Month: August 2023

War or foreign policy propaganda always paints the enemies of the powerful state as completely incompetent jokes who can’t organize a trip to the bathroom and at the same time complete menaces who are this far from wiping us off the map. The Jews (Israel) and the Anglosphere are masters of this nonsense. You would think people would spot it for the BS that it is, but I guess it fulfills your average person’s needs:

Westphalian

1. Omnipotence: The need to see you opponent as a pathetic joke and incompetent clown whose ass can be kicked in a day or two even if you barely try. because otherwise fighting them seems too scary.

2. Terror: The need to fear terrified of total annihilation. Why people have this need is beyond me, but we two-legged monkeys seem to have the need to be terrified. At the very least, some Fear Porn usually suffices to manipulate us into aggressive behavior against the feared object, so it’s very useful to the propagandist.

“Who Debunked Pizzagate Pleads Guilty to Child Rape.”

I hate to defend idiots like this, but I’m about as sick of this sex panic hysteria as I am of clowns like this guy. These guys are a dime a dozen, and no matter what we do, they will always be there. You’ll never get rid of them. It’s like bailing out the ocean with a bucket and about that futile.

That said, these guys need to go down, but I’ve noticed that like all crime panics, the moronic American public thinks we can wipe out this scourge of what they call pedophilia (really sex crimes against minors) once and for all. That’s typical of a moral panic. They’re always going to wipe this menace of the face of the Earth for all of time. It’s like the Crusades.

Remember when Idiot Bush announced his War on Terror? Look around you. Read the paper. Turn on the news. So did it work? Of course not, but I could have told you that back then.

But I can’t tell you how many boneheads I ran into who told that with this particular Crusade, we were going to wipe terrorism off the face of the planet forever. I get the idea of permanently wiping out evil scourges is appealing, especially if you’re a fool, but once you engage your brain, can’t you figure out it’s not going to work? Because, you know, logic?

I can’t tell you how many times I have seen these hysterics say just that – we are going to end this “pedophilia” menace once and for all! Considering that they think grown men having sex with 17 year old girls is part of the “pedophilia” they have pledged to wipe out, I definitely wish them luck. They’re going to need all the help they can get in that particular charge at a windmill!

I went and read up on this sorry character.

This is more fake news.

First of all, he didn’t plead guilty to Child Rape at least as far as I can tell. He wasn’t even charged with it in the first place!

He’s accused of:

Possession of child porn, including some of the worst kind. That’s lamentable. Merely possession of child porn does not constitute rape or especially child rape. Did the guy rape those photos with his dick?

I don’t get it. Why do these guys always collect this horrible child porn with little girls in it? If you’re an actual pedophile, I get it. You’re feeding your orientation. It even stands to reason.

But this guy probably isn’t even a pedophile (most pedophiles haven’t the slightest interest in teenage girls after age 13). If you’re not a pedo, why the Hell do you want that creepy, horrible stuff (I’ve seen it – it’s both but mostly just disturbing) on your drive? Why do you want to look at that crap in the first place?

You’re curious? Well, I could get it if you were curious. In fact, that’s why a fair number of people look at this stuff. They’ve never seen it before, it’s taboo, and they want to see what all the fuss is about. I’ll admit that that’s why I looked at it when I stumbled across a page full of it for the first time. After that, it was:

“Ok, I saw it. I know what it is. I’m not even slightly into this crap, so, curious brain, can we move right along now?

You know what else I thought?

I don’t need or want to see this crap ever again for the rest of my life!

In other words, ok, you see this crap once, you don’t need to see it again! You got that out of the way. Now move along to some much less dangerous activities.

Almost every single of one of these clowns is doing a lot more than that. They’re actually into this stuff. I get that you don’t have to be a preferential pedophile to be into this stuff. Fully 21% of all men are as aroused by little girls as they are by grown women! That seems very odd to me, but maybe we men just got wired up weird in some ways?

And even if that were the case, why not focus on your pro-social desires – to mature females and grown women – and just repress, suppress, or lock deep away in a cage in the depths of your being these antisocial desires you have – to little girls. That’s what I’d do if I got wired up that way.

Hey, sublimation is nothing new. We are always substituting our antisocial desires with pro-social substitutes. Churchill could have been Hitler but for sublimation, right?

I don’t get these guys. Their behavior’s almost suicidal.

He also enticed some girls (probably teenagers) to take their clothes off on cam and send him nudes and pics of them masturbating. I’m not sure what that’s even called. Enticing a Minor into Sexual Behavior? I don’t get how this is child rape. He convinced some teenybopper to send him some nudes and that means he raped her? Huh? Did he rape her through the computer? Did he stick his dick through the screen and thereby right in her face?

Plus he’s going to get another Possession of Child Pornography for those pics they sent him.

I don’t get these idiots either. Yes there are horny teenage girls out there. I’ve had them come right up to me many times when I’m on Kik. And sometimes they ask to see a pic of your cock or trade nudes. You think I did it? You nuts?

Have you ever seen a naked teenage girl? I have. I saw plenty back in the day, and since then, I’ve seen some pics and even a couple of videos of them on the Net. I’ll admit naked 13 year old girls look sort of weird. It’s a woman, sort of, but it’s also still a little girl! It’s like you took a woman’s body and stuck a little girl’s head on it. The effect is a bit creepy, and I don’t even enjoy it to be honest. It just looks weird. Not to mention it’s illegal.

A naked 14-17 year old girl just looks like a woman. A very young woman, yes. But it’s just a woman. You know, like all those naked women you see in all that porn you watch all the time? Is there something special about these naked teenage girls? Do they have something a naked woman doesn’t have? I don’t get it. Why risk going to prison for trading pics of these jailbaits? Is it worth it? Why would it be? Once again these guys just seem like suicidals.

Also, 40 years even for Possession of Child Porn is a ridiculous charge. I would say that in most cases, Possession of Child Porn should have a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. Our sentencing guidelines are ridiculously excessive.

From the Net:

The KPD (Communist Party of Germany) never forgave the SPD (Social-Democratic Party of Germany) for allying with the Freikorps (far rightwing German war veterans and proto-Nazis – Hitler was a member) to suppress the Spartacist revolt in Bavaria, a short-lived Communist government of only three months in that state, and murdering Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, leaders of the communist revolution there.

This is something that liberals are apt to forget when they blame the KPD for being too slow to form an anti-Nazi front in the early 1930’s: the Communists were still mad at the Social Democrats over this betrayal and refused to ally with them. They also forget that the Weimar Republic was destroyed in 1930. The coalition including the NSDAP (Nazi Party) in 1933 was to prevent its corpse from twitching, not to bury it.

Yes I’ve noticed that when it comes down to a choice between the Left and fascism (and fascism typically evolves due to a serious threat from the Left), liberal Democrats and even modern Social Democrats always align with the fascists! Look at how many times liberal Democrats supported out and out fascists against the Left, even when the Left was democratic and was thrown out for such communist behavior as raising the minimum wage.

• Leftwing guy comes in.
• Raises the minimum wage! (What a Communist thing to do!)
• The Right screams “Communism” on cue.
• A fascist coup ensues.
• Fascist terror with death squads. etc. follows, massacring so many people that folks will think twice about ever electing the Left again. “Remember what happened last time we did that?”
• Liberal democrats and nowadays, social democrats line up with the mass murdering fascists! Those bastards!

I never really understood it until I figured out that liberal Democrats and modern social democrats both are working for the rich and especially the corporations of their countries, and those corporations hate anything even slightly leftwing. Now it makes sense. Liberal Democrats and now even Social Democrats will do anything, including allying with the Devil Himself, to keep capitalism going smoothly.

On the other hand, even given that the Right is fascist now, should we avoid all alliances with them? I think not. First of all if we ally with them on certain issues, we’re not going to help elect a single MAGA fascist and we can still fight their fascism while we strategically ally with them on some issues.

I would argue that the issues we are dealing with here in the US are so serious that we can’t afford not to form strategic alliances.

One thing I liked about this essay was his advocacy of Right-Left alliances. He also opposed purity tests.

Sure, a lot people on that site don’t like the Left for a lot of reasons, but some of us are with the Right on certain things! Let’s make Right-Left alliances on everything we agree on and try not to discuss the things we differ on. There’s strength in numbers. Whatever increases our numbers improves us, whatever diminishes them harms us.

We can ally with them on

• support for Russia, China, and BRICS, opposition to the US Empire, and
• opposition to The insanity and excess of the Cultural Left
• The US Empire
• Mass illegal and even legal immigration (family reunification, chain migration, unselective immigration where we import unskilled instead of skilled labor, labor visas and Hindu-1B visas, lack of ideological screening)
• Corporate power (especially woke corporate power)
• Anti-White racism (including DEI, Critical Race Theory and modern anti-racism)
• Man-hating feminism
• Drugging, arresting of development, and mutilation of children in order to create Frankenstein trannies
• Propagandizing of small children favor of homosexuality, transvestism (drag queens), and transsexualism
• General anti-elitism

Purity tests are also ridiculous. If you’re Left on 90 things and Right on 10 things (90% Left) you are literally tossed out of the Left on your ass and ordered to go join the Right. This makes no sense. The Left like anyone else needs every vote it can get. I get thrown out of every Left forum I join though I’m 82% Left at last count. The 18% Right apparently means I’m on the Right! Did these idiots flunk math class?

I also want to say that the folks on the Right (even the MAGA fascists) are a Hell of a lot nicer to me that people on the Left are. I disagree with the Right on so many things, yet most of them are still kind, and it seems that they are grabbing any alliance they can. This is odd because I was told that the Right were the meanies. Turns out that’s not true. The people on the Left are as mean as snakes! The nice people are on the Right. I don’t want them running things, but they sure are nice!

There’s one problem with being a leftwing Russia supporter. Almost all of the pro-Russia material written in English is coming from a rightwing – Republican Party – MAGA (the last in particular) POV. If someone can show me a great Substack about this war that is pro-Russia and on the Left, I’d love to join them.

There are some people on the Left who oppose this war. They’re called anti-imperialists. But most of them are not pro-Russia. It’s really tiresome having to wade through all this horrible pro-MAGA stuff. And if you write on forums, it’s all MAGA people on there, so you can’t really write anything pro-Left.

It’s also showing me how intellectually bankrupt and bereft most of the MAGA crowd.

Increasingly, they don’t even say they’re on the Right. And Trump has convinced most of them that the Republican Party is some populist, pro-worker, anti-corporate, anti-elite party! I guess people are pretty easy to fool. And you wonder why Nazis called themselves socialists and Mussolini recruited workers to be his Brownshirts?

There’s a lot of mileage to be had on the Right selling yourself as a man of the people, in favor of workers and the average guy (in particular the average family), anti-corporate, anti-elite (code: rich people). You get to fool all sorts of gullible people who ought to voting Left into voting for the Right. You get to run as an pro-worker, pro-average family, pro-corporate, pro-elite party while still being  secretly an anti-worker, anti-average family, anti-corporate, anti-elite party.

Increasingly MAGA people are saying they are not on the Right! This makes sense in view of Trump’s rightwing populism, which often sells itself as not being on the Right.

They are also saying there’s no Left and Right anymore as those labels don’t make sense. Ok, so are any of these guys voting for the Left anytime soon? Didn’t think so.

And now I am starting to worry that my fellow Lefties were right when they said a typical fascist line is, “Let’s get rid of Left and Right and move beyond all of that.” I thought, “Oh you paranoid Lefties. Always seeing a fascist underneath everyone’s bed.”

But now here we are, with this MAGA movement and an authoritarian Right that is more anti-democratic than any US party has ever been, plotting to throw out democratic rule to keep themselves in power in perpetuity, probably because they see the writing on the wall that demographics increasingly predict their doom, and…it’s announcing that it’s moving beyond Right and Left. Hmmm. Smells fishy.

Along with that, we have Joe Biden’s party, which, sorry to say, is the most leftwing Democratic Party in recent memory. I say that’s sorry because Biden isn’t all that leftwing. But he’s still better than we’ve had in four decades. Pathetic!

We have to go all the way back to the 1970’s to find a Democratic Party this far left.

You might be interested to note that the move of the Democratic Party to the Right actually been with the McGovern debacle. Ok, they ran someone too far to the Left. But I’m still a McGovern Democrat!

So the party said the only future was to go rightwing. Jimmy Carter was actually the first of these Right-leaning Democrats. His supporters were called “Atari Democrats” after the popular car of the time. They’re like Hillary or Clinton Democrats of yore. The loss to Reagan and then the second loss of the Mondale debacle simply accelerated this movement.

If you have a left party steering hard to the Right over 40 years, sooner or later, it’s got to end. You’ve changed society to the Right so much that you have too many angry Democrats and furthermore, as a Marxist would say, you’ve simply moved society so far to the Right that a leftwing backlash in the form of class war is simply inevitably, nearly a law of politics. So this DNC project was doomed from the start.

So let’s see. A Democratic Party more left than we’ve seen in 40+ years. A Democratic Party that is demographically trending towards a permanent majority of their own (democratic this time) and threatening to make the Republican Party a permanent minority party. What does that add up to for the Right?

Sounds like a “serious threat from the Left,” correct?

The Republicans could always move left, but that’s not in their genes. They’re ideologues.

So what do we have? A Republican Party and US Right sensing a serious threat of extinction via a resurgent radicalized Left.

Remember how I’ve said fascism rises in the capitalist class or the Right when there is a significant threat from the Left. This actually comes from Trotsky’s writings on fascism from ~1930. It’s some of the finest work ever written on fascism. He really spells it out and hits it on the  head, including its menacing appeal to the average guy in the streets. In fact, Trotsky states in that essay that your typical fascist supporter is simply the average man of the streets.

Los descamisados or the shirtless ones of Peronist fame, although Peron was probably not really a fascist. He was a bit too far Left for that. But Peronism is very odd in that there are left and even communist Peronists, center Peronists and rightwing, even fascist Peronists. Of course the commie Peronists and the fash Peronists spent a good deal of their time killing each other.

Fascism is basically a last ditch attempt to save capitalism and the privileges, money, and power of those who wield it against a menacing Left. The wealthy and business would literally rather have a fascist dictatorship that lets them keep their money and stuff than risk democracy to a threat to their status, power, and wealth.

And every time there’s a choice between fascism and the threat from the Left, the capitalists always choose fascism. That’s why the US never met a fascist government or rightwing dictatorship it didn’t love to bits, with the odd except of the World War 2 years, which were interesting in that they were the first and only time in US history that the US has ever fought fascism or rightwing authoritarianism. In previous years and afterwards, the US has supported every fascist and rightwing authoritarian state out there.

In fact that was our preferred model for Latin America, certainly in the pre-war years but also extending into the postwar era when the model began to get its inevitable (as a Marxist would say) class war reaction in the form of Left revolutions, armed and unarmed. We supported the fascist murderers of Latin America from 1945-to the present, although it started winding down from 1990-95.

But it continued on in Colombia, Haiti, and Peru, and with the rise of the Left in Nicaragua and Venezuela, a powerful rightwing fascist opposition rose, though they were not armed to a contra degree yet. Of course the US supported the death squad states of three countries above and the violent Left in Venezuela and Nicaragua and this support has been ongoing.

That’s when we’ve not been fomenting rightwing/fascist coups of various types – legislative in Brazil and Paraguay with a failed attempt in Venezuela, electoral in Bolivia and Ecuador, and military in Haiti and Honduras.

Why does the US and now the West love fascism and rightwing authoritarianism so much?

Because the states in the West are capitalist countries, and when push comes to shove, capitalists always pick fascist dictatorship and terror over leftwing democracy.

In addition, those states are good for business while the authoritarian model prevents any pesky left movement from arising due to the menace of a democracy. Democracy’s just not worth the risk!

Also the idea of moving beyond Right and Left rather appealed to me too, as I’m ~80% Left and 20% Right. I’ll still never vote Republican but I’d be wrong if I said they didn’t have the right line some things, especially cultural issues, on which the Left has gone completely nuts of late.

In addition, the woke Cultural Left is as anti-science as we accuse the MAGA people of being. That’s because woke arguments are mostly just lies. Once you hold the light of reason up to them, they fade from sight like Dracula retreating from a wielded cross. So the Woke Left and the MAGA people both hate science, mostly for coming up with the wrong uncomfortable truths.

So as we can see here, if we take the serious threat from the left to the privileges of business and the wealthy, the denial of the Right that it is even rightwing, the increasing calls to move beyond left and right, the rise of a truly scary rightwing populism, the rise of (Shall I say it?) antisemitism and attacks on women’s rights (fascists always attack women’s rights), increasing attacks on minorities in projects that are literally trying to keep them from voting or their votes from mattering, along with a Republican Party committed to the destruction of the last ramparts of our democracy in their desire for a permanent rightwing authoritarian state, what do we have?

Sure.

We have fascism. MAGA is fascist. Period. How can you deny it?

I would not necessarily say the Republican Party itself is fascist (though it’s starting to look that way) but in the MAGA crowd, we definitely have what can only be a particularly American form of fascism. Now this will be fairly moderate and hardly murderous or even violent as far as fascists go, akin to a mild rightwing authoritarian state in Latin America, but you’ve a choice between democracy and authoritarianism, and this falls into the latter category.

And all rightwing authoritarian states (especially the one the Republicans have in mind), mild or not, violent or not, are arguably fascist governments.

What is this “Right” of which you speak of? In the MSM it is *always* Far-Right.

Oh! Well, the MAGA Right is pretty much Far Right. I suppose the never-Trumpers might be the Right?

I agree with you though. Ever since Reagan, the Right has always been the Far Right.

It does beg the question though. If the Republican Party since Reagan (with the exception of George Bush) has been the Far Right, then what on Earth would the Right be? I suppose you could argue that the Right would be Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, George Bush, Ross Perot. Goldwater would have to be Far Right.

Conservative/Right: Wants to freeze all change and keep things the way they are or at least go slow with change.

Reaction/Reactionary/Far Right: Wants “backwards change” – that is, wants to go back to the glory days of how things used to be.

Now I’m Hard Left but on culture, I’m a reactionary because I want to roll back the Cultural Left to the 1996 Democratic Convention LOL. So you see rollback isn’t always a bad thing.

The MAGA’s are definitely reactionaries. See that slogan: “Make America Great Again?” Rollback. Back to the glory days of old. This can also be a fascist project (see below), but in that case, the Right wants a rightwing revolution and a rightwing authoritarian state or a rightwing dictatorship.

Fascism: This is literally a “conservative revolution,” same as Communism is a Left revolution. It’s “revolutionary conservatism” or the “revolutionary Right.” As it is the mirror image of communism, yes, in some ways, they do resemble each other. Fascism often wants a blood and soil revolution, and reifies the glorious past, national myths, national creation myths, etc.. For instance, Mussolini always referenced Rome. He was going to literally rebuild the Roman Empire!

It rises in reaction to a left that has gone too far or threatens to take over, often in a period of excess and decadence. Fascists equate the decay with too much democracy and promise an authoritarian solution. They also worship hierarchy, but all conservatives do. Fascism is also palingetic – that is, it represents the mythical Phoenix bird that rises from the ashes of its flames to fly again. The ashes represent the decadent present which the fascists will eliminate so the glorious culture of old can unfold again.

As MAGA folks don’t seem to believe in democracy anymore and seem to be pursuing an authoritarian Right project or “permanent Republican state” (a dictatorship of the Republican Party in the sense that you can never replace them), people argue that MAGA is a fascist movement. In a sense, all rightwing authoritarianism might be seen as fascist, though it typically doesn’t mirror Mussolinism.

Trying to get new children to voluntarily have homosexual sex is very easy (“You’re a big girl now…Don’t be childish,” etc.), just as overwhelmingly young, extremely neglected children (like X1), are given presents and attention, soon followed by the abuser sexually touching the victim.

If the child allows the touching, i.e. “volunteers”  to be touched (after given a few hints by the abuser and thinks: “This person is so good to me. Why am I so childish or selfish to refuse him something as simple as sex?”), the game continues…

From The Reality of Protected Child Abuse and Snuff Networks: Beyond the Dutroux Affair (2007) by Joël van der Reijden*.

X1 was Regina Louf, one of the girls who got molested. Her description of one crime, the murder of one the girls who was getting molested alongside her, was so accurate that she could only have been there watching it. They killed the girls for breaking rules, talking to others about the network, and also for simply getting too old. The girls were supposedly murdered at age ~16 because they were “too old” for these freaks.

The Dutroux Affair was a crime that occurred in Belgium. It did occur and a few people went down on kidnapping and child molesting. I’m not sure if anyone went down on murder, but it’s obvious that Dutroux and his friends were involved in at least a couple of murders of young girls whose names are none and whose bodies were found.

The article also makes an excellent case that snuff movies do indeed exist. Indeed X1 and the other girls describing the filming of the murders of girls. Furthermore, officers who found some of these videos stated that the murders of known girl murder victims were actually depicted on the tapes. Later, of course, all of the tapes conveniently disappeared.

There’s also a suggestion of involving of intelligence agencies in these networks. They set prominent men up with little girls or teenage girls and get them to have sex with the girls while the whole thing is filmed via hidden cameras. Now they have blackmail on the man and the own him for life.

The CIA is reputed to have long had habitations called “brownstones” that are used to bait and entrap prominent men into having sex with little girls or teens, the events of which are then videotaped by the CIA with hidden cameras. The CIA supposedly has long had blackmail material on many prominent people through this very nasty means.

This is exactly what was going on in the Mossad/CIA Jeffrey Epstein case.

Ok, you want to know what “grooming” is? That above is grooming. You can only groom little kids. You have to groom kids because they have no sex drive and have no idea what even is, so you have to give them presents and whatnot to get them in the mood to do this weird thing called sex. Small children don’t typically hate having sex with adults, mostly because they have no idea what exactly is going on.

Until you have a sex drive, you can’t really formulate the concept of what sex even is. In terms of reactions, most children react to getting molested by thinking that what happened to them was odd, strange, or weird, but they don’t necessarily think it’s bad because they can’t conceptualize that. On the other hand, when you are a kid, strange things are happening to you all the time because you don’t understand the world.

The reason so many people recover memories of being molested is because for a huge number of kids, this odd event called getting molested was so uneventful and trivial that they simply forget about it! Then they recover the memory as adults and they experience an extreme trauma they never felt as a kid. These adults are pretty much self-harming. If it didn’t bother you as a kid, why the Hell does it bother you now?

Some kids do hate getting molested. I talked to a woman recently who got molested by her father from a very early age. She told that she loved it! Incredibly, the molestation started at age three! For the first few years, she hated it, and she cried every time he did it, but by the time she was five, she discovered that she liked it a lot.

This isn’t an unusual reaction by the way. I’ve met a number of women who were molested even at very young ages by fathers, mothers, brothers, cousins, or uncles who told me that they liked it. I’ve seen videos of others claiming the same thing.

That’s why I think calling it abuse or rape is absurd. “Molestation” is so much better. What’s happening? The way society sees, a “bothering” or “annoyance” of the child or perhaps society itself is society disapproves of this severe transgression so much. In a way, they are bothering or annoying society by engaging in his severe transgression.

Of course sometimes molestation is rape and I’ve heard of  two different cases. One was raped by her brother for many years, and another was sexually assaulted as a teenager by her father. In both cases, the girls fought  back. Not coincidentally, both women continue to suffer as a result of this sexual abuse or rape they experienced as minors.

If the child is traumatized then it makes sense to call it abuse. But so much child molesting isn’t really rape or abuse that we need a new word: child molestation.

It’s also ok that “molesting” doesn’t seem like a huge offense. After all, it just means bothering someone. But you can use the verb as an analogy for transgression of society’s morals I don’t think child molesters deserve the death penalty. In Florida the hysterics just put that in.

I’m unsure of what the proper charge for molestation should be. I need to think about that some more.

I do know that the maximum for statutory rape should be no more than three years in prison. For possession of child porn, these sentences are ridiculous too. I would make that punishable by a maximum of 10 years in prison.

All these people who complain about slaps on the wrists ought to volunteer to serve some time at the local prison as an experiment. Since they say it’s such an easy cruise, I’m sure they’ll have a wonderful time! After they spend one day in a maximum security lockup, I’m sure they will find themselves in the ninth circle of Hell. People just don’t understand how horrible a day, week, month or particularly a year in a US prison is like.

*By the way, that online book is truly horrible. I’m doing a huge edit on it because it’s a mess having been translated directly from the Dutch by a man who is not a fluent English speaker. However, it’s 450 pages long, so please bear with me! I’ll be posting it on the site whenever I finish it.

It shows that there are indeed gangs of pedophiles and child molesters consisting of some people at the very top of society who worship the Devil, and molest, beat and even murder kids. A lot of them are not even really pedophiles as they don’t prefer kids sexually. Instead they are trying to go beyond all of society’s rules and commit the ultimate sins and crimes, perhaps to show that they are completely free or that they can do whatever they want. They get off on the idea that they are committing the ultimate transgression.

So while Pizzagate is BS, what it discusses, secret gangs of Satan-worshiping, child molesting elites at the top of society is indeed a phenomenon. The problem is it has been very hard to get convictions of these folks because cops who look into this tend to end up threatened or dead.

These people are so high-ranking that no one wants to go after them. In addition, the things that are done to these kids and teenagers are horrific that it stretches one’s imagination that these events even occurred at all. Most kids who were victims of these networks have been blown off as head cases and chronic liars. However, I think a good part of the time, especially in the Dutroux case, I think these incredible events really happened.

Part of the problem is that some of these cases like the McMartin preschool case are obviously complete bullshit. And I doubt if it’s the only one. So then one is forced into the task of figuring out which cases are true and which are false.

I’d be careful reading that document if I were you. I’ve been reading it lately but it is so disturbing that it is hard to read and I have to stop reading it a lot. You may even find it too disturbing to even read bits of it.

“California Democrats Block Bill to Make Child Sex Trafficking a Serious Felony”

This has got to be sex fascist fake news.

I believe that in California, all statutory rape of 14-17 year olds by men up to ten years older than each age year of girl is classed as a misdemeanor instead of a felony.

14-24 year old male commits statutory rape of 14 year old girl: Misdemeanor.
25+ year old man commits statutory rape of 14 year old girl: Felony

15-25 year old man commits statutory rape of 15 year old girl: Misdemeanor.
26+ year old man commits statutory rape of 15 year old girl: Felony

16-26 year old man commits statutory rape of 16 year old girl: Misdemeanor.
27 year old man commits statutory rape of 16 year old girl: Felony

17-27+ year old man commits statutory rape of 17 year old girl: Misdemeanor.
28 year old man commits statutory rape of 17 year old girl: Felony

The lower ages in these crimes are probably not even prosecuted. I’ve heard that in California they don’t even arrest minors for statutory crimes. I’m not sure if that’s true though, but I think a 13-17 year old boy could have sex with a 14-17 year old girl with no issues. The worst they might do is involve Social Services.

I think that’s how it works. Nevertheless, this 10 or less year age difference break that men got was not extended to gay men having sex with teenage boys. All the Legislature did recently was equalize the penalties for gays and straights. This was played up all across the rightwing sex fascist media as “California Democrats Support Homosexual Pedophilia!” BS as you can see.

The article below is being peddled all over the Sex Fascist Right as evidence that the Left “supports pedophilia and child sex trafficking.”

It’s simply not true that people on the Left generally defend “pedophilia,” although it doesn’t matter if you defend or oppose it, as pedophilia and being a pedophile is 100% legal everywhere on Earth! It’s simply a way of thinking or a person who thinks in a particular way. It’s not illegal until you act on these urges, at which time you commit the crime of Child Molestation and become a person known as a child molester.

Now, child molestation is an actual act, and you can of course support or oppose it in a meaningful sense. The problem is that child molestation and child molester somehow or other doesn’t sound evil enough for the crime, though it was plenty evil back in the day, I assure you! And keep in mind that we are not trying to be rational here. The sex fascists are simply trying to deviously excite a mass hysteria in society over the bugaboo of teen sex. That’s all it is. Another teen sex panic!

“Child sex trafficking” is a fake term made up by sex fascists for what really should be called “Prostitution by a Minor.” “Trafficking” itself is a BS word for what has always been called “pimping.” Work as a prostitute? Got a pimp? Congratulations, you’re now being “trafficked.” Why not just call it pimping? Well, they used to do just that, and in some places, perhaps they still do. But pimping just doesn’t sound as evil as trafficking, and the sex fascists are in the business of creating mass hysterias here, not writing sensible laws. So the old language had to go.

Also, according to this crazy new federal law, all teenage prostitutes, even those in business for themselves, are automatically being “trafficked,” which is idiotic and an abuse of language. Self-employed teen prostitutes are literally “trafficking” themselves? Huh? Of course the idiot law doesn’t see it like that.

All teen prostitutes are somehow being “trafficked,” yet they can’t possibly be trafficking themselves, so what’s a sex fascist lawmaker to do? He’s in a conundrum! This state of affairs was quickly remedied by the unique notion that every man who purchased a teen prostitute was somehow “trafficking” her! Dumb, huh? So he’s literally pimping her out? Well, no. But I thought trafficking just meant pimping?

Well it does, except when it doesn’t, and when the sex fascists extended the dumb law in the 2012 Congress, and then they had to come up with a new fake reason for a crime! Whenever you are going on a fishing expedition for the reasons things are against the law, and you’re throwing anything against the law to see what sticks, there’s a pretty good chance that the reasons for your law or at least its language are nonsensical.

All of this BS could have been remedied by simply making a new crime called Purchasing a Minor Prostitute or something along those lines. But that doesn’t sound evil enough as trafficking, so the sex fascists had to abuse both language and logic in order to get people all emotionally upset and hysterical about a crime.

No one on the Left or Right supports minors being prostitutes. I’m not aware of one person on Earth promoting that position.

Neither the Right nor the Left supports or defends Child Molestation, so it’s a moot issue. There are a few outliers, mostly pedophiles, who support it, but they’re not necessarily left or right. They have a fringe politics for sure, but it’s best seen as neither Right nor Left, just fringe stuff.

Bottom line: Every time you see those idiot words “pedophilia” or “pedophile,” just substitute “child molestation” or “child molester” respectively.

Now you do that and you can finally talk about this issue and make sense at the same time.

From here.

The most striking evocations of this new culture war are the now daily examples of the New Left’s flouting of issues and ideas that should unequivocally be nonpartisan, universal concerns – in any normal society, that is.

Note I use the term Left as a form of mutually intelligible shorthand. I realize not all “true leftists” or “classical leftists” adhere to the wild excesses of the current lot, but there’s no easier way to quickly and conveniently refer to the group of people presently strangulating society. If I termed them Progressives, then those would complain instead – nor do I even consider myself a “Right-winger” and mostly disavow the arbitrary binary. So the perceived anti-Leftism doesn’t come from a place of partisan malice in the sense of the classic divide.

If you have a better suggestion on what to call the psychotic miserables currently occupying the totemic placeholder of the ‘Left’, I’m all ears. But for now, the New Left at least differentiates them from you proud Classical Liberal lot.

Just call it the Cultural Left or the Woke Left, and you’ll be fine, my boy.

As you note, a lot of us on the Left despise the Cultural Left as much as you all do. For these Left dissenters, you may call us the Anti-Woke Left, Alternative Left or Alt Left, Economic Reductionist Left, Anti-Identity Politics Left or anti-Id Pol Left, or Socially Conservative Left, etc.

“Classical liberals” tend to be on the Right because that’s a rightwing form of economics. In this sense of Liberalism (Classical Liberalism), the politics advocates “freedom in all things” – economic freedom, political freedom, and freedom of civil rights. They tend to be suspicious of big governments of any type. “Neoliberal” economics is actually rightwing or conservative economics.

The problem is that this is confused with “liberal Democrats,” a term that refers to a certain type of somewhat leftwing US politics called “social liberalism.” This is the politics of liberal Democrats here in the US. This social liberalism is not found anywhere else, although Canada has something resembling it that is further to the Left. In both the US and Canada, this means a politics that is left of center yet stops short of actual social democracy. Sort of the middle ground between social democracy and centrism.

I know. It’s completely confused, isn’t it?

Yes, some virulent homophobes are projecting.

Actually it’s called a reaction formation. In these cases, the person is projecting out extreme hatred of the gay internal self that he cannot accept. He hates his own inner gay self, but he is in denial, so he cannot even admit he is gay in the first place. Self-hatred is no fun and besides, he’s not gay, right? So he can’t hate himself and he projects out his own inner self-loathing of the gay self onto external objects, those being the gay men that represent the hated internal gay self that he cannot confront or accept.

Below I will discuss the construct known as toxic masculinity. I don’t really believe in it as toxic masculinity to me is just normative masculinity, but there does seem to be an extreme masculinity that is too extreme or “toxic.” Unfortunately these are the men that women love the most and as long as women keep insisting that males be hypermasculine, toxic masculinity, hypermasculinity, etc. and all of the negative things spouting from that will never go away.

However, serious homophobia is also an aspect of masculinity, hypermasculinity, toxic masculinity, whatever. Excellent books have been written on toxic masculinity that described homophobia as one of the essential aspects of toxic masculinity along with all of the other hypermasculine stuff we are so familiar with. And as someone becomes increasingly masculine or deeper into toxic masculinity, the homophobia seems to increase in tandem.

Active heterosexuality, often promiscuity, is also associated with toxic masculinity. So, really homophobia increases with increased levels of masculinity and probably also increases with more sexual success with women, a more active sex life, and more female sex partners. In other words, far from being gay, most homophobes are not only straight but they are Super Straight! The most homophobic men are the most passionately straight men out there. They’re Heterosexual X10!

In Jamaica, 92% of men are virulent homophobes. So Jamaican men are all a bunch of faggots? Nah. My father was a homophobe most of his life as were most men in his generation. I guess he was a screaming faggot? ISIS is homicidally homophobic. I guess all those ISIS terrorists are a bunch of homos? For much of Western civilization in Europe in the last 1,500 years, male homosexuality was condemned to an extreme degree. In fact, the typical penalty for homosexual sex was execution – it was a capital offense. Nevertheless, it still went on. I have read reports of gay men in Medieval Italy who would meet anonymously in out of the way places, even underground, to have gay sex. The more things change the more things stay the same, eh?

However, I think there was little gay male sex going on during this period and if you got caught doing this sort of thing, you might just get killed. I guess that would tend to put a damper on things. We have almost zero reports of gay men anywhere in the West before the late 1800’s. Paul Verlaine and Charles Baudelaire were gay Frenchmen during this time and Oscar Wilde was a gay Briton. I can’t think of a single prominent case in the West before that time. If someone can find one, clue me.

If the woke syllogism were true, then all Western men up through the 19th Century were a bunch of mincing queers, as homicidal homophobia was the order of the day. Anyone think that was true?

I’ve been reading lately some Reddit posts by men who have issues around their masculinity. Granted, by objective standards, they are not very masculine. That’s not a delusion on their part. They say that they get it from both men and women both. A lot of it is good-natured but they still don’t like it.

Many had girlfriends but the girlfriends pointed out that they weren’t very masculine, said they liked guys like that, and that’s why they were with him. None of the men liked this either, and the reason was odd.

That was because most of these men, though objectively not particularly masculine (or perhaps not macho is a better term), had a deep inner sense of a masculine self that was very important to them. It angered and upset them that this was not being recognized in others.

They all said they had been bullied growing up as kids and many said they got called gay a lot, even though none of them were effeminate. On the other hand, a lot of them said they weren’t hypermasculine but they weren’t effeminate either. Obviously you don’t have to be effeminate to get called a fag in the US.

The problem is Americans don’t make the distinction. Not macho? You’re a faggot! There’s hypermasculinity and anything less, well, you’re a fucking fag! I’ve also heard that Europeans are far less demanding than Americans are about this sort of thing.

In the graphic below, each number represents a spectrum.

In reality I would say there is:

1. 1. Hypermasculinity – toxic masculinity ->
   2. not macho but often with a masculine image – “soft masculinity” ->
   3. femininity – the “feminine man” “wimpy” men ->
   4. effeminacy – homosexuality – transvestism – transsexualism.

1 and 2 often have strong masculine self images, but the non-macho guy is often upset that no one can see his deep sense of inner masculinity.

3 and 4 not only don’t feel masculine, but in general, they don’t even have much interest in acting this way.

When you get to 3-4, there’s also a strong tendency towards passivity and not wanting to fight. This is definitely true with 2 also, although there are some 2’s who absolutely can and will fight and some are even dangerous or more or less psycho (though they don’t necessarily break the law – they just appear very dangerous at times). If you fight or fight back, you’re not a wimp. Even some passive men will definitely fight and are maybe even a bit psycho, like the guy writing this blog post.

No, you’re not a wimp. You fight! You fight back! You really fight!

– my mother, speaking to me.

So there you have it. If a man fights, especially viciously, or seems the slightest bit dangerous, he’s not a wimp.

It’s long been my observation that men are far more easy-going in terms of masculinity than women are or else men are looking at masculinity in some different way than women are. I say this because most men, aside from a few psycho fucks, seem to be ok with my level of masculinity. I walk the walk and talk the talk, and that’s all you have to do. It’s a performance!

At the same time, even when I get a pass from the most masculine men, I still often don’t cut it with women, and for much of my life, I get the following from women: ball-busting attacks on my masculinity, the idea that I’m not much of a man or lacking in the masculinity department and that this bothers her, questions about me being bisexual or formerly gay, a tendency to want to boss me around and bitch me out, etc.

This has continued to this very day when I still hear this stuff from women, mostly young women. A young woman recently told me that I was not dominant and she wanted a dominant man. She told me to come back when I learn to act like a man!

Another young Hispanic woman who I had over one night complained to my Arab friend that I wasn’t a tough guy, as she put it. And you know those Hispanic chicks all want badass dudes.

During this same period, I got basically zero attacks on my masculinity along those lines from men. I pretty much get the a-ok from them in that department. Like I said, you walk the walk and talk the talk, and you’re in.

But I’m afraid that for women that’s just not good enough. This goes against our common ideal that it is men who put insane pressures on other men to act masculine and mete out punishments for violations from this behavior. This line says that toxic masculinity is created by men strictly enforcing masculinity against other men (with a fist, I might add).

Nobody ever says that it’s not other men but women who are the true cause of toxic masculinity and everything bad that flows from it, but this is my conviction after six decades of observation.

To meet the masculine bar with men, as I said, it is sort of a surface performance thing and most men don’t care about your life beyond that. You walk the walk and talk the talk, and you’re in the boys’ club, no questions asked.

No one cares about much of anything else, how you live your life, if you are married or have kids or not, how much money you have, what kind of car you drive, how responsible and law-abiding you are, or even how outgoing or introverted you are, all those things that women list when they talk about masculinity – well, men seem like they could care less about any of that.

As long as you can do a good performance, it’s all good, and you can have a beer with the boys. You become “one of them,” and to a certain extent, all is forgiven, and they can at least bond with on one thing.

However, whatever it takes to win the Masculine Award with men is not going to be nearly enough to cut it with women because they have a much longer list of what it means to be a man and they are much less tolerant of masculine aberrations (like the stuff I listed above that men don’t care about). At any rate you are going to have to ramp up your masculinity far beyond what was needed to cut it with men in order to make the cut with women.

I know this goes against everything we’ve been taught but I’m certain that it’s true, having a lot of experience in this area.

It’s just partisan bullshit. Pay it no mind.

I refuse to call them the Democratic Party. There’s nothing democratic about them!

– Bob Dole, 1996.

Aaaaand there’s the silly reason right there.

Commenter: Are you really this stupid or are you just trolling? Left? Right? What are you talking about? Since you are the expert on this spectrum thing of right and left, why don’t you define for us what “right wing” is and what “left wing” is.

Rightwing:

Right means conservative! Real simple. It’s mostly about economics though.

A better definition is that the Right believes in rule by an aristocratic wealthy elite and the Left believes in rule by the people, the masses, ordinary people without a lot of money, workers, or democracy. In the past, the Right believed in the divine right of kings. Then they switched to supporting feudal and warlord rule.

The Right believes in rule by aristocracy and is opposed to people’s rule or Democracy. The Left believes in rule by the people or democracy.

The Right includes all of the supporters of the Republican Party and the MAGA crowd.

They tend to support neoliberalism and hate “big government,” taxation, and social programs.

They’re also often hostile to women and non-Whites nowadays.

They have conservative social mores. In the US, the Right represents hardline Christianity such as Catholicism and fundamentalist Christianity.

They hated gays in the past, but those days may be over.

The Right hates environmentalism everywhere on Earth. They just want to destroy everything so people can get more money and stuff.

The Right also believes that global warming is fake and that the COVID epidemic was also faked. They opposed masks and COVID shutdowns as a violation of individual rights.

In the US, the Right is associated with radical individualism, but this philosophy is hated everywhere else in the world.

In the US, the Right takes a hardline against the tranny cult, anti-White critical race theory, radical homosexuality, and man-hating feminist bitches.

They do tend to take a harder line on illegal immigration and amnesty for illegals. They also take a harder line against asylum seekers. I actually support them on these issues.

In the past they refused to penalize employers for hiring illegals, so the problem was not fixed. This is because the US Right is extremely pro-corporate, pro-rich and pro-business. They always refused to deal with the Hindu-1B scabs who took White men’s IT work because they worked for half the money.

Now the Right may be cracking down on this abuse. They are also cracking down on chain immigration and are thinking about imposing more stringent tests to become a legal immigrant.

The US Right wants as few people as possible to vote, so they make voting as difficult as possible, especially for Democratic voters. Rightwingers always turn out no matter what, so they’re not worried about suppressing their own vote.

Since 2000, the US Right have been stealing elections via those voting machines. This is a problem that is still not fixed.

The Right is pushing radical anti-democracy measures all across the land and they just literally tried to steal an election.

The US Right is also extremely corrupt due to its business connections and love of wealth and possessions.

At the moment, the Republican Party seems committed to the project of a permanent Republican authoritarian state or dictatorship because as an elite party committed to rule by aristocrats, they realize that increasingly they cannot win fair and square.

This is a tendency all over the world, as the Right is antidemocratic in most places. As a movement committed to aristocratic rule and opposed to democratic rule by the people, generally speaking, most populations don’t want to vote for rich Rightwing elites. Hence in many places they only way they can get into power is by cutting back on democracy and putting in Rightwing dictatorships and authoritarian states.

The Right recently out and out stole three seats on the US Supreme Court.

The Right gutted the Voting Rights Act, so now states are free to discriminate against non-White voters.

The Rightwing Supreme Court has also ruled that extreme partisan gerrymanders such as the permanent Republican dictatorship in the Wisconsin Legislature are legal! The US Right

The Conservative Party in Australia and Canada is similar but much milder than Republicans. The Libertarian Party is absolutely conservative or Rightwing. Joe Manchin and Kristen Sinema are Rightwing Democrats. However, the US Republican Party project is despised in most of the world where it has few if any numerous supporters in any land.

In Latin America, the Right supports the lighter-skinned elite and opposes anything intended to improve the lives of the vast majority darker skinned poor. They are also often violent and even murderous. They also represent latifundios, or large landowners.

The wealth gap is extreme in these societies the rich have almost all the money and wealth and everyone else has next to nothing. The Latin American Right thinks this is just fine! They often take over the small plots of the poor with the death squads and army.

If you don’t hand over your land, you get murdered by the Right. The rural poor then flood into urban slums without water, indoor plumbing, paved streets, not to mention access to health care, education, or even employment. The Right likes this just fine! And if they try to protest these conditions, the Right sends people out to kill them!

I should note that the Right owns all of the land in most of these countries. These are large estates. There is not enough land for the rest, so many are reduced to day labor on the estates of the rich Rightwingers.

They scream about socialism and communism all the time, but down there, being a communist means you belong to a labor union. Supporting raising the minimum wage is communism. In many of those countries, the penalty for being a communist is death. They very much hate labor unions and they often kill these people.

I will say that the Right down there has largely stopped killing people. However, in El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, and Uruguay, in days past, these countries all ran Rightwing death squads and armies that massacred the urban and rural poor for demanding something to eat and a roof over their heads because that was communism! The Right is still murderous in recent years in Colombia, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Honduras.

The Right was formerly associated with extreme Jim Crow racism in places like Cuba and Ecuador. Rightwing Anti-Indian racism is still extreme in Peru, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, and Chile. The Venezuelan Right is very racist. Rightwing anti-black racism is still serious in Colombia, Venezuela, Peru, Mexico, and the Dominican Republic.

However, the racism has declined from an earlier level in most of these places.

In general, the Rightwing Whites have almost all the money and wealth in these lands and the darker folks have next to nothing.

In the Philippines it is the same thing. A tiny Rightwing elite, mostly Fujian Chinese, has almost all the land, wealth, and money. Everyone else has next to nothing.

Rightwing governments in that sense have vanished from most of the rest of the globe. Rightwing economics or conservative economics is despised the world over.

There are few economically Right countries in Europe other than the UK under the Tories and Ukraine.

There is also rightwing fascism in the world. It may rule in Haiti. The Latin American Right has fascist tendencies at times, especially in Bolivia where they still wave Nazi flags. Fascist/Nazi rightwing countries include Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. A fascist Right rules Poland at the moment. An odd Rightwing fascist is in power in Hungary. Rightwing fascists have been ruling Israel for decades now.

In Europe, Right and Left are very different from what they are in the US. The Right is often nationalist and at times even pursues a Left economics. The Left is more anti-nationalist, internationalist, globalist, and pro-immigrant. I find this sort of a Right much more tolerable than the American kind.

Turkey has been a fascist country forever, but the economics are not rightwing. It is similar to Hungary in this regard. India is also a very fascist country right now, but the economics are still left. Turkey, Hungary, and India may in a sense be called “left fascism,” but the extreme bigotry and racism in India and Turkey makes them Rightwing.

Many countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America, the Muslim World, the Arab World, the Caribbean, Eurasia, South Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa are socially conservative but economically leftwing. You can’t really call these conservative or Rightwing countries.

Putin’s politics is called Rightwing “Russian conservatism.” However, this would be considered leftwing in most of the world. This is about the only “rightwing” politics I can support nowadays.

Social conservatism is not considered conservatism or rightwing because the Right mostly has to do with economics.

Most of this was taken from the Net, but I added a few things:

When the Soviet Union broke up, Georgia (not US Georgia), which was itself a patchwork of different kingdoms/clans, broke up too after a bloody civil war. South Ossetia and Abkhazia are too very well-known cases.

Two others were Ajara and Svaneti.

The Ajars are Muslims who speak a dialect of Georgian that is fully intelligible with the Georgian language.

People called the Svans live in Svaneti. They speak Svan, a language closely related to Georgian.

Since Georgian independence, Georgia has worked at aggressive nation-building and and has attacked the cultures and languages of the Svans, Mingrelians (another language close to Georgian), and Batsbi (who speak Bats, a language related to Chechen).

None of these languages have much of any rights in Georgia. This was part of the reason that South Ossetia and Abkhazia split off. They didn’t want to be forced to become Georgians.

One of the first things Saakashvili did, around 2003-2004, was to overrun Svaneti with few hundred newly US-trained Georgian special forces. The Svans were very quickly defeated.

The second more daring raid was to take over Ajara, who was ruled by a “warlord” named Abashidze. While the Russians did not like Georgia, they did nothing to protect Abashidze, though they did allow him to come to Moscow. The two actions made Saakashvili very popular politically in Georgia and turned him into a darling of US establishment. I remember reading few pieces about how “uncorrupt” and “decisive” he was.

South Ossetia was the next obvious target, with Abkhazia being too tough of a nut to crack at that time. Initially, Georgia had fought brief wars against both regions in which they unable to conquer them and annex them to Georgia.

The Russian invasion of Georgia was fake. It never happened! Nevertheless all of the US media and of course the Deep State-run CIApedia all insist that Russia invaded Georgia. Any American who knows anything about this will tell you, “Russia invaded Georgia.” Well, it’s a lie.

What happened was that after the initial wars in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Russia placed peacekeepers in both regions. Georgia then attacked South Ossetia, and Russian forces rushed in to defend the South Ossetians. A brief war was fought in which Russia did indeed cross the border and even went all the way to Tblisi. But that wasn’t really an “invasion.” It was in response to a war of aggression that Georgia waged on South Ossetia, and Russian troops soon left.

Given that the Russians did not respond to Saakashvili taking over Ajara, the expectation was that under dovish Medvedev, they would not dare to respond in South Ossetia. Importantly, Georgian struck when Putin was in away in Beijing watching the Olympic Games.

Medvedev did dither before going in, which the Russian military never forgave him for.

My point was it was not the Russians who picked the time to move in on South Ossetia, as they were quite happy with the status quo at the time. It was the Georgians.

Commenter: First of all, you are lumping all conservatives into the dinosaur Republican bucket.

Trump, for all his many flaws, is not a card-carrying PMC promoter or neocon. His support base isn’t oil tycoons and CEOs, it is the the rural population, the small business owner, etc etc.

He is not the Republican party but he definitely has an outsize role in it; similarly the dinosaur Republicans still dominate some of the RNCC structures but don’t dominate the electoral outcomes any more. The presence of a growing number of populist Republican senators and house reps is proof of that.

So while I agree that the Republicans overall are not clearly pro-worker – it is far from clear that they could not be given that there are people in it who are not dinosaur cons and/or neocons. This doesn’t mean the Republican party will change; I said the opportunity was there but the elephant still has to drink.

And another:

It is not clear that this is “social engineering” so much as typical “winner take all” dynamics.

“Winner Take All” dynamics are why you always end up with 2 sides in such scenarios because the population winds up splitting into the 2 most powerful messages. The idiocy of the Democrat party today is shifting from Working Class Champions as its previous generation core message to “Diversity” – thus alienating its original power base in favor of its new PMC supplemented by the African Americans.

These morons fail to understand that Bill Clinton doing this was fine because the Democrats were still. more or less, able to count on the working class for support due to historical reasons but that ongoing betrayal of working class interests in favor of their new PMC/bankster/MIC donors was going to lead to erosion of its base. Note this affected the dinosaur Republicans as well: a significant number of PMC/bankster/MIC types switched over; the idiocy of the dinosaur Republicans is that they fail to understand that the role of Working Class Champion is there for the taking.

RFK Jr is trying to bring the Democrats back to their roots, but he is going to fail just as Sanders and Gabbard failed, and for exactly the same reasons (DNCC fuckery).

My response: Here we have the classic problem that so many regular Americans think that Trump is a different king of Republican – he’s not for the corporations and the  very rich but instead for the average guy and the workers. I think Trump has worked very hard to consolidate this image.

On the other hand, all Republicans say they are for the workers in various ways: the opposition to illegal immigration and mass immigration in general is sold to the public on a pro-worker basis. The Republicans have had to go against their donors in the rich and corporations who are wildly pro-immigrant in order to take this stance. I agree that this part of their project is indeed pro-worker, but the whole rest of their project is not. Their endless efforts to cut Social Security and Medicare testify to that.

“Rightwing” Populism: An Infantile Disorder*

Trump is a rightwing populist. The thing about rightwing populism is it isn’t really pro-worker. It’s a sort of “fake populism” in that sense. The Mussolini and Hitler regimes were populists of this sort. In fact, rightwing populism has a very strong tendency to become fascist.

Nevertheless, it appeals to the petit bourgeois (middle class) by telling them that their enemies are both the idle rich above them and the similarly idle, listless, criminal, and parasitical poor below them. A lot of middle class people feel they are being squeezed from both sides like this. Nevertheless, I’m not aware of a successful “middle class state” in the world today or ever that attacked both the rich and the poor. Someone can enlighten me if I’m wrong here.

Rich Boys North of Richmond”: A Rightwing Populist Song

A good example of this sort of rightwing populism in a redneck sense is the recent country music hit, “Rich Boys North of Richmond,” in which the singer attacks the rich, who he wrongly claims are the federal government (rich boys north of Richmond) and the poor (lines talk about 300 pound welfare leeches).

All of the Republican hopefuls have rallied around this song. De Satanist (De Santis) agreed that the “rich elites” are in fact the federal government itself, not him and his uber-wealthy buddies. Vivek Ramaswami, another rightwing populist, has chimed in.

Their solution is not only a war on the poor – a perennial task of the Republican Party – but an additional war on the “rich” (the federal government), which would entail gutting it. He also complains about taxes, a continuous middle class complaint that the Republicans have always championed as pro-worker. The truth is that most workers get a lot more in government services than the pay in taxes. The upper middle class and wealthy do not, of course, so they rightly see taxes a ripoff.

Typically, rightwing populism is the politics of the confused. The elites pushing it are not confused at all and tend to know what they are doing, which is selling the workers a shitburger and claiming it’s a filet mignon steak. The ruling class is typically very smart and it’s nothing if not devious.

The workers who go along with it are just politically confused and spouting an incoherent politics because they are promoting something that not only does not benefit them but actively harms them. Unless you want to argue that workers of this sort are masochists (some US workers are actually like this), their politics is simply convoluted and insensible.

Good luck ever getting the Republican Party to be a pro-working class party. It is written in the very genes of the party that they are pro-rich, pro-business, and anti-working class. Class struggle is a thing. Class consciousness is a think. Class interests are a thing. Have you guys even read one page of Marx? He used to be mandatory reading in Economics classes.

Sure, the Republican Party could change if being a party of the rich and the corporations was no longer enough to win elections, but that day seems far off.

And then the rich and the corporations would have no party to advocate for them, although in Europe, these groups have gone along with a variety of social democracy via a lack of other options. There may come a time when the Republican Party will have to go this route if they ever expect to win an election again.

Although in Europe, the rich and corporations have simply made a social contract with the workers in order to stave off Left revolution in which they settled for high taxes and an extensive welfare state in order to stay in business and continue making profits. What is interesting is that if you go to Europe, you will find that even highly paid corporate executives absolutely love the social programs – the free medical care, the long paid vacations, etc.

The Republicans have figured out that once you put these universal social programs in, it’s very difficult to get rid of them because they quickly become very popular.

All efforts at rolling back programs like this around the world have been catastrophic.

The ending or dramatic cutting of state medical care in the Global South has only resulted in collapsing health figures and an increased death rate. It is estimated that this aspect of the neoliberal globalization project alone has resulted in millions of deaths in the Global South.

Severe cuts in education simply resulted in the collapse of education figures in the nation. In Nicaragua, the Right demanded that parents buy their kids school uniforms and cut back drastically on public education. Many parents could not even afford the ~$50/year to buy the uniforms, so the coming of Violeta Chamarro resulted only in tossing hundreds of thousands of kids out of school. The gutting of education funds in neoliberal Chile resulted in collapsing schools with soggy roofs that leaked whenever it rained.

The Chicago Boys Friedmanite privatization of Social Security was a disastrous failure. Even (((Milton Friedman))), the father of neoliberalism, realized that these programs were extremely popular, and there were few ways to get rid of them via democratic means. Therefore, he actually stated that a rightwing dictatorship was necessary in order to put a neoliberal project in.

The mass rejection of neoliberalism in Latin America after two decades of failure is what led directly to the Pink Tide Left governments in the region.

Of course the US either can’t or won’t figure it out, and the US and EU (the West) continues to try to shove neoliberalism down the throats of Latin Americans at gunpoint or via out and out starvation and disease (sanctions).

To admit that the region rejected neoliberalism would be to admit that it is hated in the vast majority of nations; in other words, that it is a failure because nobody wants it. To do so would probably mean the death of the project. As such, neoliberalism has become a dirty word, and rightly so. The response of the US has been to never mention the word. So they’ve simply repackaged neoliberalism as “freedom and democracy” and continue to force it down everyone’s throats.

*With apologies to a fellow named V. I. Lenin, of course.

Sure, it’s possible for the Republican Party to turn into a sort of right wing of social democracy sort of party along the lines of the Christian Democrats in Europe, although that would mean rejecting everything they have ever stood for and leaving their donors – the rich and the corporations – politically homeless and without a voice.

The rich and corporations of Europe and in many other places have simply run up the white flag and taken what they could get, but the American version are ruthless, murderous, and do not shy from wickedness or the most devious trickery. I doubt if they will take this sitting down.

There’s also a very real possibility of a military coup in the US to prevent the establishment of any sort of social democracy. Most people don’t realize that the Pentagon has a class consciousness and the US officer class have class interests.

As we can see unfolding before our very eyes, if push comes to shove, the Republicans will simply become an authoritarian dictatorship to maintain corporate and wealthy rule into perpetuity.

Commenter: I don’t hate gays. I am repulsed and disgusted by their degeneracy:glory holes, public toilet lurking, and the sick acts they perform within, and their pederasty which is more common than most believe. The mincing faggots that bare their arse cheeks in public in their sick parades…maybe I do hate them.

Well, I don’t like that either. I think a lot of straight men don’t like that. It’s also normal for straight men to be repulsed and disgusted by gay male sex. However, apparently said revulsion is homophobic. Therefore, it is completely normal for straight men to be homophobic in that sense.

To tell the truth, the only way I can have a positive attitude about gay men is by refusing to think about the things you just described.

and their pederasty which is more common than most believe.

Yes, teenage boy fucking is practically a normal part of their culture, much more than teenage girl fucking is in straight male culture now that there is a huge and pretty crazy backlash against it going on – the ‘Pedophilia’ Moral Panic. Pederasty has been a pillar of gay male culture since Antiquity. I don’t think it’s going away.

China and Cuba are not Communist! They are both capitalist!

This is the typical crazy Commie in the West, especially the Anglosphere and they are completely out of step with the Left in the whole rest of the world.

Shades of Lenin, Ultra-Leftism: An Infantile Disorder.

This is typical of Left Libertarians and Left Anarchists in the West. This type of ultraleftism is quite popular in the West, but it hasn’t much power anywhere else other than in Kurdish-controlled Eastern Syria. In the West, it’s utterly irrelevant of course, though they do like smash stuff up a bit now and again. So not only are they idiots which is bad enough, but they are dangerous idiots, and this is a bad thing indeed.

This is also typical of Trotskyites, probably the most common type of Commie in the West. Please note that Trots never won a single revolution except the October Revolution. But they haven’t won one since. Trotskyites might amend the above to say that China, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, and Eritrea are “Stalinist.” “Stalinist” means any existing Communist country that’s not Trotskyite, which means all of them after 1927. They call them Stalinist because the name Stalin has become an epithet because, well, he did kill millions of people, let’s face it.

In addition, in the West, we also have these strange creatures we call Maoists. They say that all existing Communists and most of the recent ones are “revisionist.”
That means they’ve strayed so far from Communism that they’re not even really Communists anymore. Hoxhaites, followers of Enver Hoxha, the Communist leader of Albania, are similar, as he took a pro-Chinese and anti-Soviet line after the Sino-Soviet split. He was also a radical atheist.

Maoists led a successful revolution in, yep, you guessed it – China! They also led a successful revolution in Cambodia. Yep, the Khmer Rogue were Maoists all right. Which shows what a dangerous philosophy it can be.

They’re tried in some other places like India, the Philippines, Peru, and Turkey. They had a fair amount of success in Peru, the Philippines and India, but they never took power.

Bottom line is most Commies in the West, especially in the Anglosphere, hate and have hated for some time every existing Communist country because…they’re not Commie enough!

This is a common fallacy of ideologues everywhere called “letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.” Politics is the art of compromise. Do you strive for perfection in your personal life? Of course not, unless you are a miserable fool. You strive to do as best as you can or as best as the material conditions allow. Same principle in politics, which is really just the motivations of groups of people as opposed to one person. But the goals of group politics and the individual man otherwise don’t differ much.

For instance, I assure you that the official Communist Parties of every nation supports both China and Cuba and say both are Communist. It is for this reason that the Western Left, particularly in the Anglosphere, is utterly irrelevant and has been for some time now.

Not only that, but have they ever had a succesful revolution? Nope, unless we count Eastern Syria and Cambodia, both of which are rather dubious examples of success.

The Syrian PKK owes its entire state and existence to the reactionary US Empire and it is dead set against the Bashar Assad’s popular and Resistance Bloc state.

The Khmer Rogue were an example of what happens when Commies go insane. Part of it is because we bombed every inch of their land and killed 500,000 civilians when we bombed Cambodian from 1970-1975. That’ll drive anyone nuts.

Another part was that they went into exile in the 1920’s and took off for Paris, where they stayed for the next 40-50 years, isolated from the affairs of the land, talking only among themselves with little peer review for feedback and consequently getting crazier and crazier via sheer theory not tested in the field.

So it’s also an example of how a bunch of isolated and out of touch radical intellectuals, without peers to reality test or check them, can go completely bonkers via pure theory that’s only ever been tested on paper, not in reality. Beware the egghead with his head in the sky who speaks only to Gods and not men!

Another part of it was the horrific caste politics on steroids of Cambodia, with the logical result that the rural lower castes wanted to literally murder the urban higher castes and ended up doing just that.

In other words, it was a typical peasant rebellion of the kind the world has seen many times over the centuries. Peasant rebellions can be very bloody. Beware the bloody wrath of the oppressed! It has few equals!

The Khmielnicky Rebellion in Poland in the mid-1500’s, a typical anti-feudal peasant rebellion, ended up killing 1/3 of the population! That’s worse than the Commie Khmer Rogue peasant revolution. So the Khmer Rogue were nothing new. Even genocidal Communism was not some evil new development for mankind. Like so many things, it had its barely disguised predecessors if we only dare to peek into the past to find them.

All Libertarians are Far Right with the exception of the Left Libertarian crowd who are almost Commies. Actually, they are all full-on Commies, but they are “freedom-loving Commies,” and they are very hardline Commies indeed! As in “China and Cuba are not Communist anymore. They are capitalist.” That kind of moronic Commie.

Of course the Right and Left Libertarians hate each other. This whole “Libertarians are neither right nor left” BS is just another one of their lies. Ask anyone left of center where Libertarians are. They’ll all say Right or even Far Right.

A commenter suggested that economic and political libertarianism is not necessarily rightwing:

libertarian economically/politically

See that part? That’s called rightwing economically and politically. With the exception of Left Libertarians, but probably 1% of Libertarians are the Left variety, if that. Talk about political irrelevancy! Though they did claim to have a successful Left Libertarian experiment in the PKK-controlled and US-occupied area of Eastern Syria.

I think some Libertarians know they’re lying about this, and they’re trying to get naive Lefties to vote for them.

However, I think a lot of US Libertarians are just politically confused, have a typical American incoherent politics and as such, they actually believe that Libertarianism is neither Right nor Left. I heard one of them say,

All Libertarians want to do is dismantle the state. How can that possibly be rightwing?

LOL some people have a lot to learn. What can you say? Economics 100 should be requirement for every social science BA from a university.

Me: Gay Russian men drafted into the army just keep their mouths shut and they do all right. If they announce they’re gay, they’re in a world of hurt.

Commenter: Up until 2011 the US military had the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy. In the military even more so than in regular society, people should keep their sexual preferences to themselves. Most straight people don’t go around telling everyone about their sex lives or worse yet demonstrating to kids the delights of vanilla or BDSM sex.

Some things you just keep to yourself and only share with your intimate partner(s), yet there’s a top-down push to turn everything private, taboo, or sacred into a public display of obscenity and profanity. This is not a natural development, but plenty of damaged, confused or misguided people fall for it and go along with the depravity.

Other commenters follow:

Another:

I work as a private tutor in a local school and have seen this menace develop in real time over the last few years. With a new head teacher there is now “Gay Pride” Month and teachers whom I once respected running bake sales to raise money for “oppressed gays” in Africa – all in full view of junior school kids. This and transgenderism is also woven into every topic – even design and chemistry. It’s demonic.

Here:

This homophobia as you call it, has been almost 100% caused by the LGBT movement on their own in last 20 or so years; before that, nobody cared if you were gay, bi, or whatever until the LGBT community started forcibly pushing their sex life into our everyday lives.

When they started marching every week in the pride marches first with their asses hanging out and escalating from there to today’s disgusting drag performances where genitals are being literally rubbed into underage kids’ faces, it’s no wonder it creates a backlash.

I still don’t care what you do INSIDE YOUR OWN HOME, be gay, trans, or wear furs for all I care, but do not parade your genitals in the main street or force kids to see perverted drag shows.

If opposing people marching constantly at some public venue in sex attire half-naked or dangling genitals in front of underage children in drag shows is homophobia, then yes, I’m homophobic…

And again:

Spot on. The aggressive actions – especially the attempts at recruitment in schools – have created a lot of animosity towards the homosexual movements. Most homosexuals I know are against this militant propagandizing.

There:

As for homophobia, perhaps some people would rather not have other people’s sexual issues thrown in their faces day after day or dragged into our public schools to influence our kids.

There is already too much sexuality in every aspect of American life, and it is pushed by “celebrities” and the entertainment industry. I for one do not want a government telling me how I should view anything at all.

And everywhere:

But I also agree that activist gays brought on the problems. I remember being appalled when they forcibly turned Boston’s St Patrick’s Day parade, a clearly family style event, into a Gay Pride event. That to me was the start of the craziness.

MESSING WITH CHILDREN WAS TANTAMOUNT TO A DECLARATION OF WAR.

I don’t care what consenting adults do in privacy. I don’t want anyone’s sexuality shoved in my face. Goes for TV & movies too.

And they have zero business in education. NONE. NADA. NYET.

Commenter: This ‘homophobia’ as you call it, has been almost 100 % caused by the LGBT movement on their own in last 20 or so years; before that, nobody cared if you were gay, bi, or whatever.

I haven’t noticed any increase in street level homophobia or homophobia in my family. If anything it lessened over the period and to tell the truth, my more liberal family members are pretty insufferable in how pro-LGBTQIWTF they are. Plus it’s all a bit fake. It’s more like:

Hey, nobody cares! So don’t mention it or bring it up!

LOL not real ok with it.

As a straight man, I thank my lucky stars I didn’t get wired up gay. That sounds like a nightmare to me. If you pointed a loaded gun at me and said have gay sex or we will shoot you, I would say pull the damned trigger.

For one thing, every one of my friends would probably abandon me were I to turn up gay. Not that I blame them! I grew up in the 1970’s, and the straight community was pretty damn homophobic. The 80’s were not much different.

I’m in the unfortunate position of being one of those straight men who is at times mistaken for being gay, bisexual, formerly gay, etc. Usually women opt for the last two because any woman has this figured out way better than a man; that is, they’re figured out which men like women, and they know those guys aren’t gay. Men are much stupider in that regard.

This crap started in high school just a bit, but it got a lot worse in the early 80’s and on. I experienced quite a bit of homophobia, so I know how it feels. It’s probably one of the worst feelings I’ve ever experienced. It terrifies you to your very bones. And I got it from all sorts of people, liberal, conservative, you name it. Straight women are some of the wildest homophobes of them all.

I never saw this “no one cares” era. I don’t think it’s true even know, except these young folks are different.

Commenter: I despise how homophobia has become normalised in support of conservatism which, in turn, is associated with Trump, Putin etc.

LOL when have conservatives not been homophobic? Never. There’s nothing new here.

Actually it is not so bad in Russia as you think.

I’ve read about homosexuality in Russia. For instance, gay men were barred from the army. Around 2012, they got rid of it because too many straight men were claiming to be gay to get out of service. Now all Russian gay men serve in the army. But the army is crazy homophobic. Gay Russian men drafted into the army just keep their mouths shut, and they do all right. If they announce they’re gay, they’re in a world of hurt.

Yes, Russia is a homophobic society. Putin has to deal with that!

Russian society is very bad for young gays and lesbians due to the new law. They don’t get the help they need at all.

On Quora someone asked about homosexuality in Russia. A number of Russians responded that if you simply never discuss it, nobody much cared. Russian gay men said much the same thing. They just keep it on the down low. They said everyone knew and no one cared as long as they didn’t talk about it. St. Petersburg and Moscow are full of gay bars, and nobody much bothers them to my knowledge.

The arts in Russia are full of gays and always have been. It’s a cliche in Russian society.

In fact there is a joke that a man goes to the doctor and says he thinks he’s a homosexual. The doctor smiles and asks,

Well, are you an actor?

No.

Are you a dancer?

No.

Are you a singer?

No.

Are you a classical musician?

No.

Doctor keeps his smile the whole time.

What are you?

I’m an electrician.

The doctor looks angry.

Well then! You’re not a homosexual, you’re a Goddamned faggot!

 

Not only is Russia homophobic, but so are other countries in the region. So is Ukraine. So is Poland, Hungary, Latvia, on and on. Lots of East European societies are homophobic. They’re just very socially conservative is all. The pro-West and anti-West East European societies are both homophobic.

Incidentally, all of those Muslim and Arab states we all root for like Iran are pretty damned homophobic too. Pro-Western? Anti-Western? It matters not.

Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Cuba are homophobic, although the laws may speak otherwise. That’s just the nature of Latin American hypermasculine culture. The pro-Western and anti-Western societies are both homophobic, though the latter may have better laws.

Africa? We’re all rooting for Black Africa now, right? Well, guess what? Black Africa is crazy homophobic! Probably among the worst on Earth. But we’re for them, right? The pro-US Black African societies are homophobic. The anti-US Black African societies are homophobic.

Note that this may have also been covered in this earlier piece:

To tell the truth though, male homosexuality in the Arab World is pretty damn rife, but you might want to have a wife at the same time.

Most Saudi gays are married up. I knew an Arab woman who told me that Saudi women being married to gay men is a big problem. She told me:

Half of all Saudi men are gay.

I have no idea what she means by that! And that figure seems pretty extreme.

That said, there are gay cafes in Saudi Arabia, but it’s only that they are on the down low. Don’t ask, don’t tell, all over the region.

Saudi schools are sex segregated, and though I’ve never heard of a lot of gay male activity at boys’ schools, the girls’ schools are plagued with epidemic lesbianism, including the usual drama + chaos that is part of the essential nature of the Feminine Character, supercharged with the normal stormy and mercurial ways of the moody teenage girl. The love affairs blow up or splinter into jealousy, and the resulting chaos causes all manner of problems in the schools.

A gay man recently traveled around the Arab World. In Lower Egypt, Nile boat boys repeatedly hit on him. He met a long term gay couple in Cairo. They said everyone knew but nobody talked about it. But they busted a riverboat full of gay partiers in the Nile recently and sent them to prison for a few years. That’s because in Egypt, it’s don’t ask, don’t tell, and keep it on the down low.

There’s plenty of homosexuality in Morocco. William Burroughs and Paul Bowles lived there for years fucking Arab teenage boys. Burroughs said some of the locals cursed him for his behavior, but he was never arrested.

All across North Africa, there’s quite a bit of male homosexuality because the women are all pretty much off-limits unless you are married, and in a lot of places, it costs too much to get married. So you have all these horny 18-29 straight man.

What’s a guy to do? Well, a lot of those men have gay sex. A few young men are actually gay, but there are not a lot of them. Those are the “fags.” All of the men who have sex with them are the “straights.” The fags play the female role in gay sex. The straights play the male role. Basically the real men, the masculine straight men, fuck the fags, the effeminate gay men, as they are obvious female substitutions. In addition, the straight men may well despise the “fags” they are fucking. Sure, they’re fucking them, but they also hate and have contempt for them.

It is similar in Afghanistan and maybe Pakistan.

In fact, all over the world, whether a man is gay or not is often portrayed in this way, as it is in US prisons. Remember, straight men are not just turned on by women. They are turned on by objects that look and/or act like women. Sculptures and paintings. Women and teenage girls. Male MtF trannies. Transvestites. And femmy gay men, who act like women! People don’t understand that orientation is towards “any object that resembles a woman” not to “a woman” per se.

The gay man we mentioned above went to Syria. He said men seemed to figure out he was gay and they were hitting on him everywhere. They’d slow their cars down and a couple of men inside would invite him in. He walked on the boardwalk and man after man came up to him. This in a country that arrests gay men and makes them have sex with each other in front of laughing, mocking police.

Then he went to Kuwait. A school principal there, married man, propositioned. He went to the beach and midnight and saw men having sex with men. Not a cop in sight.

Based on much disgusted observation and sad experience witnessing this bullshit, the capacity for homosexuality in young men in their early to mid 20’s is extremely high, although most want to play the male role and fuck the “fag”, who they often rather despise. In fact it is a very bad idea to deprive young men this age of sex with women because if you do, they will fuck guys! Later they get married and deny the whole thing!

Lesbian relationships tend to be quite chaotic. And they beat each other up more than:

• Women beat up men (least serious)
• Men beat up women (moderately serious)
• Gay men beat up men (very serious)

I found it shocking that gay men beat each other up more than straight men beat up women! Incredible. On the other hand, you put two horny testosterone-fueled monsters together and you’re asking for an explosion.

The femininity of women actually tones down male aggression because they seem weak and we feel sorry for them. In addition, a lot of us do not want to attack weak objects. A lot of men still think that is pussy behavior. I agree in a sense.

Go pick on someone your own size!

Where do you think that saying comes from?

With two lesbians, you have the usual drama + chaos of the woman without the stabilizing and frankly feared object of the masculine man to stabilize her, calm her down, and perhaps most importantly of all, to make her feel protected. Now combine this with the masculine, testosterone-mimicking behavior of the lesbian.

In fact, there are lesbians who have bailed on lesbianism altogether and married men because they say relationships with women are insane.

I knew a woman who was bisexually active but who refused to ID as bisexual because she refused to have relationships with women because she said they were crazy.

Relationships with men were much more stable to her. One lesbian said lesbian relationships drove her nuts:

You would get these long angry silences and silent treatments, sulking, and passive aggressive. What caused it? Was it something I said? Something I did? I never got a response who I was left going nuts playing a guessing game. Sometimes I figured it out and it was the pettiest little thing. Eight hours of pouting silence for that? Ridiculous!

Words don’t mean what they literally mean. They mean whatever the people who use them think they mean. However they are used, that is what they mean, in other words. Pot smokers got “paranoid.” It was generally just “panic,” not actual paranoia. Antisemites are those who hate Jews, not those who hate all Semitic-speaking people. Homophobes are those who hate, dislike homosexuals, not just those who are afraid of them, though a lot of homophobes are also frightened of gay men.

Yevgeny Prigozhin, head of Wagner PMC, was killed in a plane crash along with Dmitry Utkin, the founder of the organization. No one quite knows what happened. It couldn’t have been a bomb because planes hit with bombs break up normally. In this case, a wing tore off. There’s doesn’t seem any good evidence yet that it was shot down with AA. Of course it could have been taken down by the Nazis, but it’s hard to see how they could have pulled this off.

At the moment, the FSB is calling it a “terrorist attack.” They wouldn’t be doing that if the Russian state killed him. Just forget it.

The best analysis of the situation at the moment is that the cause of that plane crash is a complete mystery. We’ll have to keep on this into the future to see what plays out. One thing is for sure, Russian journalists won’t accept any crap from the Kremlin. Even pro-Putin journalists will blow the whistle on the state if they are lying. In that sense, Russia has far greater press freedom than the US does. You ever hear one prominent journalist call out the US government on its endless foreign policy lies? Well of course not.

I think their elections are freer too. Elections in Russia are completely fraud-free. Putin’s wins closely match pre-election polls and exit polls. Of course here in the “land of the free” the Republicans have been stealing elections with voting machines since the year 2000. The Democrats refuse to believe it because it’s “conspiracy theory.” They need to get over this fear of theirs. So even elections in Russia are vastly freer than they are here in the land of freedumb and demogogueracy.

Our press is less free than Russia’s?! Our elections are less free than Russia’s?! I’m sorry but that’s pretty damn weak because neither elections nor the media are completely free in Russia.

Not buying at all that Putin took that plane down. All he had to do was arrest him. Besides, I don’t believe that Putin offs his opponents. He’s killed a few double agents, but those were spies. All the rest of the “Putin kills” are just lies, although I am still looking into some of these deaths. And many more journalists were killed under Yeltsin than under Putin.

If Putin did this, he’s one of the stupidest people alive.

That’s basically just about every human you will ever meet in your life right there. I don’t mind people lying about personal matters, their personal lives, the personal histories, etc. That’s a very sensitive area and we all lie to ourselves all the time about that stuff anyway, otherwise we’d all be buying it with a gun. A lot of the time in life, you have to lie to yourself to keep from blowing your brains out. Now, I would say that if that’s why you’re lying, you’re doing it for a pretty good reason.

On the other hand you can go completely overboard with this too to where you believe your own lies and get angry and defensive when challenged about your own alternate facts. Some people are lying to themselves too much and much potential for growth is arrested right there because they won’t come to terms with their past, accept responsibility, and quit blaming other people.

On the other hand, with just about everything else outside of my personal life and world, I’m simply interested in the truth. What on Earth do I want to believe a bunch of things that aren’t even true! Why do any of you want to believe a bunch of crap that’s not even true? Well, people do this because they can’t handle the truth.

The truth messes up their view of the world, which is constructed not as the world is but as they wish it to be. You got that right. Hardly anyone wants to see the world for what it really is. They just about all want to believe that their little dream world is in fact the truth.

To me, that’s pussy. A man, a real man, can handle the truth about most things that are not personal. If the truth conflicts with your ideology, what does that say about your ideology? It says it’s crap, that’s what it says. Why do you want to have a crap ideology that’s not even true?

Because it makes you feel good, that’s why. Because it aligns with  your fairy tale, made-up view of the world. Now if my ideology is based on a bunch of bullshit, I don’t feel very good about that. Why should I advocate for things that aren’t even true and don’t even work? Why should I have an ideology that’s based on lies and bullshit?

My enemies claim all the time that I deliberately lie on here. Truth is I don’t.

The whole purpose of this blog is a search for the truth about our world, a search for uncomfortable truths and painful facts, to talk about things we aren’t supposed to talk about because taboos are weak, pussy, and irrational.

If my side loses, I’m going to say so. If my side is wrong, I’m going to say so. If my enemies are right or are winning, I’m going to say so. Why this makes people so uncomfortable is something I will never understand. That seems to be a child’s way of looking at the world. If the truth hurts, so be it. Fasten your belts and take it like a man.

So whenever anyone tells you that I deliberately lie on here, they’re flat out wrong. I’m never going to do that? Why should I? Because my guys are losing? Hey, in my opinion, life sucks anyway, so that’s to be expected. Because the bad guys are right and my guys are wrong? Well, if that’s so, am I even on the right side? Maybe I will switch sides and go over to the enemy if they’re right after all.

If any of you get anything out of this website, I would like it to be this. The purpose of this website is to shock you and upset your whole world and all the silly little facts you believe that aren’t even true. In that sense, I’m trying to piss you off. I am trying to make you challenge every non-personal thing you believe, to put it all up for grabs. I challenge my beliefs all the time.

Of course I have my side and the other side, well, I often see them as the enemy, correct. Nevertheless, I am throwing my views up against the enemy’s all the time. I’m often taking the enemy’s line and asking myself, “Well, are they right or what?” Then I test it against my belief, “So is what I believe true or what?” It’s a pretty painful process (often it’s excruciatingly painful!), but I don’t see why I should believe a bunch of bullshit.

Whatever the facts of our world are, they’re surely not so unpleasant as to make life here impossible and necessitate suicide. Living life properly is a matter of constantly adjusting to the facts of the world as they change around us. If you can’t do that, you’re stuck. You’re not moving. You’re not growing. You’re like everyone else. You chose the comforts of pretty lies over the grueling endurance tests of the truth.

Anyway, the truth isn’t so bad after all except it makes you an outlier because you quit believing bullshit like all the other two legged monkeys around you. But why do you want to be like them? They’re clearly idiots for believing in bullshit. Why succumb to the peer pressure of morons? Are you a moron? No? All right then. Stand on your own two feet, dammit.

What’s the matter? You too pussy to make it on your own? You’re such a wimp that you have to go along with what everyone else believes because you can’t take their rejection?

Oh boo hoo. Are you done crying?

A man stands up for what he believes in, come Hell or high water. He believes in the truth, even when it’s infuriating everyone around him. He doesn’t need other people anyway, especially if they’re idiots.

Repeat this to yourself:

These people around me are all total idiots, but I need them!

Doesn’t that sound weak and gay? How can you be proud of yourself if that’s what you believe?

A real man (or real woman) only needs themselves, like Nietzsche’s ubermensch. When you reach this point, you know you’ve risen above the herd.

This is what I want for all of you. Are you man enough (or woman enough) to handle it? If I can do it, so can you. Come on, it’s not so hard.

Here.

Our resident hebephile asked me what I thought of these girls who are famous reality TV stars in some Spanish-speaking country. They’re both 14 years old.

On first looking at her, my brain told me, “Too young!” Of course she’s attractive, and she has the body of a woman, so it looks good to me, but…there’s something wrong. I think when I was a very young man I would have found her a lot more attractive. I’m maybe half as turned on by her as I would be by a grown woman.

I see high school girls all the time and my brain tells me this about a lot of them. There’s something “wrong” with them. They’re “too small,” “too short” I think that is my brain telling me that they’re not fully grown, and indeed many are not. And at my age, a lot of them are childish as Hell, and that’s a huge turnoff.

Of course they’re hot, especially from sophomores up, and they turn me on almost as much as a woman, but at my age, I’m just not interested. They seem “way too young.” My brain says:

It’s too much of a girl.

I was certainly into girls at one period of my life, but that time has passed. Now “girl” is a turnoff. The only thing that gets me off is “woman.”

The other day I was in the coffee shop, and the shop was full of teenagers from the local high school who had gotten out early. I talked a bit to a couple of hotties in front of me, and they told me school had gotten out early. I asked them when a normal school day started and finished and compared it to my memories of when my high school started and finished.

They looked better than just about any of the other girls in the room. I realized that they must be older. I figured they were 17, maybe even 18. They must have been seniors. A friend of theirs came over and I couldn’t stop looking at her. She didn’t like that too much and looked a bit outraged. What can I say? I may be old, but I’m not dead!

Not only did they look older than the rest, but they also acted older than everyone else. So I figured they must be seniors. To me this shows that by senior year of high school, most young folks not only look like adults but they’re also acting pretty damned adult. What is this bullshit that they’re children? Nonsense! That’s a grown-up! I think this means that I’m as turned on by a 17 year old girl as I am by an adult. I’ve also noticed that at age 17 1/2 they’re even more mature and even more like an adult. They sure mature fast when they’re young!

It’s not as if we men can turn off our caveman brains. Sure we have frontal lobes that butt in and say, “Wait a minute dude! She’s not legal!” but that only goes so far and your caveman brain keeps forcing you to look at them.

Bottom line is once a girl starts looking like a woman with that curving body, big ass and tits, every man on Earth wants to fuck them, no exceptions. Our caveman brains look at them and say, “Breed it!” It’s just…you’re not supposed to do it.

The sex fascists can’t seem to figure out that thoughts and actions are two separate things. That’s called magical thinking and it shows how disordered their thinking us. A sex fascist thinks that if you look at a high school girl and think, “I want to fuck that girl!” (a perfectly normal thought), they think that that’s the same as literally having sex with her. And they want to put you in jail for illegal thoughts. You guys wonder why I hate these sex fascist scumbags.

The two seniors were talking with the new girl and a friend and I couldn’t stop looking at them fixing my coffee. They all looked about 17-18 and they were all smoking hot.

Basically they reminded me of when I was in my senior year of high school. They reminded me of some Mexican girls I used to hang out with back then.

These were the unassimilated “lowriders” who were sort of a gang but not really. They fought other gangs but not really, just fistfights. They drove souped up cars. The boys all looked sort of sad most of the time. The girls looked that way too and they wore way too much makeup. This was old-time “Chicano” culture in California.

They only hung out with each other, but for some reason, those girls took a liking to me and befriended me. They didn’t like me in a dating sort of way, more like just friends.

Anyway, I was reminiscing back to senior year in high school days when I was looking at those girls. The one kept giving me outraged looks every time I looked at her, but I was just thinking of the old days. These silly girls don’t understand men at all, do they? Didn’t their parents ever give them the,

This is what men are like! You either accept it or there’s always lesbian separatism

lecture?

Somehow I think back in my grandparents’ day (they were both born in 1900), we as a society were so much saner about this. Modern day sex fascists were probably pretty much nonexistent back then.

The other day I saw a couple of quite young boys horsing around in the back of the store. At first I thought high school freshmen, but then I thought 8th graders. I was going to ask them whether they were 8th graders, but they took off. You can generally ask teenagers questions like that if you do it right. I ask high school girls what year they are in pretty regularly, and no one seems to care. As a matter of fact, they seem delighted to tell you. Their faces light up with these beaming smiles. But the conversation seems to end there.

I wonder if these young people and the idiot sex fascists realize that when we adults are looking at teenagers, we are not necessarily thinking we want to fuck them. Well, maybe we are sometimes, but that’s not the point, and that’s perfectly normal anyway. Instead we are often just thinking that these teenagers simply remind us of our own youth, and we are reminiscing about own our adolescence way back when. If I could have talked to those boys, I would have told them, “You know, I used to horse around like that myself.”

Instead we just get looks of outrage and I guess the sex fascists want to call the cops on us or ban us from stores. But a lot of the time we are just thinking of the old days. You can’t fuck most high school girls in this state anyway, so there’s nothing to worry about. What’s wrong with looking at teenagers because they remind of us our own teen years? The sex fascists claim it’s a capital offense, but I’m just not seeing it.