Independent Left journalist in California. Aging roué, lumpen trustafarian in a shackteau, slumming it up in the barrio. Revolutionary, patriotic Leftist, Christian, liberation theology, replacement theology.
Education: BA Journalism (California State University, Long Beach, 1980), MA Linguistics (California State University, Fresno, 1994).
Politics: Green Party, Communist Party USA, Democratic Party.
Generally, topics are focused through a progressive yet heterodox lens.
Discusses race a lot – if it bugs you, don’t read. Overview of my views on race can be seen in this interview here.
I have been called a liberal race realist. Liberal race realism has been described as “a dash of race realism, positive White racial identity, the leftist view of American history, anti-racism, and a base of liberalism.”
I strongly dislike the politically correct, Cultural Marxist, Identity Politics Western New Left. I hearken back to an earlier Left that did not shy from cultural critique, particularly of backwards and reactionary cultures.
I would like to clear up my views about race and intelligence. There are presently differences in average intelligence between the races. I do argue that IQ tests are an accurate measure of intelligence.
On the Woman Question, I am an equity feminist in the Daphne Patai , Camille Paglia and Nadine Strossen mold – all’s fair in love and war. I participate in a lot of pro-woman campaigns, mostly around economic and abortion rights issues.
On the other hand, I am also a masculinist: I am a man, and I must be for myself. As a masculinist and a devoted libertine, I am opposed to gender feminism and radical feminism.
Notorious provocateur and iconoclast, smashes all party lines.
Presently channeling Andy Kaufman, Tony Clifton, Lenny Bruce, Ambrose Bierce, Mark Twain, H.L. Mencken, Kinky Friedman, Hunter S. Thompson and Wally Gator.
Shoot first!
If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

501 thoughts on “About”

  1. Your October 3, 2009 post about Wolverines and upper Midwest, interests me greatly. I am a magazine writer interested in doing a article on the Michigan Wolverine. Could you please provide me with your email and or phone to interview you concerning your research on the three possible sightings in the upper peninsula. Best,
    Mark A Werkema
    Cell 616-304-8711

    1. I have co-hosted a couple of Net radio shows. I used to get interviewed on Net radio a lot. There are a number of Net interviews with me out there on the web.
      Thanks for the question dear.

  2. What the hell happened to your website, Robert? What happened to Tulio and Xera and Narut00 arguing over black crime and IQs, and coward and Huax fighting about the size of penises?
    I swear I fucking miss those days so much.

    1. Tulio is still around. Narutoo took off. Huax and Xera were banned for being assholes lol. The site sort of went intolerant of assholes, so a lot of the assholes got banned. We put in a new policy where commenters could vote people off, and the assholes all got voted off damn fast lol.

  3. I swear Robert this website has never been slower. You need to start talking about race and shit again. Occidentinvicta is faster than you, and it used to be a child of your blog!
    Get motherfuckers pumped up Robert! Come on, say nigger, talk about white women and black rapists, do what you used to do. Don’t be lazy, grow some fucking balls and bring this motherfucker back to life!

    1. Nigger. There, I said it.
      Site is not that slow. Still pumping out lots of articles here, but a lot of my time is going into the private paid forum now. This site is going part-pay site, part-free site.

      1. I meant the commentators. There are so few comments now. Bring Narut00 and the old faggots back immediately! We need some fun Robert, what is life without a little fun? BRING THE BOARD BACK TO LIFE!
        Seriously, I cannot express in mere words how much I miss the old site. We were all happier back then. We need fun!

  4. Sir, I see based on my YouTube analytics that you have used one of my video’s, perhaps in connection with your Delphi murder posts? If so, I’d be curious to examine the context and perhaps comment on it?

  5. sir,i shared your post -https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2017/04/19/the-true-story-of-rhodesia-and-zimbabwe/ on my blog am sorry ask for permission but I was so touched by what you wrote this is my blogs name -metrodailies.com

  6. >Eva Ionesco is the youngest model ever to appear in a Playboy nude pictorial, since she was featured at age 11 in the October 1976 issue of the Italian edition of the magazine in a set by Bourboulon. In that picture, she was at a beach posing in nude exposing all female anatomy.

    >Another of her nude pictorials, in the November 1978 issue of the Spanish edition of Penthouse, was a selection of her mother’s photographs. She made also appeared on the cover page of Der Spiegel at the age of 12 completely nude.The issue was later expunged from the magazine’s records.

    What was it like living in such sexually liberal times?

    1. LOL no one cared. I can’t even remember any sort of furor about any of this bullshit. It was another era. Basically feminism, Female Rule, #metoo, rape/sexual assault paranoia for all intents and purposes didn’t even exist. And believe it or not, everyone was happy. Women never complained about any of this bullshit. People mostly just thought it was funny. Men and women liked each other and liked to fuck each other. Totally unlike this insane Feminist Hell we live in now!

  7. I think that a lot of teenage girls have sexual crushes on their fathers. Just guessing on that one.

  8. >Joseph Kuklinski was convicted of raping and murdering a 12 year old girl and then throwing her body off a building. He was in prison from October 22, 1971 until his death on September 22, 2003. He was incarcerated in the same prison as his brother Richard Kuklinski.

    >18 years after his incarceration he slipped deeply into mental illness. Most of his teeth had fallen out. He was forced to shower or bathe and did so with his clothes on.

    >Over the years he had married several men in prison, and had to have operations on his rectum because he’d been sodomized so often, so roughly.

    why are american prisons so gay?

        1. Ok she’s 11. That’s a little girl who dresses up like she’s a lot older, poses sexy, etc. In that pic, she looks a lot older, but in most pics, she looks like a little girl. LOL most 11 year old girls don’t look anything like that.

          Keep in mind that 21% of all men react to girls that age as strongly as they do to grown women! So it’s not unusual to be highly attracted to girls that age.

          No, I don’t want to fuck an 11 year old girl LOL. Girls of any age can be attractive. I have seen little 7 and 8 year old girls who were drop dead gorgeous, as hot as actresses or models. I wasn’t really sexually attracted to them, but they were definitely beautiful.

          1. Thanks. 21% of men test “pedophilic” in the lab, that is they are as turned on by little girls as they are to mature females. That’s a stunning figure! If most of these guys are highly aroused by grown women, maybe the just repress the pedophilic interest and focus on mature females. That’s what I would do if I were in that boat, but I’m not.

            Normal men are attracted to little girls at 54% of maximum, maximum being mature females. So all men are turned on by little girls, just not nearly as much as they are to grown women. Which explains why men molest little girls so much. If their interest was 5% of max instead of 54%, we would not see much molesting.

            Also if you are talking pubertal Lolitas, men are attracted to them at 83% of normal. That’s very high. So men are attracted to junior high girls almost as much as they are to grown women. It makes sense if you think about as it’s really starting to seriously look like a woman at that time, and all normal non-pedophilic men are attracted to anything that looks like a woman, probably even transvestites and transwomen.

            Straight men have sex with transvestites and transwomen all the time because to them, it’s basically a woman. A woman with a dick, sure, but that’s only a minor part of their body to most guys.

            If it looks like a woman and acts like a woman no matter how old it is or what gender it is, most men want to jump on it in a way.

            I’m not into trannies at all, but I admit I am attracted to some trannies in tranny porn if they are having sex with a woman. They have breasts, faces like women, and their bodies even some to curve. And they have very female sounding voices. Other than the dick (which is easily ignored) it’s just a woman. A woman with a dick, yeah, but the dick is something your brain tries to ignore.

    1. LOL, she’s absolutely gorgeous, that’s for sure. And her body is a bit interesting. But she’s way too young, like wayyyyy too young. That’s practically a little girl. How old is she, 12?

      If she was legal? LOL girls that age have to be illegal, at least for adults. And they are in most of the world, thank God. I think one of the few places they are legal is in the Brazilian Amazon, where it quite common for older men (30-50+) to marry girls as young as 12-13. Normally that’s illegal in Brazil, but they have this law that lets the tribes do it if it is part of their culture. It’s so weird. You go visit those tribes and there’s all these older men with these little girls. Sort of like the Yanonamo though I guess.

      Girls that age can have sex with boys their age of course if their sex drive is on. Otherwise they’re unlikely to pursue sexual relations. Little children don’t have a sex drive, despite what pedos think. Realistically, the female sex drive comes on at age 13 and in some cases at age 12. I’d say it’s quite unlikely that girls under age 12 have an actual sex drive. The only kind of sex they have is childhood sex play, which is motivated more by curiosity than by an actual sex drive.

    1. Yuck! Forget it! She looks like a little girl! I don’t care how old she is. She looks like she’s 13. Plus she has no tits at all.

        1. I dunno. I’m not sure I find any 10 year old girls all that sexy. But by 11, at least they have those long legs that I like. Some little girls are gorgeous, but sexy? I dunno about that. Little girls just aren’t real sex objects to me I guess.

    1. I’m very sorry to say that I do prefer those Whiter women in the top row. But hey, I’m White, so I tend to prefer women who look more like my people than women who look less like my people. Is that supposed to be racist or something?

    1. That’s a famous influencer. I’m not going to deny that she’s cute. A lot of young girls that age are cute as Hell. Hot? Now that’s another matter. She seems to still have that little girl face, and I don’t like that. She’s pretty damn smart for her age though, and that is an attraction. I like girls who act older like women, not younger like girls.

      Isn’t this chick 13 or so?

        1. Wow, so she’s one of these 19 year old girls who looks like a high school girl. LOL Hell yeah, I’ll fuck her. And now she’s suddenly hot and doesn’t look too young anymore either! See how facts twist our stupid opinions? If I think she’s 13, she “looks way too young for me.” But change her age to 19 and suddenly she’s not too young anymore! So she doesn’t really look too young for me at all! I just said that because I don’t want to screw a 13 year old girl! See, even I’m not logical.

          1. Yeah ok. Ok now, see. Now I wouldn’t touch her with a 10 foot poll and an 11 foot extension. But see, it’s all a matter of the label. Whatever age label you slap on em determines whether or not men will say they are hot or will touch them or not.

          2. Don’t worry it’s only natural to prefer young girls over adult women. The biological basis for this is basically that young girls have more eggs in their ovaries. Research into this stuff has been biased by our current taboos over attraction to minors. Take a look at primitive tribes out in the jungle where people are more free to do what they want. The men marry and fuck girls long before they’re 18. Most men are hebephiles and epehebophiles, not teleiophiles. I hate those categories terms btw.


          3. Just because men marry and start fucking women long before they’re 18 doesn’t mean that’s what they really prefer. And the studies are quite clear on this. Men are maximally attracted to 18-24 year old women.

          4. They prefer the girls who haven’t started having babies yet and they typical age of first pregnancy is about 16-18. So yes, they do prefer girls under 18. We see the same preference in our society in the form of teenie porn, schoolgirl image etc. Men have evolved to try and monopolise females’ reproductive lifespans and the first step in doing this is to take possession of females when they’re young and haven’t started reproducing yet.

            What studies show that men prefer 18-24yr olds? Please show me. Are they self-report surveys and willy tests in the lab? Pretty pathetic evidence.

          5. Well that may be true in their societies, but I think it’s sociological, not biological. The studies in the US are very clear that men react most highly to 18-24 year old women. I was surprised that 15-17 year old girls scored lower. Men react to them at 82% of the level that they react to 18-24 year olds, and basically 100% of men react to them. So men react to these girls at a very high level but not as high as to 18-24 year olds. That’s been proven by the studies.

            And men react a lot lower to Lolitas. Only 84% of men react to them (still the vast majority) but they react to them at 51% of the level they react to 18-24 year olds. It’s lower still for little girls. 51% of men react to little girls but only at 32% of the level that they react to 18-24 year olds.

            There are also men called “undifferentiated.” They react at a maximum level to all sorts of young females. They react maximally to little girls, Lolitas, teenage girls, and 18-24 year old women.

            Also those 18-20 year old women’s tits are starting to sag not because they’re 18-20 years old but because they’ve had a baby! 26% of men are as turned on by 12-14 year old girls as they are by adult women! They score “hebephilic” in the lab.

          6. All men have to do is to be turned on by those teenage girls to get with them and start screwing them. There’s no requirement that they prefer those girls over young women at all. Why would there be? As long as there’s a strong reaction to them (80% of max) that should be more than enough for men to try to bang them.

            They don’t have to be most preferred; they only have to be preferred at some level. Hell, men are only turned on by Lolitas at 51% of max, and look at how many grown men bang Lolis. In fact, the degree of arousal towards little girls is strong enough (32%) that researchers think that this is why regular guys have sex with little girls.

            As long as there is a significant level of arousal, men will try to bang them. Also, researchers felt that non-pedophilic straight men were having sex with girls as a substitute for women which were inaccessible for whatever reason. This is what we know about this type of molester. Wife cuts him off in bed, so he starts molesting the daughter.

            On the other hand, look at straight men’s attraction to boys and men. It’s 3-5% of max. Almost nothing. The researchers said that if men were attracted to little girls at the same level as they are to boys and men, there would probably be very little child molestation.

            They are all tests in the lab. I don’t see how you can get better than that, honestly. How can you get better than that? Further, different studies kept coming up with more or less the same findings over and over, with some variation of course. That to me implies that it’s good science. If it were a bad measure, the findings should be all over the place. Also if guys were just faking it, why on Earth would 21% of men score pedophilic and 26% of men score hebephilic? How many regular guys want to be thought of as pedophiles or hebephiles?

          7. Self-report surveys aren’t very reliable when it comes to taboo or sensitive issues like this. Attraction to minors is such a big taboo at the moment amd we can’t expect men to be truthful in their self-reporting. People lie, people say what they think they SHOULD say, and they lie to themselves. I’ve just seen you lie to yourself about not finding that girl attractive because you thought she was 13. Millions of other men do the same.

            A few years ago there was a big survey done in Finland asking men what age they find women most attractive and the answer they got was about 25. Anybody with a bit of common sense can see that they were lying. If that was true there would be a massive demand in the porn industry for 25yr olds. There isn’t. How many porn sites have you seen dedicated to 25yr old women? I’ve seen none. I’ve seen hundreds of teen porn sites, though. That’s what the market wants. For most porn actresses their careers are over by the time they’re 25 and “too old”.

            The primitive dick-meters sexologists like Blanchard like to rely on so much are probably no where near as reliable as they like to think they are. I think these sexologists are suffering a condition called physics envy. They like to imagine they have some highly scientific equipment they can take precise measurements of sexual interest they can put into graphs and equations and say “Look at me, Ma! I’m doing Real Science like physcists! Yeah!”. But all it really is just an elastic band on a man’s knob. Come on.

            We know people change their behavior when they’re being observed. In the lab men probably suppress their reaction to minors due to our stigmas surrounding it. Besides there’s a lot of real-world data that contradicts these tests such as the popularity of the teenie image in porn, crime statistics and anthropological data. And also the fact that a preference for nulliparous teen and pubescent girls is exactly what evolutionary biology predicts we would see.

          8. Yeah, they suppressed it so well that 26% of them scored hebephilic for God’s sake, and 21% of them scored pedophilic, which is way worse! If they were suppressing that stuff, they sure did a crappy job of it.

            Just from my POV, at this stage in my life, 12-14 year old girls just don’t cut it. I don’t even look at them all that much. The junior high gets out, but I don’t really look at them. They’re too “small.”

            The other day I drove by just as they were getting out of school, and I had to admit that some of them were hot. Some of them. There was one in the coffee shop the other day who was full-on hot, but that’s not typical. Anyway, I looked at her and she didn’t like that one bit! But even she was insanely young, so young I might not even be interested.

            14 year old girls don’t cut it. I see them at the coffee shop. They look like little girls! And they’re way, way, way too young. Also very nervous and insecure. And if you talk to them, a lot of them act like giggly morons.

            Even 15 year old girls don’t really cut it anymore. They’re “too small.” They’re not fully grown and fully developed, so they look like “kids” to me. Just way too young of a girl. A few look awesome, but those are the ones who are as developed as an 18 year old.

            I’m not even sure about 16 year old girls anymore. They seem really young and silly. I talked to some the other day, and they were ridiculous! Plus they looked really young. Even the ones who look great sort of remind me of little girls, and when they talk, they often act like children. They have childish interests. Some of them are smoking hot though, I will admit. And some look awesome and are also quite mature also.

            Now once we get up to 17, now we are talking. Even these look pretty damn young, but their bodies are fully developed; even better yet, they have that evolutionarily impossible and dysfunctional “skinny with curves” look that you even see on some 16 year old girls. This is because their waists have not widened enough to carry a baby yet. That waist widening occurs at ages 18-19. Before that, the waist is to small to carry a baby well, hence all the complications.

            For some reason, 17 1/2+ look the best of the 17 year olds. I’ve seen and even talked to a lot of them, and they have incredible bodies, plus they are quite mature. There’s not that much difference between a 17 1/2 year old girl and an 18 year old girl.

            So for me, I will react mostly strongly to 17 year old girls and less so all the way down the line to 13, and if you are talking 12 year old girls, I’m not even sure if there is much there, except I do look at those damned long legs!

            So I’m a refutation for the argument that men are preferentially attracted to Lolitas and teenage girls and less attracted to grown women. In that age range, I prefer 17 or better yet, 17 1/2!

            The “teen” image in porn is popular at least in my case because it’s an 18 or 19 year old girl, not so I can pretend she’s underage. In fact, there is a ton of porn using young looking actresses with captions saying she’s really underage. It’s an underage fantasy. To me that sort of wrecks it though. As soon as you say she’s underage, I don’t like it anymore.

            And also the fact that a preference for nulliparous teen and pubescent girls is exactly what evolutionary biology predicts we would see.

            Why do we need a “preference?” All we need is a strong attraction, and we have that.

            I don’t think anthropological data contradicts Blanchard, etc. Most men in other societies don’t show a strong preference for girls under 18.

          9. >They are all tests in the lab. I don’t see how you can get better than that, honestly.

            An elastic band on a man’s knob under artificial lab conditions is better than real-world data?

            You are officially retarded. Bye!

  9. A genetic study recently came out where they estimated that the age the average prehistoric conception took place when the woman was 23 years old. However, note that this is the age at AVERAGE conception, not FIRST conception.

    Anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists often use the !Kung tribe as a model for ancestral humans. In this tribe girls have their first pregnancy about 20, and so it’s been assumed by many that this was how it worked in ancestral times. I’ve criticized this many times pointing out that the !Kung don’t make the best models for ancestral people since they live in a poor habitat and the girls appear to be suffering delayed menarche because of it – they don’t have their first period until 16.

    On the other hand, Amazonian girls have menarche about 13. In the Pume tribe, girls have menarche about 12 and first pregnancy about 14. These lower ages are likely more representative of ancestral humans.

    If this study is correct and the average pregnancy in ancestral times happened at 23 then there’s basically no chance in hell ancestral girls were having menarche at 16 and first pregnancy at 20. The numbers just don’t add up, and I’ve run simulations showing this. In order to get to an average of 23, the first pregnancy must have been happening at about 15 or maybe lower. At some points in prehistory the average went down to 21 meaning that the girls were probably having their first baby at about 13.

    I’m talking to some geneticists and anthropologists about this and trying to make better simulations.

    1. >This is the AVERAGE mean number of conceptions in a woman’s lifetime, not the FIRST conception.

      Why did you change this? It originally said:

      >This is the age at AVERAGE conception, not the FIRST conception.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *