She said:

If a beautiful woman walks into a room, every male in that room from nine to 90 will stop whatever he is doing and look at her. But if there’s a gay man in the room, he’ll act like she never walked in. She’s like a ghost to him, not even there.

There you can see that my Mom’s generation, feminist though some of them were, were at least sane. They understood the natural, normal behavior of men, and they’d at least made their peace with it at some point. Fighting male sexuality is like trying to bail out the ocean. Try all you want but it will never work.

I’m not really allowed to talk to any women, God forbid girls, and almost all women shut me down rudely any time I try to have more than the most rudimentary conversation. A few women are ok. Some are around 35-40. Women my age are completely useless. They’re mostly ugly and those that are not act like they could not be less interested in men. You can’t talk to them either. They shut you down just like that.

Is this a Gen Z or a Millennial? I just call these men faggots. I know they’re not gay, and I often don’t use that word for actual gay men because I respect them a lot more than these traitorous pussies you are describing. Basically these men have digested the whole insane puritanical Third Wave feminist mindset about heterosexual sex.

Notice that they put no limitations on gay men, lesbians, or even straight women? This whole thing is about putting maximal restrictions on the sexuality of heterosexual men, mostly because deep down inside, a lot of straight women despise male sexuality. They think it is gross, sick, predatory, piggish, and disgusting.

That’s normally not a problem in a patriarchy (the only system that works) because even in the mildest one, men are sane about sex, and they just laugh in the faces of these silly bitches complaining about us being too forward or too horny (this latter isn’t even really possible), and ask,

What are you going to do about it, ladies? We men run the show here.

Plus, we call them frigid, prudes, etc. which is true, as prudishness is part of the basic Female Character. Also, in patriarchy, the cultural Zeitgeist is set by men, so a lot of women quit thinking in this stupid way and simply accept male sexuality with giggles and shrugs of the shoulders. They say:

Men are men. What are you going to do about it? Besides, we sort of like them like that.

They think stopping men from being horny bastards is like telling a dog not to bark. It’s in our nature to be this way, and they just accept it and even like it to some extent.

The problem is Female Rule, which is simply women in power. Women in power is simply feminism because as soon as women and their pussy fag “male” allies take power anywhere, the first thing they do is impose  feminism and start putting in legal and societal restrictions on straight male sexuality. This happens everywhere women take power, no exceptions anywhere that I’m aware of.

You cannot allow women to run your society. They’re incapable of doing it properly, and Female Rule never results in anything but privilege for women, severe repression for straight men, and chaos in general in society because women impose conditions that are contrary to natural, normal behavior.

A Few Things about 12-14 Year Old Girls (Not That They’re Very Interesting Sexually Because They’re Not!)

ChangeIt: Exactly, there are recorded screen capture videos of this, some of which include early-onset girls of 11 and 12. At least there used to be.

I’ve never seen anything like that.

I saw a 13 year old girl webcamming for a bunch of boys on a Tumblr blog once when I went down a rabbithole of pedo blogs on Tumblr. Honestly, most of them were completely legal, but there was a Hell of a lot of “child erotica” on there, which isn’t child porn at all. Still, it looks rather disturbing to me for some reason. I don’t like to see girls that young being sexualized. It’s just weird. I ended up reporting 40-50 blogs or posts, but the ones that crossed the line were quite rare.

In the clip, she’s not masturbating, but you can see her pussy. She also acts rather childish. The weird thing is that the link had 373,000 likes and reblogs on Tumblr. That’s surely only a fraction of the people who saw it, which could be upwards of 2 million people.

Even if you could track down those 373,000 people, how the Hell you going to arrest 400,000 people at once on a serious felony? See, the sex fascists don’t even make sense! The way they want these laws enforced is so impractical that it’s completely unrealistic. The clip wasn’t that much of a turn-on either. She was too young; too much of a “girl.”

The thing is that I could not think of anything less interesting than a naked or even masturbating 12 year old girl.

I saw Brooke Shields in Pretty Baby, and I thought,

Why is everyone getting upset about this? This is nothing. It’s not even a turn-on.

People act like that Pretty Baby scene is the most evil scene that’s ever been shot. They say it’s child porn and that everyone who looks at it needs to go to federal prison.

Problem is that last I heard, that that clip has been viewed by minimum 25 million people.

That this clip is one of most evil movie clips ever shot seems odd to me. What’s so evil about that clip? There’s literally nothing there. Yeah, there’s a naked 12 year old girl, but that’s a gigantic nothing right there. Why would people get freaked out about a naked human being? After all, nudity in humans is quite natural and normal.

Some hebephile came to the blog and posted some CP that he had uploaded to Youtube. It was filmed in the back of a bar in Colombia. There was this 12 year old girl dancing around a pole in her underwear and eventually she even loses that. The camera focuses on her genitalia most of the time. That’s CP right there – the italicized part. She has sex with some teenage boy at the end, at which point, she’s “acting like a kid.”

Anyway, I watched it and the whole time I was thinking, “Why would anyone get turned on by this?” It was not erotic at all. She had no tits and a boy’s body and she looked way, way too young. The only thing she had going was a pussy, but Hell, a three year old has that. Then I reported it to Youtube as CP, deleted the link on my site, and chided the guy for posting that crap on my blog.

Not many girls start masturbating as early as 12. It’s only a few. I found a cohort of 30-50 13-15 year old girls talking about these things on a forum, and there was only one who started masturbating at age 12. There was another who started at age 14. All the rest were clustering around 13, and 70% of them were doing it on a very regular basis.

Oddly enough, I even found that 2-3 of those girls were masturbating with their young teenage sisters, either lying next to each other or sometimes having lesbian sex with each other. That really freaked me out and if we can extrapolate it out, it means ~5+% of 13-15 year old girls who masturbate are doing it with their teenage sisters, either right next to each other or with each other in lesbian sex. That shocked me!

Most 12 year old girls don’t seem to be interested in sex. I see them around and they’ve been acting like they were terrified of me for a long time now. I don’t think they look at men at all. Maybe a few look at young men. I had a 12 year old girl proposition me for sex at age 20.

That changes around age 13 though with the onset of the sex drive. For a while there, I was noticing that around age 13 was when girls started looking at me. They don’t do that anymore, and I can’t even really look at them. I drive by a junior high every day at 6 PM and some of those girls – I guess the 8th graders or 13 year olds – are kind of hot! I wouldn’t touch them with a 10 foot pole and an 11 foot extension, but they did have the bodies of women, which makes me look at them. But nowadays they don’t want me looking at them, and they get angry if I do so.

However, I’ve noticed some 12 year old girls are “curious” about men.

I was at a Catholic Church a while ago, and there was this girl sitting next to me. She kept stealing these giggly glances at me. She was probably 12 and I wasn’t interested at all. I started looking back and her and pretty soon we were smiling every time we looked at each other. I was playing peek-a-boo with her like you do with a little kid. The service ended and I think I tried to introduce myself but she shied away. I didn’t get the feeling that she was horny for men. Instead I got a feeling of “curiosity” about men.

I think it stands to reason that girls that age, right before puberty, might get “curious” about men without there being any sexual component. Her body’s priming her. After all, in a year she will be a horny teenager.

There’s no way I would touch one though.

I was talking to a 14 year old girl on the Net the other day. She had a blog that interested me. The talk was pretty clean but after a couple of hours, of course, she brought up sex. Problem with talking to girls that age is that after 20 minutes – 2 hours, at least with me anyway, they’re  going to bring up sex. I don’t think 14 year old girls are all that horny to be honest, but I think it’s more that they are thinking about sex quite a bit.

Anyway, the conversation was not very pleasant or even productive and the whole vibe I was getting from her was girl! Sure, maybe teenage girl but emphasis on the girl, not on the teenage. And she still had a bit of residual “little girl” (like 10 year old) in her. Serious turnoff.

Her blog had that same girly, childish aspect to it. Older teenage girls aged 16-17 do not necessarily sound this way at all. In fact, they often sound rather adult or at least they sound more like teenagers than little kids. Anyway, I was wondering how any man in his right mind could have sex with such a childish creature.

Her childish nature was an utter turnoff to me. Even though it would not be child molestation, it would feel like it because she was so childish. I don’t see how men screw these girls or even try to like in these police stings. Why the Hell do they want to fuck such a childish creature? It’s weird.

I also got the feeling that we men probably shouldn’t even be talking to those girls. I really don’t think the vast majority of them want to talk to us (though a few do), especially at my age. If they want to come and talk to you, fine, but seeking them out for any reason whatsoever doesn’t seem to work. And at any time, she can pull out the “creep” card and freak on you for “creeping on her” when you haven’t said anything the slightest bit like that. It’s their ace in the hole and they know they can play it at any time and they do just that.

I was talking to his 14 year old girl once in peripheral relation to the Delphi Murders (she had had some weird homeless guy stalk and chase her). She was interesting for a while, but within 20 minutes, she started talking about sex, of course. Duh. Anyway we got off that subject and I said something this tranny trend and how she should be careful not to get sucked into it. Well, she completely flipped out and started screaming at me.

She also informed me that she was “pan” as in pansexual, and I don’t even know what that means either. I guess it means they’ll fuck anything human that moves, including a tranny. All of these young girls are identifying in these weird sexual ways, bisexual, pansexual, etc. and I’m convinced that most of them haven’t even had sex yet!

But nevertheless, there they are, off grabbing some freaky sexual identity. She went ranting away, telling me trannies were the greatest thing since radial tires. Then of course she started calling me a “creep” and insisting I was “getting creepy” with her. I hadn’t said anything even remotely sexual to her. “Creepy” is just a weapon these silly girls can whip out any time they want to accuse any male of no matter what their behavior was. And of course we have to believe the girl because girls never lie about this stuff, right? Or so the feminists inform us.

Got news for you. Generation Z, and to a lesser extent the Millennials, are all lost, sunk deep without hope into SJWism and Wokeism of all types. No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, bla bla bla, no Republicans too. I’m ok with the last part.

I’ve been reading their blogs and Gen Z is way off the deep end regarding sexual orientation and gender identity. For instance, fully 2% of Gen Z are trannies! I’m not kidding. I remember 50 years ago when rates like 1/30,000 (almost all men) were routinely being thrown around. So going from 1/30,000 to 2% or 1/50 is an entirely natural biological process? Get out of here! There’s no way that our genes our biology have changed that much in a few years.

A good 94% of trannyism is just paraphilia or mental illness anyway, although 6% have a legitimate disorder.

As if that weren’t bad enough, fully 11% of this insane generation are “nonbinary,” whatever the Hell that means. I have no idea what it means except it’s weird, like almost tranny-weird. I think it means tranny-adjacent. They’re not really full-blown trannies but they’re headed in that direction.

Sex Between Minors, Even Teenage Boys and Little Girls, Is Usually Not Harmful

Anyway, I had a long talk with a young teenage girl (14 years old) on Tumblr the other day, and at some point, of course she brings up sex like they always do. The sex talk in this case was about her having sex with her older brother at a very young age. She was between four and eight, and he was between 13 and 17. I let her talk about this because this stuff is interesting to me.

I won’t even call it child molestation because I don’t like to use that term when both of them are minors. She actually liked it, had not been harmed by it at all, and missed the sex and especially missed him! This is the thing that sex fascists never tell you about child sex. The truth is that children having sex with other children or teenagers is generally not harmful.

A lot of kids engage in something called “childhood sex play,” which is mostly explorational and curiosity-driven because I’m convinced that they have no sex drive at that age. Many of my counseling clients related incidents of childhood sex play to me, and some of it was pretty freaky (Like bisexual orgies!). Childhood sex play does not seem to be inherently harmful in any way. But some women are getting harmed by it now because they want to be victims.

And then, yes, there are cases where teenage boys are messing around with their younger sisters like Josh Duggar. That seems to be what’s going on above. That sounds pretty terrible but the truth is that little girls are not particularly harmed when they have consensual sex with their brothers, even their teenage brothers. This is possibly because they are both minors. Have you noticed that Duggar’s younger sisters he had sex with as a teenager have all said they were not harmed by this behavior? I told you.

On the other hand, sex between and adults and little children can definitely be harmful for the child, even if that’s not the typical outcome.

I don’t think cops should get involved in these cases of sex between minors in the family, even it’s a teenage boy and his child sister. They should be resolved within the family. If that doesn’t work, get social services involved. The boy has to be told to leave his sister alone. If the boy won’t stop having sex with his sister, he needs to be removed from the home and that’s where social services comes in.

Apparently 20 Year Old Women Are Children Now

ChangeIt: You can’t even get a legal hooker in Amsterdam now who is under 21.

Jesus, man! They upped the age for legal sex to 21!? What’s next?

I see continuous calls from the sex fascists on Twitter (that’s one of their main hangouts) to up the age for females appearing in porn from 18 to 21. This is supposedly to “protect” these grown women from something or other.

Some Thoughts on Menarche, the Onset of the Female Sex Drive, and Child Molestation of Girls

Changeit: For example, it is a big problem for the sex fascists when a regular person views a recorded webcam video of a 12 year old girl happily masturbating and eagerly viewing a man ejaculate to her on the other side of the computer.

Ok what are you referring to here? No one is watching a video of a man watching a girl masturbate while the man is jerking off to it. What happens is the girl is masturbating on cam and the man is jerking off to it.

First of all, I would say that few 12 year old girls masturbate. I did some searching around the Net on webforums, and nowadays most girls start masturbating at age 13. A couple wait around until age 14, and couple more start at 12, but in general, it starts at age 13. This must also be the age of “true menarche” which is different from “false menarche,” which is generally what we see these so-called early-onset menarches now.

I also did some research on the onset of the female sex drive, mostly because I was trying to contradict the common pedo argument that little girls are as horny and desire sex with men as much as grown women, which I strongly suspected was false.

What angers me was that it was so hard to find this information. I had to search around the web a lot to find this stuff. So it looks like the presence or absence of a sex drive in little girls and the nature of the onset of the sex drive in pubescent girls is a banned subject!

This is ridiculous as this is important knowledge for the field of sexology and also physicians, especially pediatricians. Not to mention most sexually mature females are probably interested in this subject too. But it’s nearly banned because the sex fascists say any such research is “pedophile!”

My research also found that the female sex drive starts around the time of menarche, actually four-five months before, when vaginal lubrication increases to an extreme degree. In other words, they start getting wet. The general idea here is that little girls don’t lubricate or get wet.

Of course they have discharge which makes them somewhat wet, but discharge might not be wet enough for actual sex. Some women think discussion of discharge is disgusting, and you will see few references to it on the Net. Yet it is an essential activity of the female sex organs. Anyway it is colorless and odorless, so I don’t understand the gross out factor.

Discharge is the vagina’s protection mechanism that keeps it somewhat wet at all times whether the female is horny or not. It is done to prevent chafing, etc. when objects are inserted into the vagina. Most women and even teenage girls stick things into their vaginas at some point, even if it’s only a tampon.

You might be interested to know that discharge halts when a woman is unconscious, along with probably a lot of other automatic behaviors other than breathing, which is a pretty important mechanism. Women who are raped after they pass out notice the next day that there is some minor bleeding in their vaginas. This is because their vaginas didn’t have any discharge to protect them against intercourse via a pounding penis. It’s also one way to prove that a woman was assaulted while she was unconscious, which means she was raped.

I believe that discharge is not protective enough for little girls because I understand that if a girl is molested via penetration, the physician can often determine this on examination, which means the discharge was not making them wet enough. Another reason we adult men should not be fucking little girls! Their bodies aren’t ready for it!

Based on this, I determined that the sex drive probably comes on around the time of menarche.

In other words, So as soon as you are capable of becoming pregnant, your body develops the very thing that enables you to get pregnant – a sex drive and a desire for sex with other humans. Generally, before age 13, girls have no sex drive and also lack any desire for sex with other humans, nor do they experience any kind of sexual attraction to other humans.

I would add that little boys have no sex drive either. I think when I was a boy, I thought about sex maybe five minutes out of a year.

My father was engaging in some lame parental project that seemed to be trying to make sure we didn’t turn out to be fags. In other words, he was priming us with heterosexuality before we even had a sex drive. We’d be walking along and my father would always be saying to my brothers and me,

Look over there. Isn’t that a pretty woman?

I found this annoying. First of all, I had no interest in pretty women, though I acknowledged that they were pretty. Plus it seemed pretty obvious that was some social project of his to prevent faggotry. The idea that I needed to be protected against being a homo really annoyed me, oddly enough, because somehow I knew even as a boy that I was heterosexual and that obviously women were hot or would be hot at some point.

So my reaction was always:

Goddamn it, why are you even talking to me this way? Of course I like women, you idiot! And I really object to your notion that I might turn out gay and you are doing this to prevent that outcome.

This is odd because it shows that some strange notion of sexual orientation may be present even in small children before the onset of the sex drive.

I also already knew I liked girls, though I didn’t know crap about sex. I liked this Chinese girl named TC. She was smart and hot. I asked if I could have lunch with her one day, and she said sure. So I sat with the girls and had lunch with this girl I liked. A bunch of boys saw me eating with the girls and mercilessly tormented me by calling me a fag. I never ate with the girls again. Even as a boy, I and my friends already had the notion that being a fag or a queer was the last thing we should be.

The general argument here is that kids don’t even know what sex is or have the slightest understanding of it, and I think it should be kept that way. Childhood should be sexless!

Underage Girls Doing Sexual Webcamming Are Being “Abused?”

ChangeIt: Looks like she’s doing it willingly? She looks pretty happy, doesn’t she? If she can disconnect at any time, why is she not in fact an eager participant?

Society told me girls under 18 have no brain development to understand sex, yet here she is enjoying herself? Are other girls doing this, perhaps thousands, millions, or hundreds of millions?

Did they all commit suicide later in life because they were finally able to understand the consequences of sex and deeply regretted their actions? Are the consequences of sexual activity for those under 18 always negative like we are told? How did humans make it to today when all of human history was basically “child sex abuse” until a recent history? What about other countries with lower ages of consent right now, are they all simply “child sex abuse societies?”

This whole idea that female minors who are taking photos and videos of themselves nude or masturbating and sending them to men and putting on nude or masturbatory shows are somehow “being abused” seems insane.

How the Hell are they being abused?! If a girl takes a picture or video of herself nude or masturbating, did she just “abuse” herself? How the Hell did she do that!?

Now if she sends that material to an adult man so he can enjoy it, somehow or other she is getting “abused.” How does that work? That doesn’t even make sense! Is she abusing herself? Is the man “abusing” her by receiving the material, although she produced and sent it to him very willingly, and she can’t even see his reaction or maybe hasn’t even seen his face, much less met him?

I ran across a lot of sex blogs of very young women on Tumblr recently, mostly of 18 and 19 year old girls. They’re unbelievably depraved and degenerate sexually, at least in their thinking, though quite a few 18 year old girls are still virgins. I’ve met quite a few 18 year old virgins recently (I met one just the other day, in fact), and I’ve even met women in their early 20’s who are still virgins.

I was shocked at how many of these girls said on their blogs they used to go on Omegle as minors and get naked and masturbate on cam. They said a lot of adult men, “older men” as they put it, would come to watch them get themselves off on cam. They described it as “masturbating for older men on cam.” They seriously got off on this, and they loved the fact that they did this, so I’m really dubious how any of them are harmed. They all also said that this gave them an older man fetish, which they were more than happy with, believe me.

All of those men are also “looking at CP,” which is a crime, but I assume almost all of them got away with it, and cops don’t investigate Omegle. How the Hell are you going to figure out who’s watching whosoever’s cam show anyway?


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)