Game/PUA: Women Deal with Loneliness and Lack of Sex Better Than Men

Women can definitely deal with loneliness and lack of sex better than men can, and it’s all down to that unfathomable entity known as the female sex drive.

The thing is that while women have an extremely strong sex drive in a sense (provided someone turned it on in the first place – preferably Chad!), it differs from the male in that women can simply take sex or leave it if so desired. We are now starting to see some women say,

Damn, I need some cock!

You didn’t hear that so much in the past, but I had 18 year old girls telling me things along those lines back in 1975:

Damn I am getting so horny these days, I swear I’m going to have to shove a bottle up there.

But she had a very strong sex drive in addition to being an extreme slut, bless her whorish heart.

In men, sex is quite different. It’s like an itch that you can’t scratch when you do without it. Sure, we can always jerk off to deal with the physical problem, but that’s often not satisfactory, and it’s hard to do if you live with other people. Furthermore, masturbation doesn’t take care of the urge. Of course, in the Current Year, women masturbate like maniacs, while it seems like they didn’t use to so much back in the day – it seems we have created a society of female masturbating maniacs! God bless my depraved generation!

They do this but they need sex too. I had a female best friend who used to tell me things like,

Damn I am so horny these days, I’m just going to have to grab some guy and rape him!

And she masturbated all the time. I would be texting her and she would say:

Excuse me,  I’m going to go masturbate.

Can you imagine a woman saying such a thing?!

She’d come back in 45 minutes and say,

Damn, that was good!

On a sex subreddit called Stupid Sluts Club (highly recommended!) a young woman described how she was horny as Hell. She was masturbating all the time, but that wasn’t really cutting it, so she started having sex with her female roommate though she was basically straight.

So while things are changing somewhat, women are sadly not turning into men.

The sex drive is not so much physical in men, though the physical aspect is undeniable. For instance, a young man who does not ejaculate for a few days starts to experience actual pain in his testicles (blue balls). Women don’t seem to experience such a thing, though there have been reports of women feeling some sort of a “female blue balls” in their abdomen above the pubic area if they go without orgasm for too long.

But at least back in the day, many women were non-orgasmic or rarely orgasmic. Back then it was ~30% of women. I’d say it’s a lot less now, but there are probably still non-orgasmic women. That 30% of women at any time can be unable to reach orgasm while remaining that way for years on end implies that female blue balls is probably not a serious problem. Further, almost no males are non-orgasmic. There’s virtually no such thing.

Much more important than the physical aspect of sex is the psychological one. A man without sex has a huge hole in his life psychologically and perhaps even more importantly socially. If it goes on for years, a lot of men start to give up and become depressed, withdrawn, or rageful. We see the logical result of this in the incel phenomenon. The incels are not evil like the cucks and soyboys say. Incel behavior is simply the natural and normal consequence of what happens to large groups of men who are denied sex over a long period.

Many become depressed and withdrawn, quite a few become very angry in a seething sort of way, and a few of those become explosively violent, often resulting in serious massacres. To show it is not a unique Western problem, long-term incel Chinese men have been going on murderous rampages for a long time now, even massacring large numbers of kindergartners!

So, tl/dr: Women love sex but ultimately a lot can take it or leave it. Men have a much more insistent sex drive and cannot take or leave sex. They have to have it and if they don’t, serious psychopathology results.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Game/PUA: Just Because She’s Turned on by You Doesn’t Necessarily Mean She Wants to Have Sex with You

I get shut down pretty much all the time nowadays, especially by young women. I just got shut down a couple of times in the supermarket this evening. They don’t say no. Instead it’s nonverbal. I call it The Wall. It seems like I get the Wall all day every day sometimes. It’s really discouraging. The Wall is completely nonverbal and it says, “I am not interested in you that way, ok?” You can get a lot of different walls but they all mean the same thing.

There are places I go every day where some of the women are such cunts that they won’t even respond if I say hello and say their name. On the other hand, there are others who are pretty friendly, sometimes real friendly. But they’re all really young and I am 40 years older than they are, so I need a big green light to move on an age gap like that.

One acts flirtatious. She starts acting a lot more feminine when I start talking to her. That means either that she likes you or more probably that she’s attracted to you or turned on by you. But she is giving me The Wall as far as getting to know her in “that way.” And as I just learned the other day, at age 20, she already lives with her boyfriend.

I am sure that I turn on a fair number of women who nevertheless still don’t want to get involved with me, in this case due to age.

There was a woman in the bank who always gave me blank stares, the obvious blank stares you get from women who are turned on by you. I would come up to her window, and she would get pretty cold. I couldn’t make sense of it for the longest time. I finally decided she was fantasizing. I was 55 and she was 20 after all. She thought I looked good and she liked to look at me, but that’s as far as she wanted to take it.

It took me a while to figure out that she was just looking. I got that look in a few different ways from other young women too. Some of them actually thrust their bodies forward when they first interacted with me, obviously an involuntary purely physical turn-on. But then they would catch themselves a second or two later and correct it.

Think about it. A woman sees, what? Tens of thousands of hot men in her life. She’s going to fuck all of them? Women would fuck 100,000 men in a lifetime.

I met a 39 year old woman the other night. Literally picked her up in a corner market. I have no idea how the Hell I even did that. Got her in my car and drove to my place. Halfway there, she looks at me and says, “You know what? You’re fuckin HOT!” Well, that felt nice. I think I might have said, “Ok, let’s fuck then.” Then I got a Wall.

I got her to my place. A lot more flirtation.

I got her partly naked at different times because I’m often able to get women naked if I can at least get them in the door. I often use the “Don’t you think you need a shower?” ruse. I can’t believe how many women fall for that one or maybe they want to fall for it,if you catch my drift because it gives them an excuse: “I’m not getting naked in this guy’s house because I’m a slut. I’m getting naked in this man’s house because I need a shower!” But even then, they don’t necessarily want to fuck.

I even jump in the shower with them sometimes. I’m not sure how I do that either. They often protest in a meek way, but I just bulldoze in. They have to get  visibly angry to shut me down, otherwise “no means maybe” as far as I’m concerned.

I grabbed at her when she got part naked and she batted me away. “That’s going to cost you.” She was basically charging. Money or dope. So she was a whore.

But that’s not that unusual. An incredible number of women engage in “transactional sex.” It’s ubiquitous.

I had a naked woman wandering around my place for two hours a while back. I kept grabbing her. I figured if you don’t want me grabbing you, put some clothes on, baby! She batted me away for a couple of hours. So you can even have naked women wandering around your apartment for hours and refusing to fuck. Which is her right. But I’m also going to keep grabbing at her.

She can tell you flat to your face that you’re the hottest man alive, and she still might not want to fuck. See above. Just because you turn a woman on, doesn’t necessarily means she wants to have sex with you!

I finally figured out that sex is a pretty big deal for women, especially casual sex. So many things could go wrong and it is dangerous. Women only have a few sex partners in life. The GSS reports that the average American woman has three partners in her life. Sex is a heavy-duty decision for a woman, and it’s not taken lightly.

Unfortunately, I have to respect that. I’m no rapist.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Game/PUA: Some Very Creepy Truths about Adult-Minor Sex

I work in mental health and I specialize in people who have issues around thoughts about sex with children, etc. I’m an expert and I have people coming to me from all over the world.

First of all, no one is going to believe the facts I state are true. Trust me though: I’m right. All studies were done in the lab and have been repeatedly replicated. In fact, they’ve been replicated so many times that it seems stupid to do them again except morons keep demanding it. I guess we’ll be replicating them until the end of time then.

  1. Men are attracted to teenage girls. 100% of straight men react at very high levels, typically maximum, to females 13+. That should not be surprising to any sane person, except that in our Feminist Clown World, those men would be called pedophiles. We can call them any name we want, but we now have to call all straight men pedophiles. Are we comfortable with that?
  2. So much worse than that is the fact is that not only are straight men turned on by teenage girls who look like women, which is not surprising, but that 90-100% of straight men are even turned on by little girls under 13. More on that below.
  3. Yep, that’s right. Straight men are even turned on by little girls under 13. In general, most straight men are attracted to them at a fairly low level, less than they are to mature females, but a measurable attraction is definitely there.
  4. So much, much worse than that even is that 23% (in three studies – 21%, 23%, and 26%) of straight men test “pedophilic.” That means that 1/4 of straight men are pedophiles by our typical understanding of the term, which probably even includes DSM-5 Pedophilia, a garbage diagnosis if there ever was one. What this means is that 23% of all straight men are as attracted or more attracted to little girls under 13 as they are to mature females 13+. Crazy statistic, huh? The question arises why these men don’t run around molesting little girls. Penalties are very harsh if you get caught doing this, and almost all these men have very strong attractions to mature females, so I assume they focus on the prosocial urge and suppress or repress the antisocial pedophilic feelings. In the Current Year, tens of millions of Americans say they want to kill all the pedophiles. Well, that’s just fine. Are they prepared to execute 1/4 of the men in the US, or 25 million men? Let me know when they get those gas chambers running.
  5. Not sure if this is shocking, but .1-1% of straight men are actual, true pedophiles. They are strongly attracted to girl children and have little or no attraction to mature females, which is the only definition of pedophilia that makes sense. Nevertheless, this means there are 110,000-1.1 million full blown, real deal, scary pedophiles in the US. Once again, we say we are going to execute them. Fine. We are going to execute 100,000-1 million American men? Let me know how that goes.
Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Game/PUA: The 80/20 Rule: Anything to It?

There is a rule among Black Pillers called the 80-20 rule. Briefly, that 80% of the women are chasing the top 20% of the men. In the hard version of the rule, 20% of the men are having sex with 80% of the women.

There does seem to be something to the 80/20 rule. Let me say that I actually don’t mind the 80/20 rule because it has worked to my benefit all through my life.

First of all, the 80/20o rule, like most things in our social lives, is nothing new. It’s always been this way. When I was in high school, I decided that 10% of the guys were having sex with 90% of the girls. I didn’t do a study to confirm that. That was just my intuitive (female thinking) observation. Once again, it wasn’t true in the hard sense but it did seem to be true in some soft sense.

Later, on dating sites, studies repeatedly found that 80% of the women were chasing 20% of the men, whereas men were much less discriminate, with 100% of the men chasing 100% of the men. Typically men seemed to be chasing their looksmatches. However, 20% of the women were chasing the remaining 80% of the men. This means that women from 3-10 scale were all chasing 9-10 scale men and women from 1-2 on the scale were chasing the men from 1-8.

These studies also showed that women only found 20% of men attractive. The women in these studies said 80% of men were unattractive. Hypergamy, in other words.

I read an STD study done in a ghetto Black community. There they found that 80% of the women coming to the clinic had been infected by only 20% of the men. Most of the women were sleeping with only a small number of men, and that’s where all the STD’s were coming from. Even there, the women were monopolizing the best men.

As with the Sapir-Whorf theory, obviously there’s a lot of evidence against a hard 80-20 rule theory. On an incel site, an incel said that all of the men he knew were married. They were all 4-6 scale average looks men. I assume they got their looksmatches. So it’s not as if everyone but the Chads is screwed.

Once again pace Sapir-Whorf, a soft 80-20 rule theory makes a lot of sense if you plug it in as one more way, among so many others, to try to make sense of the Sexual Marketplace. In other words, in some odd, vague way, there is some certain degree of truth to the 80-20 rule at some level in Sexual Marketplace Theory. This theory is useful as a tool in conjunction with many other theories. If you plug them all in at once, the Sexual Marketplace will start making a lot more sense.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Game/PUA: Infatuation and Love Are the Same Thing

There’s no such thing as “just infatuation” and “real love” being two different things.  First of all, true love doesn’t exist or only exists in the exalted fantasies or delusions of women. “Real love” is nonsense, and of course it’s completely antiscientific, unfalsifiable, and even tautological.

Nevertheless it’s clear there is something called love that exists even in a scientific sense. But it’s on a continuum with something called like. Like is at one end and then as like gets stronger, eventually you get to full blown love at the other end.

The initial phase of love is something I call “wild love,” and it’s a wild ride indeed! The problem is it’s not really sustainable the same as a manic episode (which it resembles possibly in more ways than one) is not sustainable. It’s just too wild and crazy, and humans can’t sustain that sort of wild passion over the long term. If mania doesn’t end, the result is death.

Chronic mania used to exist as a psychiatric entity before the treatment era. It had its own set of rather unique symptomology. I have an old p psychiatric textbook from the 1950’s that talks about it. It apparently still occurs in some Bipolar patients and is notoriously resistant to treatment. There have been some recent case studies in the literature. They never really came down. Obviously, they died young. Death usually occurred in the mid-40’s and was typically a heart attack, natch.

No one knows what happens if wild love goes on forever because the nature of the human psyche is that wild love burns out after at most a couple of years. It’s hard to imagine someone dying of too much love, but if so, it wouldn’t be the first time. What else killed Romeo Juliet but “chronic wild love?”

Though wild love doesn’t last forever is perhaps a law of the human psyche if anything is, it can last a year or two. After that it transforms into what I call “mature love,” which is a calmer but in some ways deeper and more profound thing. Perhaps it’s all down to oxytocin and maybe high levels of oxytocin are only sustainable for a year or two. Who knows? At the end of the day,  most things human, even the most mystical and rarefied, probably boil down to simply human biology, chemicals, transmitters, and receptors, neurons, cells, atoms, and ultimately mundane molecules.

After studying the subject for several decades, it’s clear to me that infatuation is simply the early, “wild” phase of love that indeed looks like a manic episode, except that the parties are more or less sane (though wild love can be quite volatile with a lot of wild swings between love and hate). The initial phase of love, wild love, is a beautiful thing! It’s pretty crazy but it’s also one of the peak experiences one can have a human being. Be thankful if you were lucky enough to experience it. Many never do!

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Game/PUA: Nice Guy Problems with Women, with an Aside about Nice Guy Chad

I was certainly raised to be a nice guy. My Dad was in on this crap. They both taught us that happy couples never fight, which is the biggest lie on Earth. Anyway, women love fighting in relationships and they will often deliberately start fights with their men for absolutely no good reason at all other than “to test them,” which is moronic, or simply because they want to liven or spice things up, which is actually a lot dumber than even that.

What does a woman want (paraphrasing Freud)? First of all, no one knows, least of all women themselves, who are remarkably self-blinded creatures. The woman at best is ultimately unfathomable, though we are starting to get some interesting reports from MTF transsexuals or transwomen who have been both men and women hormonally and hence can report from both sides of the war.

But the nature of the woman is nevertheless to be fiendishly complex for whatever reason. Just as the nature of the man is to be rather stupidly simple.

I mean give a man a six-pack, a couch, and a football game and he’s good for the night, right? Sure, but there are so simple formulas to satisfy to convoluted object known as the woman.

But a good analysis is: The woman lives for love. Another good analysis (somewhat similar) is: The woman lives for “peak emotional experiences.”

That sounds great in theory even if its terrifying to us stoic men. The problem is that those peak emotional experiences can include negative emotions. Exhilarating negative emotions such as wild fights are after all among the most emotionally peak experiences out there.

My mother and father often said, “Do you ever see us fighting?” Well, not really, but after age 9, they fought a lot, although of course they always lied and denied it. Anyway from this bullshit lie, I was taught that if you have a good relationship with a woman, you will never really fight. Every time a woman got angry at me, I felt it was my fault and that I had failed as a man somehow. Consequently, I never really fought back. I just sat there and took it like a huge pussy.

I started fighting back against women ~10 years ago, and since then, I’ve had some of the wildest, most passionate love affairs of my life. So apparently it works to stand up to women and fight back against their shit. But men don’t want to fight back to because most men are pussywhipped, that is, they are afraid that if they fight their woman, she will cut off the pussy supply, pussy being as good as oxygen for the male psyche or emotional body if not the actual physical body, in which its effects are more trivial than anybody realizes.

It’s generally agreed that being a nice guy, like a million other things, gets in the way of getting laid. Sure, nice guys can get laid and most eventually marry if only to beta bux, but being nice is a detraction when it comes to attracting women.

The exception, of course, is Chad, as Chad tends to be the exception to all of the rules of the Sexual Marketplace. Anytime you hear someone say, “Oh don’t do that. That’s deadly when it comes to getting laid. Women hate that thing like no other!” you always have to put an asterisk by that statement that says, “with the exception of Chad.” Chad breaks all the rules because Looks trumps all for women. And that’s the essence of Black Pill right there.

Nice Guy Chad still gets laid of course. I always did, if not sooner then later. Lots of women don’t care if Chad is a nice guy. Catfishing experiments made their Chads into huge pussies, and they still got bombarded by women. Nevertheless, Nice Guy Chad still suffers from the usual nice guy problems with women. One exception I would say though is that even in the midst of these typical nice guy issues which probably see a lot of men cut off from sex after being labeled huge pussies, women keep fucking Nice Guy Chad like a human dildo machine even after they call him a pussy to his face, scream at him that he’s a faggot, etc.

It’s all down to that damned pretty face. That trumps all else, at least temporarily. I would say that the pretty face is a necessary and sufficient attribute to get laid, but it’s not good enough to sustain a relationship. Chad’s pretty face is like a drug. After a while the high wears off, and this is where you need other things – personality, money, faithfulness, love attachment, Red Pill,  masculinity – whatever. So Nice Guy Chad gets his brains fucked out for a while and is then unceremoniously and often cruelly dumped. In other words, story of my life, boyos.

The nice thing about being Nice Guy Chad though is that a new woman will always come along. If not tomorrow than definitely at some point in the future. Which is more than the incels look forward to.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: The Alt Left Position on Religion with an Emphasis on Christianity

One wonders why I put Alt Left in front of this post. I originally did not want to, as many of my posts have nothing to do with Alt Left ideology. In particular, I do not think the Alt Left should be religious or get involved in scriptural or doctrinal arguments. We are too secular at our core for that. What we are is believer-friendly!

However, as I thought about it, there’s a way to sneak this in. More on that below.

First of all, the Alt Left is probably the only section of the Left that is not objectively hostile to not just religion in general but Christianity in particular. The American Left has always been extremely hostile to Christianity, silent (to their discredit) about Judaism, one of the primitive forms of ethno-religious barbarism known to man, and lately, openly celebratory about Islam, probably the most backwards and reactionary religion on Earth. The US Left has been anti-White for a long time. The religion of the US Whites is Christianity, hence US Christianity is tainted by the sins of the fathers. Not to mention that American Christianity has never been anything close to a theology of liberation; instead it has been a backwards theology of reaction more akin to Judaism than Chrisitianity than Judaism from Day One. But that’s not why the Left hates it. The Left, frankly, hates America. America in its only proper sense means White America. Anything else is fraudulent in a historical if not sociopolitical sense. As America = Whites, the Left hates Whites. As Christianity is the religion of the of the American Whites, the Left hates Christianity, in particularly Protestantism. The Left is probably going to become more pro-Catholic as as a result of their valorization and reification of the recent Hispanic immigrants to the US.

If you are on the Left and religious, come join the Alt Left! I’d love to have a religious Alt Left faction. We have a particular fondness for Christianity because the Alt Left was founded in the US. But we don’t privelege Protestantism above Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox, especially as Protestantism in the Western Hemisphere has never been anything but reactionary.

Even more importantly, the Alt Left is the only faction on the Left that openly supports Whites, first of all, the Whites of the US but second of all, our White ancestors in the Old World. If you’re on the Left and you either love Whites or love being White, come join us in the Alt Left! We are the only Left faction that does not hate Whites!

The Alt Left supports (Eastern Orthodox) Replacement Theology because that is part of the essential doctrine of the Palestinian Christians, whom we support to hilt. We also support the Russian Eastern Orthodox doctrine of the Russian ethnic Leftist rebels in the Donbass, whatever that might be called.

The Alt Left also (Catholic) Liberation Theology, which can be boiled down to “Jesus as a leftwing revolutionary guerrilla with an AK-47.”

See especially the “Catholic Marxists” Camilo Torres, the rebel-priest and original “priest with an AK-47) founder of the ELN in Colombia, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua (particularly the rebel poet-priest Ernesto Calderon), the FMLN in El Salvador (particularly Archbishop Romero), an Irish priest who led Honduras largest guerrilla group in the 1980’s whose name eludes me, Jean-Paul Aristide of Haiti, and believe it or not, the Maoist NPA in the Philippines, which has a lot of support among local Catholic priests in the villages.

Liberation  Theology is pure “Jesusism” or Catholicism. It emphasizes “the preferential option for the poor,” in other words, it is completely in accord with Jesus’ socioeconomic message.

In addition to that we should support Eastern Orthodox Replacement Theology as the proper liberation theology for the people of Palestine to take back their country from the violent usurpation of the Jews.

As  you can see, the two main religious strains we support are Liberation Theology, a Catholic doctrine, and Replacement Theology, an Eastern Orthodox doctrine.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

PUA/Game: Statistical Alphas, Behavioral Alphas, Chads, and Behavioral Alpha and Behavioral Beta Societies

First of all, some basic definitions:

Statistical Alpha: 15-20% of males, attractive to most women most of the time for whatever reason.Probably no more than 15-20% in any society, existing or conceivable.

Behavioral Alpha: Displays “Alpha behavior.” This may vary. In some societies like the Middle East, a majority of the men probably display Alpha behavior. Not limited to 15-20% the population.

Chad: An 8-10 on the 1-10 looks scale. Often does well with women but not necessarily, as certain other variables can mess him up. Mental Chads, Shy Chads, Odd Chads, Introverted Chads, etc. can definitely have problems with women. Sure some woman usually grabs them and rapes them sooner or later, but they can have long incel periods. A Chad could very well be a virgin or an incel. In fact, on incel forums, they discuss the phenomenon of the Chadcel.

Alpha behavior is probably learned, and Alpha behaviors are best acquired early in life, hopefully by high school or at least college age.

Chads are basically genetic. There’s no reason to brag about your Looks. They’re a gift from God. You didn’t do one thing to deserve them. You just lucked out in the genetic lottery is all.

However, I do think that men do better in societies where more men are Behavioral Alphas. They do better with women and male-female relationships are a lot better. There’s not much hypergamy, there aren’t many incels, and women don’t cuck men, monopolize Chads, or marry Beta Buxxers and then shut down the pussy, etc. The men are naturally masculine and the women are naturally feminine and both sexes seem to like each just fine that way. In addition, the men seem to love women (at least they are very sexually attracted to them), and the women seem to love men.

Societies Where Most Men are Behavioral Alphas (Male Rule Outside Northern and Western Europe and the Anglosphere)

On the other hand, these are typically patriarchies, and societies with many Behavioral Alphas are not great for women, face it. Some societies where most men are behavioral Alphas include Spain (though suffering from a wild feminist insurrection and the beginnings of a soyciety, though heavily resisted by the men), Portugal, Italy (feminism failed there, though that may be changing as new reports indicate the possibility of a soyciety arising there of all places), Greece, the Balkans, and frankly Eastern Europe and the Baltics.

Russia, the Caucasus, Turkey, Arabia, Mesopotamia, the Gulf, and the Levant. North Africa too. Of course we must include all of Black Africa. All of Latin America obviously. Micronesia, Melanesia, Polynesia. Central Asia and South Asia – Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and even India and Nepal. The Stans. I actually think SE Asian men are behaviorally Alpha. And traditional Korean, Japanese and Chinese societies were very behaviorally Alpha, and the older men still are.

Cucked Soycieties Where Most Men Are No Longer Behavioral Alphas (Behavioral Beta Soycieties under Female Rule in the West)

The soycieties where the men are no longer mostly behaviorally Alpha and have become behaviorally Beta are obviously most of the West as in Western Europe, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Asians in the West, especially in the US. These are really the only places where Female Rule (Feminist Rule) has been implemented, though the infection is spreading, not diminishing, and the target is the whole world, as it is with all totalizing ideologies.

The result of Female Rule is an extreme reduction in:

  • Behavioral Alphas.
  • Sex for young single men.
  • Patriarchy.

Obviously all three of these are related.

The latter is often replaced by the rise of an oppressive matriarchy in its place. Why? Because in society just as in the home, someone has to wear the pants. If the women take the pants off the men, they won’t throw them in the corner or burn them as they probably should. They put them on themselves, turn into men, and turn the men into women.

Basic heterosexual behavior always exists. If the norm is toppled, the inverse simply takes its place. Someone’s got to rule and someone’s got to be ruled. Pure equality among the sexes is obviously not possible. Even Gloria Steinem admitted that!

What’s true among the sexes is probably true for society too, as basic sexual behavior is probably mirrored in some odd way in our sociopolitical world. There’s no escaping sex. It never ends, even in your 80’s.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

America’s (False) Honesty Fetish: A Product of Our Christian Heritage?

We’re all coping all the time. We cope our way through life, lying like fools the whole time, and not caring a whit. Success in life is based on deception, mostly to oneself but also to others.

I like the attitude of the Japanese towards this. If you tell a Japanese men, preferably one over 40, that you never lie, he will laugh right in your face, call you an idiot, and walk away. To the Japanese, nothing is dumber than pathological honestly.

I think America, or Gentile America anyway (not so sure about (((America)))) seems to have a huge honestly fetish. I tell this vignette to Americans all the time, and all I get is cope. I also tell Americans that you have to lie sometimes in life. After that, I get a load more of cope. Usually of the “I cannot tell a lie” bullshit, which is obviously itself a lie. To lie is human. To be pathologically honest, I think one might have to be an actual computer. Sure a computer could be programmed to never lie. The thing’s as dumb as a rock. It only knows whatever we told it. It can’t know anything else.

Of course we could discuss Kant’s Categorical Imperative, but that’s more of a thought exercise than an actual possibility in life.

I think America’s pathological honestly fetish, which probably isn’t even as real as it claims to be because most if not all who claim to be pathologically honest are lying right there, must be down to our Christian heritage. Not Judeo-Christian heritage.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: The Notion of “Judeo-Christianity” Is Probably a Fraud

Who the Hell stuck that Judeo- in front of my great Christian religion anyway? Not trying to diss on Judaism here, but face it, it’s not much like Christianity even if one was birthed from the other, and Christianity at its absolutely core is nothing but Reform Judaism, sort of the ultimate in Reform Judaism, so reformed it’s barely even or not at all Jewish anymore.

People argue that Christianity is the Old Testament too, but that’s another feint because if you understand Christianity, you realize that when Jesus came, he replaced Judaism and the Old Testament at the same time. Jesus freed us from the Law. We no longer had to live under the Law. Hence, the Old Testament was essentially null and void, good as a historical document but for little else. Even the Old Testament and New Testament Gods are completely different. This is of course known as Replacement Theology.

(((Some people))) like to go on about how Replacement Theology is antisemitic doctrine, but the more you think about it, the more obvious it is that Christianity itself is Replacement Theology, so if the latter is antisemitic then the Christian religion itself is antisemitic. Which is what a lot of (((folks))) say anyway. Briefly, Jesus came, the Old Testament and the Law were replacement by the New Testament and what can only be called Mercy. At the same time, the Jewish birthright to Israel was cancelled, as the (Christian) Church was the new Israel.

The Catholics seem to understand this best of all. I attended Catholic Mass for a while when I lived in this new town. All of the lessons were about the New Testament. They never talked about anything else. If I had to describe Catholicism, I would call it “Jesusism” or “New Testamentism.” It’s the Protestants who regress to the Old Testament which doesn’t make much sense as they were supposed to be the reformers.

On the other hand, they were also back to the basics, and I suppose if you go back far enough, the Old Testament was important to the early Christians, especially since for the first 100 years, Christianity was little more than a very odd Jewish sect. In fact, one of the major religious debates of the time was whether a non-Jew could even be a Christian. For decades, one had to be a Jew in order to become a Christian in the first place. So in that sense perhaps Protestantism is like Sunnism, another back to the basics doctrine though not necessarily born of an Islamic reform movement against a staid and corrupt Islam.

On the other hand, Shia Islam always struck me as more like Catholicism, with the rule of the mullahs (the Pope and the Vatican) whose job it is to continuously reinterpret Islam to keep it updated to the current era. Which is exactly what Catholicism does and is also why the only true Christian fundamentalism is always Protestant as much as Catholic-hating Protestants love to holler that this is wrong. It’s hard to imagine what a Catholic fundamentalism would look like. Sure there are the orders and the pre-Vatican II (1964) Catholics, but even Vatican I was quite an advance. Show me any Catholics who want to go back to 60 AD. None do other than the Eastern Orthodox and they’re not so much fundamentalists as people who are practicing an ancient but rather progressive religion.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Christianity Seems to Proscribe Lying, but Judaism Seems to Permit It Guiltlessly

What I’m saying here is that Christian cultures seem to think that lying is a terrible sin and one should always or usually be honest.

In contrast, Hinduism says no such thing and in fact seems to venerate lying as a fine art or even a religious virtue.

The art of lying in Islam when there is a threat to the Muslims is well known.

Sects such as the Druze, the Yezidis, and the Alawi have long prescribed lying if doing so prevents harm to the believers. In general, those religions tend to pretend that they are Muslims. The Alawi actually are Muslims, but a lot of Sunnis don’t buy it. The Druze and Yezidis just say they’re Muslims so they don’t get killed. The Mandeans were much the same.

Of course if you read the Jewish books, this lying for self-preservation is endlessly repeated almost as if it were a ritual in its own right. Jews have always seemed to me to be much more prone to dishonestly than Christians. I’ve long thought that Judaism must allow them to lie with little guilt. If you read Jews Must Live!* (1936) about an Orthodox Jewish family, the entire family engages in such pervasive lying that it causes very serious problems to the point where they could hardly tell when someone was telling the truth or lying and the household is in chaos with much drama, hollering, arguing, fighting, and kvetching most of time.

The latter state simply describes the typical Jewish family. The pathological lying I’m not so sure about. In any case, when you are in a household where people lie so freely and loosely that you can hardly tell when someone is lying or telling the truth, you are truly in an Existential Hell, I would argue. But it’s not that different 2020 Late Capitalist USA, come to think of it, so maybe it’s more livable than I thought.

*Like most all books written by Jews that tell the truth about Jews, of course Jews really hate this book and insist that this man, who wrote a book in part about pathologically lying Jews, is, natch, a pathological liar himself! But you saw that one coming, didn’t you, dear readers?

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Game/PUA: Fake It Til You Make It

The Red Pill and PUA sites deny this, but I think it is true nonetheless. They claim that women can tell if a man is faking it or not, and there is a difference between, say, faking confidence and actually being confident.

That strikes me mostly as an affectation, a defense, and of course ultimately a cope, as so many things in life are when you get right down to it. I think they may have a bit of a point, but I think the effect size is probably pretty small.

For instance, I think of myself as a confident guy, but when I examine myself when I am in that situation, it’s clear that a lot of the time, I really don’t believe it and I’m covering up for some pretty massive insecurity way back there somewhere. So I try to get my head into a place where I don’t feel like I’m faking it. I feel like I’m just doing it and believing all the crazy lies that I tell myself about myself. If I don’t fully believe it, it does feel a bit off, at least to me. I’m not sure if anyone can tell, but it bothers me on some level, so I try not to feel that way.

My view:

If you think you’re confident, you’re confident. This one is a bit up in the air but perhaps not as much as we think it is. No insecure person thinks they’re confident. Of course we may have different definitions of confident. A long time ago, I thought I was fairly confident, but then extroverts would make friends with me and tell me that I lacked confidence.

I think they were just commenting on my introversion. Introversion and lack of confidence are not necessarily the same thing but of course extroverts confuse the two horribly because, well, because they’re extroverts and that’s what extroverts do. Some introverts are fairly confident in their odd way, often surprisingly confident for their introversion.

If you think you’re masculine, you’re masculine. This one seems like it is absolutely true. If you put the idea in your head that you’re a masculine guy, you simply automatically start acting more masculine right then and there. There’s no way that an effeminate, faggoty man is going to tell anyone that he’s masculine. I don’t think even wimpy men think they are masculine.

There are straight men who are “soft” but not effeminate. I call these men feminine rather than effeminate (acting like a woman). I’ve known a number of men like this. Some were good friends. As a general rule, they freely admitted that they were not particularly masculine, often laughing softly when they said it. And of course it caused problems in their relationships with women. I remember one friend who told me that a girlfriend used to hit him in a rather playfully but nevertheless in a frustrated way, telling him to act more like a man. He always laughed nervously and told her, “I can’t.”

But getting down to brass tacks, if you’re trying to do it, you’re doing it. I’m not sure anyone cares if you are “really doing it for reals” or “just faking it lol.”

Fake it til you make it, that’s the motto of life.

Who the Hell says women can even tell the difference? Women like Alpha behavior. I doubt if they have the slightest clue about what’s “real” Alpha behavior and what’s “fake” Alpha behavior, and I doubt if they even give a damn. No one cares what you are “really” like deep down inside. All they care about is that shiny exterior with all those fancy bells and whistles.

Life is all about surface appearances, bullshit, and lies and not about inner truths, deeper structures, or the ugly truth.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Game/PUA: The Primary Goal of a Woman’s Life: To Achieve Love and to Be in Love

Women always talk about wanting “commitment.” But women are hardly honest about a single thing they say in the Gender Wars. There’s too much at stake.

Dated a lot of women and I’ve hardly met one who cared about commitment. Don’t think it was ever mentioned to me once. But one thing I noticed over and over was that the most important thing in the relationship to the woman was love – that she was in love with me.

Beyond that and interacting with many women over the years, it’s obvious that the primary female drive is for love. They often idealize this is preposterous ways that never make any sense:

Woman: “That’s not true love…that’s not real love…that’s not love, that’s infatuation, etc.”

Me: “What’s not true love?”

Woman: 100 million completely arbitrary, idiotic, unfalsifiable, often tautological, and completely unscientific notions, such as, “True love is for life,” and other nonsense.

There’s a good reason for most of women’s ridiculous and irrational behavior, and the good reason behind this is that women dislike the idea of love being trivialized.

Why? Because several decades of studying women have shown me that the primary female drive is for love. In a sense, this is what their whole life is wrapped up in. Sure, they have all these other things, career and whatnot, going on, but all of that pales compared to the primary drive or goal of a woman’s life: to achieve love and to be in love.

Even with women (18-28) who say they don’t know what love is or they’ve never experienced love, the primary drive for love is there. These often young women are confused because they think they have not experienced real love yet.

Having been involved with some young women like that recently who were obviously crazy in love with me for a while (but then of course denied it later), it was clear that they simply had not developed a schema of what love was that they could plug their feelings into.

Also, I think they were looking for the fireworks, sparks, and “Hollywood love affair of the century” notion of love, and most love isn’t really that intense. They fall in love, but it’s not the explosions and fireworks kind they expect, so they say it’s not love. They’re wrong of course, but women are wrong about a million things.

Some seek refuge in a ridiculous concept called Aromanticism. I had a female best friend who insisted she was aromantic. Studying the concept, I decided she could not possibly be one, plus the whole concept was a bit silly they way it was laid out.
Supposedly there are all these folks out there who desperately want love, but they have a genetic or biological inability to fall in love which prevents them from doing so. That’s nonsense. There are no such people.

Real aromantics are just cold fish who have chosen to not experience love because, well, because they’re cold fish! It’s a disorder of choice like so of these stupid new Millennial identities, most of which don’t even exist in any real way.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Madeline McCain Murder Mystery Solved!

The Germans nailed him. I wonder how they got him? And yes, this guy is definitely a pedophile. His sex drive is all wrapped up in sex with and torture of little girls. Looks like he killed Madeline for sure as her actual murder or dead body is probably on those tapes. And it looks like he killed another little girl in Germany. And who knows if he killed any more than that? What’s with the little girls’ swimsuits in his van?!

The fact that he brutally beat and raped a 72 year old woman doesn’t mean he’s not a pedophile. Most pedophiles are certainly capable of having sex with adults. It’s just not what they prefer.

Christian Bruckerman is what is known as a misophile. Misophiles are Sadistic Child Molesters, typically also pedophiles, and they make up 5% of the pedophile population. Obviously they are the most dangerous pedophiles of all and are particularly prone to the abduction of child strangers.

And they can absolutely commit homicide in addition to rape, beating, and torture, either as part of the general sadistic fantasy cumulating in death or as a way of getting rid of evidence by eliminating the victim of the crime. If they don’t kill the kid, the kid is obviously going to talk, and they don’t want that.

There are several different types of child molesters, 83% of whom are not pedophiles at all. Instead they’re just criminals. These men typically molest in the family and the molestation often goes along with verbal and physical abuse. These types are no more aroused by children than any of the rest of us are. They simply pick on their child female relatives as easy targets for their power and control games. I am not sure what the name for this type of child molester is or if they even have a name.

The true Pedophile or Pedophilic Child Molester with a strong attraction to children but little or none to mature persons is only one of four types of child molester and they are not the most common type at all. However, they do tend to rack up a high number of victims whereas with the type above, they are limited to female children in their families, and there are usually not many of those.

This type will never seek out strangers to molest while the pedophile prefers this method. Not all pedophiles molest children, but if you follow convicted pedophiles over a 25 year period, 50% of them will molest another child.

Some pedophiles, an unknown percentage, restrict themselves to porn and masturbation to meet their sexual needs. There are probably more pedophiles like this than we think. All pedophiles probably need to be under the care of an understanding therapist in order to keep themselves from offending and molesting kids.

The worse you treat pedophiles, the more you shower them with hatred, harassment, threats, and abuse, the more likely they are to regress and offend. Therefore, non-offending pedophiles should be treated with kindness, though you might want to keep them away from your kids.

Their homes are often decorated with children’s toys and games and they tend to have kids over at their house a lot due to all the fun things he provides for them to play with. They move around a lot and if you study their residence history, they often moved out under a cloud of suspicion of molesting local children. When the heat gets too hot, they simply leave town. They commonly move overseas, often because it is easy to molest children over there. Many seek out jobs where they will have contact with children.

5% of rapists are classed as Sadistic Rapists. These rapists, like the misophiles, are the most dangerous of all. Like the misophiles, they are absolutely capable of murder either as part of the general sadistic fantasy or to kill the victim in order to get rid of evidence (a victim). Probably most of the homicides are sadistic in nature. Most if not all rapist-murderer serial killers fit into this type.

The 95% are believe it or not not sadists, though they can certainly be violent.

This includes the Rage Rapist who has serious anger and hatred towards women as a motivation for rape. The Power Reassurance Rapist or “Gentleman Rapist” is another type. He is often nonviolent, may apologize to the woman afterwards and may even feel guilty in the period after the time. He rapes to reassure himself that he is a man as he has serious issues with his own masculinity and manhood.

The Power Reassurance Rapist is typically nonviolent and never kills. The Rage Rapist usually does not kill his victims but he may beat them due to his anger. Homicide does occur sometimes if the beating goes too far or more commonly if they victim fights back, stimulating his rage even further.

There is another Power-type Rapist whose name eludes me at the moment. Unlike the Power Reassurance Rapist, he does not suffer from issues with his manhood. Instead he is typically a hypermasculine or “macho” man. The motivation is power nonetheless.

Rapist type     Rape motivations 

Power-type      Power, Reassurance of Masculinity,
                Hypermasculinity/Machismo

Rage            Rage, Anger, and Hatred of Women

Sadistic        Erotic Sadism, Aroused by Sexual 
                Violence
Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

The Confession of Russell Williams, Serial Killer

This guy was a pilot in the Canadian Air Force, a family man wit a wife and kids. But he had his kinks or his paraphilias. He liked to dress up in women’s clothes. He stole women’s panties. And he was a prolific voyeur who specialized in spying on women in their hotel rooms.

He was also a serial killer who murdered at least three women. Interesting video shows a superb interrogator who got this man to confess somehow.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Even Ghetto Blacks Are Not Doomed to Uniformly Bad Behavior

Polar Bear: Blacks on the other hand will steal your cheap plastic lawn chair. Blacks are always up to no good on my block.

I have a feeling this is more universal than we think. I was talking to a Brazilian woman I knew well. I told her,

“You don’t want to be racist against Blacks, but it’s hard.”

Meaning it’s hard for obvious reasons. She immediately commiserated and said,

Yes, it’s hard. Here in Brazil, we have a saying about Blacks. “If they don’t steal from you when they’re coming, they steal from you when they’re going.” (obviously in Portuguese).

In other words, “If they don’t steal from you when they come in, they steal from you when they leave.”

They don’t really act all that bad around here in my city except that they are ghetto as Hell. I made friends with one older Black man though. He hated Whites but I was able to get through to him. Later he saw me with a hot 23 year old part-Black woman, so now he probably likes me even more.

We just don’t have many Blacks in this town, period. Hence they cause few problems, and they tend to keep their heads down because they don’t have any numbers, which is what they ought to do anyway. When you only have a small % of Blacks in a city, they tend to act pretty good, mostly because they simply don’t have any numbers. They still cause problems. Blacks like that always cause problems. But they don’t cause mayhem like they do when they have larger numbers, and the difference between problems and mayhem is all the difference in the world.

Further, they are surrounded by Whites and Hispanics who almost always act better than they do. To their credit, these typically ghetto Blacks imitate the Whites and Hispanics around them and act a lot better.

A lot of them still act like shit but still act a lot less shitty than they ordinarily would. They’re still antisocial but they are antisocial in petty, neighborly ways and not in serious criminal ways. Like always asking to borrow money and then you never see the money again. They see you with an expensive object and they “request” that you give it to them. Just typical ghetto nig shit, but they won’t menace you if you don’t fork over your property, and you can always quit loaning them money.

All the young women in their 20’s have at least one kid, obviously with no man in sight. However, these basically ghetto women are quite well behaved.

Also around here the better behaved Blacks dislike the more ghetto ones like I just described. So there are varying degrees of morality even among a hardcore Black population.

In addition, the Whites and Hispanics simply will not put up with any shit at all from these ghetto Blacks. They call these Blacks on their tiniest antisocial bullshit, so that tends to nip the usually mandatory escalation in the bud. I have often thought that if these ghetto Blacks around here were living in a Black ghetto, they would act a lot worse.

It’s so obvious to me that even ghetto Blacks are not doomed to any particular behavior level. It’s also painfully clear to me that their own kind not only serve as horrific role models but also don’t call these Blacks on much of any of their antisocial bullshit. They don’t call them on the little stuff, and they probably don’t call them on the bigger stuff.

Humans aren’t stupid. They’ll get away with just about whatever the Hell you let them get away with. White people act quite good, but we aren’t angels, and every White community has its scumfucks. We are only human after all. Living in White communities my whole life, I was told and learned the hard way that (White) people will get away with just about whatever you let them get away with. So this isn’t a ghetto Black thing. It’s a human thing.

The behavior of even ghetto Blacks can be markedly improved.

First of all, they need to be a minority, preferably under 25%. 25% Black seems to be a tipping point in many cities, after which things start to go seriously to Hell in a handbasket. Below 25% Black, you can look at the statistics of various pathologies, and they don’t rise that much from 5 – 10 – 15 – 20% Black. The city remains more or less livable.

But somewhere between 20-30%, most cities tip over. What follows is probably White flight, usually slow rather than fast, and worse than that is that the decently behaved Blacks (of which there are many – many millions!) start taking off too. Well-behaved Blacks aren’t stupid. They’re not going to sit around in some ghettoizing shithole due to racial solidarity. Sanity and safety trumps racial consciousness any day of the week.

This does not apply to wealthy Black areas like Ladera Heights in Los Angeles, and it probably doesn’t apply to small Black towns in the South where a remarkably decent authentic Black culture is often present.

Second of all, the small population of Blacks needs to be a part of a better behaved larger population, preferably White, Hispanic, or Asian. Ghetto Blacks act remarkably better even in majority-Hispanic cities because Hispanic pathologies are much exaggerated and they act better than most people think.

Third, the larger population needs to call these ghetto Blacks on their antisocial shit, starting with the most petty neighborly BS. Just shut it down before it even starts. Either due to this or due to the general environment, the better behaved Blacks start shutting down the bad actors too. People, even supposedly irredeemable ghetto Blacks, do respond to harsh correction at the societal level.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

The Black Race and Impulsiveness and Ability to Delay Gratification

RL: “Poor impulse control. It’s been documented and it’s genetic.. 6 year old children. Pure genetics.”

TJF: At age 6, environment could very easily guide one’s behavior. In reference to Alpha’s comment I’d like to see a study with children who have an engaged paternal figure versus those who do not. I’ve seen people dismiss the out of wedlock birthrates among Black Americans comparing the similar out of wedlock birth rates in Iceland and Sweden, but those societies are substantially different (markedly more socialist), and the birth fathers may be heavily engaged, but the parents are not married.

With that said I get the impression that clear consistent guidance is probably even more required / beneficial in Black Americans than Whites (albeit any child would benefit).

It’s been replicated over and over. The first tests were done in the South. They were worried it was environmental, so they took it to the Caribbean. Same result. They didn’t believe the results, so they kept doing the tests over and over. Eventually they had done the tests so many times that they got sick of trying to replicate them and they quit doing them.

You now have to argue that Caribbean Black and US Southern Black culture are the same in producing this odd effect. If it’s cultural, that means they have the same culture. But is that true? Caribbean Black culture is the same as US Black culture? Why would that be? And why doesn’t that play into the “niggers are the same everywhere” argument used by the racists? Also and more importantly, if they’re the same everywhere due to biology or due to culture, what difference does it make? Who cares! You still have a group of people who have problems with delaying gratification, and that’s a problem in a modern society.

Also let us look at this from another POV. One idea is the tests are simply wrong. Does the Black race on average seem to have a harder time delaying gratification than other races? Just look around you at how Black children and adults act. I taught Black kids for years. Of course it’s true, but by the time they are 16-18, most of that behavior is gone because the ones who could not delay gratification are all dropped out, on the streets, in jail or juvey, or probation or parole, or dead.

Look at the behavior of ghetto type Blacks. So much of the pathology seems to be so directly related to this inability to delay gratification. It’s as clear as air.

I’m not some racist out to hate Blacks and write them off as some failed race. At this point in history, I’m not sure how much it matters how they act. We are now in the era of genetic splicing and CRISPr technology. Genetically designed humans may not be too far away. Do we really need to be so concerned about what various races bring to the table genetically?

How about something else? How about a pill? I don’t like the idea of mandating meds for people who are not mentally ill and most pathological Blacks are not disordered at all. They’re not crazy. They’re just bad. We obviously don’t have a morality pill yet (but one can dream!) but suppose we found a pill that let you delay gratification? That enabled you to be less impulsive, which in my opinion is another terrible problem with the Black race.

I don’t see how we can force people to take it, but we could always offer it on a voluntary basis. A lot of Blacks are probably sick and tired of their impulsiveness and inability to delay gratification screwing up their lives. This might be especially true in Black men over 30-35. Maybe they’re angry because they can’t seem to control themselves, and this keeps ruining their lives. Suppose we say, “Here’s a pill to help you be less impulsive so you don’t get into trouble so much.” I think there would be some Blacks, especially Black men, who would gladly take it.

This goes beyond race. Obviously impulsiveness and inability to display gratification are human qualities, not Black qualities. Blacks simply display these all too human qualities in greater percentages. Speaking of pills, we could offer such a pill to anyone of any race who had problems with delayed gratification and impulsiveness. I’m  quite sure there are Whites who  have these problems. And I know there are Hispanics with these problems. IQ does seem to be an attenuating factor. As IQ rises, impulsiveness and inability to delay gratification seem to go down and vice versa.

I had a neighbor Hispanic, a young man who was gang affiliated, who used to hang out over here all the time. Mostly we just smoked pot. He literally could not think beyond one or two days in the future. He would get some money and it would melt in his hands in a day or two, no matter how much. Then he would be standing there dumbfounded, acting like,”Whoa! Where did all the money go? Duhhhh.”

I kept talking to him but he literally could not think beyond 24-48 hours into the future, so it was worthless. I had no idea what his IQ was. Surely in the 80’s.

He sure could rap though. I heard him rap a few times and  the guy was a flat out genius. With an IQ of 85. I’m not sure you need a real high IQ to master verbal memory, which is the skill being utilized in rap.

So these sort of interventions would go beyond being “Black things” into being “human things.”

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

How Straight Men Use the Words Fag and Faggot

Any of you snowflakes out there who might get triggered by this post and need another three months of therapy and hugs, please bail out right now. I don’t want your trauma on my conscience.

Faggot. This is a mean word. It’s said with this savage bite. You could almost feel the hate. Faggot is still used that way, but you don’t hear it much because it’s seen as a slur.  But now it has a new meaning. Faggots are just (male) idiots, fucktards, dumbasses, dumbshits, fools, morons, and other pinheads. It has nothing to do with gay men!

Fag. Often simply a descriptive tern for gay men. It could be negative, neutral, or positive depending on tone. People want one word for gay men, and “gay men” is two words. Fag is not used this way so much anymore because now it’s now a slur. Fag is mostly used by straight men towards other straight men! Fag means pussy, wussy, girlyman, cuck, soyboy, etc. It’s used towards male feminists, men who have declared war on the men. We call them those names to insult them to get them back on our side. Because calling a straight man unmasculine is the ultimate insult. We ain’t talking about you!

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: An Analysis of the Armenian and Greek Genocides in Anatolia in 1915-1923: The Truth of the Events and Number of Victims

From 1915-1923, a few massacres were committed against the Christians of Anatolia. There were three genocides: an Armenian genocide, an Assyrian genocide, and a Greek genocide.

I just did a significant amount of research on the events and numbers around these events. I did it because Turks on the Internet were claiming that Armenians started the fighting by slaughtering Turks.

There were also posts from Turks talking how if things got bad in Turkey, Armenians and Greeks would start slaughtering Turks. I work in mental health, and this is clear and naked projection. They’re accusing Armenians and Greeks of doing to Turks everything the Turks did to the Armenians and Greeks. Most Turks on the Net absolutely hate Armenians and use the word “Armenian” to mean something like “the worst enemies of the Turkish people ever.”

So I did some basic research on the events. I was especially confused by the Turkish claims that these events started when  Armenians in Anatolia started massacring Turks, and Turks were just fighting back. Were they right? Of course I had always believed the Armenian side of the story, but what if they were wrong and the Turks were right? As I am extremely open-minded person (far more open-minded than most people), I had to find out.

First, the numbers. They’re wrong. Way off, all of them. The official figures run from 700,000 to 1.8 million. Simply by adding up all of the totals listed on Wikipedia, I got 2.5 million Armenian victims of the Turks in this period.

Now, I did include some massacres that occurred before the actual genocide because I felt that they were all part of some larger event, a slo-mo Armenian genocide that lasted from 1880-1923. I believe there was a slaughter of 300,000 in the 1880’s amidst similar Turkish recriminations as I outlined above: “The Armenians were killing our people, so we had to fight back.” And possibly another with 25,000 number of victims around 1908. And the killings absolutely extended to into the 1920’s until 1923.

I had previously thought that there were 40,000 Turkish civilians killed by Armenians in retaliation, but now I cannot find that data. What I did find what that Russian Cossaks killed 45,000 Turkish civilians in a Turkish river valley in 1916.

2.5 million Armenian civilians killed by Turks (as aggression).

0? Turkish civilians killed by Armenians (as retaliation).

I also checked on the Turkish claim that Armenians started it. No, they didn’t. Incidentally, it seems like most of the genocide occurred in maybe a couple of years – 1915-1916. The rest of the years were more like window dressing.

The Turks claimed that Armenians killed Turkish soldiers when Russia invaded Turkey in the east in 1914. This is correct. There were quite a few Armenians in that force. These were Armenian volunteer battalions that also included Assyrians and Greeks. They numbered 40,000.

They had been treated terribly by the Ottomans over centuries of land, food, and business theft, beatings, jailings, tortures, murders, pogroms, and massacres. So these were Christians living in Russia who were out for some paybacks due to Ottoman crimes. I had previously thought that Turkish civilians were killed in this battle, but now I can’t find any data.

This was during a battle in late 1914 in which the Turks were beaten badly by a Russian invading force in the East. The Turks blamed the Armenians for their loss in the battle, but the real cause was that the Turks fought the battle very poorly, and the Russians fought it in a much smarter way. It was a fair fight.

The loss of this battle was humiliating for the Turks, and they quickly accused Armenians in Anatolia of stabbing them in the back and causing their defeat.

This is exactly  what Hitler said about Jews that set off the Holocaust – that German Jews had stabbed Germany in the back, causing it to lose the war. It wasn’t true and neither was the Turkish claim, but it worked. Turks quickly demonized Armenians and other Christians in Turkey and scapegoated them. Which is once again exactly what the Nazis did to Jews.

The Turks used the paranoia set off by this event to set off the genocide of the Armenians (and Assyrians and Greeks) in Anatolia on the grounds that they were some sort of infidel 5th Column in wartime and hence were dangerous traitors. There’s not a lot of evidence that this was true.

These massacres were committed by the Russian Army, not the Armenians of Turkey, and neither is there evidence that the Armenians sympathized with the invaders. Interestingly, around this time, many Turkish Armenians became patriots and either joined or tried to join the Turkish Army to fight the invaders. This is left out of many accounts.

I also looked into the Greek genocide and got a figure of 715,000, larger than most estimates. Greek retaliation killings were only 15,000, and all occurred years after the initial slaughter of the Greeks.

715,000 Greeks killed by Turks (as aggression).

15,000 Turkish civilians killed by Greeks (in retaliation).

Which number is bigger? Which represents the much larger crime?

I haven’t gotten to the Assyrian genocide yet, figures of which seem to be between the Greek and Armenian numbers.

Maybe in an upcoming post

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Game/PUA: SJWism Is Based on Female Thinking

Really all SJWism is based on female thinking. I believe I read this somewhere else but I’m not sure how well it clicked with me at the time. But now that I understand women so much better, I finally get it. Of course SJWism is female thinking. Of course Identity Politics is female thinking.

Hence, all IP and of course all SJWism is pussy, and real men should not indulge in this pussy crap. That goes for Men’s Rights too. Men’s Rights is often based on female thinking, so it’s a pussy movement. The best Men’s Rights Movement would employ cold, hard logic and scientific thinking to promote the cause of men. This is no problem because logic is in our favor.

We are just too afraid to use it because once you go logical, you don’t get to play black and white, good and bad, good versus evil, the same splitting game that all IP movements play. In other words you have to play fair.

Ever tried to argue fairly with a typical fucktard human?

It’s based on emotional logic and it has the contempt for science and logic as tools the strong use against the weak, which is precisely how women see science and logic, neither of which they have much use for. SJW’s see themselves are completely weak and their enemies as completely strong. This is just the way female thinking works. According to female thinking, women are weak and men are strong and therefore, women get to break all the rules or follow no rules at all simply on account of being weak.

They are correct that the only way a weak party has a chance in a fight is if they fight dirty. Only the strong can afford to fight by the rules, which is why they always insist on rule-based fights. In a rule-based fight, the strong party always wins. Weak parties are smart enough to realize that if they play by the rules, they lose, so they all tend to fight dirty.

Women are weak and men are strong. Women realize that on a fair playing field, we will kick their asses in no time. So women don’t fall for the “let’s play by the rules” game that men set up for fights. And women believe that since they are weak, they have a right to fight dirty because all parties to a fight must appear to be on equal grounds. In  fact, according to women, men demanding rules for fighting is profoundly unfair itself because it will result in men always winning and women always losing.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Being Dumb Isn’t the Problem; Being Dangerous Dumb or Dangerously Ignorant Is

I don’t hate lower IQ people. A lot of the people I hate have high IQ’s too. I hate stupid people. Stupid people who don’t think properly. It’s more like ignorance and what I call a “dangerously stupid” attitude. By ignorant I mean it is completely opposed to science and driven more my mass hysteria and emotional societal panics.

Being stupid is one thing. If you are just stupid but you are not dangerously stupid so you might harm me, I don’t hate you 1%. You could have an 85 IQ but if you are smart enough to not get taken in by societal bullshit and intelligent enough to think for yourself and come up with your own answers instead of being a sheep, I love you to death.

An 85 IQ  person need not be an ignorant moron with repulsive and dangerous views. He’s a lot more likely to but that’s not guaranteed. On the other hand, it’s perfectly possible for someone to be high or very high IQ and be dangerously ignorant to where they have attitudes that are dangerous to me and others. A lot of these types are wrapped up in fanatical movements like feminism and SJWism that tend towards wild irrationality or no rationality at all, and contempt for science and logic in favor of emotional reasoning.

It might be hard to connect with you, but IQ’s no reason to hate a man. I guess I should say that what I hate is dangerous ignorance, but ignorance and dangerous, emotion-driven ignorance does tend to be more common as you go down the IQ scale. As you go up the scale, people can shut off their emotions more and see issues in the clear light of pure logic, in which case, they usually arrive at an answer that’s compatible with science and reasonable policy-wise.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Most People Are Simply Incapable of Arguing Fairly or Using Logic in Argumentation

Let me tell you something. Most people don’t believe in fair argumentation. It’s just too male, and humans are too insecure to engage in pure male thinking. Nietzsche was onto this. In fact his strong man was not a fascist but someone strong enough use cold hard logic and live with the results without dissolving in emotional insecurity like a little bitch. In other words, an ubermensch.

So most people argue in a very dirty way. Everyone I argue with takes the black and white position. My guys/my side 100% good, 0% evil. They won’t admit to one bad thing about their side. The other side 100% evil, 0% good. You can say anything good about the other side. If you say 99 bad things about them and one good thing, you have gone over to the enemy.

Sometimes I will praise Trump. Of course I hate him as much as any Trump hater, but now and then, he does the right thing, especially on foreign policy, where he is actually halfway different from the usual bloodthirsty imperialist maniac US president. But whenever I point out that I support some one thing Trump did, my idiot Democrat friends smile and say, “You going to vote for him?” Other times they will positively scream at me, “Don’t praise him! Don’t say anything good about him!”

Well, I hate Trump 98%. A few times he’s right. Because I think he’s right 2% of the  time, that means I’m going to vote for him! Because if you don’t oppose someone 100% (99% is never good enough) that means you support them!

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Conservatism (Neoliberalism) Tends Towards Fascism Almost as a Mathematical Law of Political Science

Conservatism tends to always dissolve into fascism. Show me anywhere on Earth where conservatism, especially conservative, neoliberal economics has been sustainable? It’s not. If it were sustainable it would not have to go fascist but neoliberalism and its monstrous 3rd World cousin is never sustainable? Why? Because despite conservative lies, neoliberalism is generally shit for the lower 80% of the population. Under neoliberalism, the top 20% get richer, usually a lot richer and the bottom 80% lose money. And this setup never changes.

Neoliberalism always causes a crisis or a crash sooner of later (see the 2008 Crash, caused 100% by neoliberalism). It was in fact a Neoliberal Crash, like most economic crashes. This 2020 Crash in the US has been caused by the Coronavirus, but US neoliberalism has made it so much worse.

Furthermore, since neoliberalism is without fail horrible for the bottom 80% of the population by its nature, it always engenders a Left backlash.

Except in places that have already had some sort of a revolution and social contract has been reached, neoliberalism will often put up a huge fight against any threat from the Left at all. The less the regime tolerates the Left, the more radical and extreme the Left gets because extreme conservatism tends to cause extreme Leftism via a law of nature, sort of like a scale that must be balanced or better yet, the Balance of Nature itself.

Pretty soon you’ve got Latin America or even Southern Europe, where the Left is socialist or Communist and the Right is fascist, with little in between. This tends to be the case especially in Catholic countries because Catholic countries tend towards collectivism and tend to despise individualism, which is itself only a product of Protestantism. See Weber on that. He’s immaculate.

In  a collectivist society, all political movements are collectivist. Left collectivism is always socialism or Communism. Right collectivism is always fascism. So in these Catholic societies you tend to end up with Socialists/Communists versus Fascists, in other words, a chronically violent tinderbox in which both Left and Right will tend to get more authoritarian because that’s the only option left to you in a place like that.

Democracy’s not sustainable in an environment like that. In a place like that, democracy just means a lot of unrest, often violent, and eventually the overthrow, violent or otherwise, of your government, lawfully elected or not. Most governments don’t want to get violently overthrown, so in order not to do so, they have to become less democratic.

Fascism is properly seen as a rightwing revolutionary movement of capitalism that rises due to a threat from the Left. Fascism is a palingenetic popular dictatorship against the Left. Therefore, there cannot be any Left fascism. If it’s on the Left, it’s not fascism. Period. And fascism, being a popular dictatorship against the Left, is necessarily not particularly socialist or great for workers. Why would it be? Why would a popular dictatorship against the Left institute leftwing policies?

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Game/PUA: For the 800th Time, Why Women Hate Nice Guys and Love Abusive Assholes Who Treat Them Like Shit

As I mentioned previously, I’m a nice guy, and really there’s no reason on Earth I should have gotten laid even one time in my life, but nice guys never get laid, anyone knows that. Why? Because women refuse to fuck them. Why? Because women prefer extroverted Alpha assholes and pieces of shit who abuse the living Hell out of them to nice guys. Why? Because they find nice guys boring and wimpy. They think they’re pussies.

On a more fundamental level, it is absolutely essential that you dominate your woman. Female sexuality is such so that if you’re not dominating her, she won’t be turned on. You have to dominate her in order to turn her on at all. That’s why putting women on a pedestal, simping, etc. doesn’t work.

Women have 10,000 lies about why they don’t like nice guys and prefer assholes. The biggest lie of all is that most women say that’s just not true. So they deny it out the starting gate. Obviously we’re not getting anywhere here. After they deny it exists, they say why they do this. You see the fundamental flaw with this argument. As with so many female arguments, it contradicts itself laughable almost before it even starts, so we don’t even get to hypothesis. We are stuck with tautologies and unfalsifiable arguments, which makes up most of women’s thinking.

Ok, now that they get honest, they say that they hate nice guys because most of them are not even nice. Well, that’s obviously a huge lie, although it’s true of Nice Guy (TM) types. So they’re not nice. They’re really assholes in disguise. Except that women actually preferentially select assholes and no even that but they prefer the biggest assholes of all when they do so. Who are far worse than your average nice guy, I might add.

Next argument is entitlement. I get very tired of this argument. If women had to live like men, they’d blow their brains out in a year. There’s no way they could handle this. They’re too pampered. Male life is so awful that women wouldn’t be able to take it. They’d break down, flip out, go neurotic, suicide out, who knows? It’s women who are entitled. Entitled every single day from the day they are born. Women are addicted to entitlement because it’s all they’ve ever known. Take it away from them and  they’re gone.

Of course men are not entitled to sex. Everyone knows that. But women think that every man on Earth out to be perfectly happy or better yet ecstatic about the possibility that he might live his entire life without ever having sex.

Women to a one insist that this is no big deal and that every man ought to just prepare himself for this possibility and be ok with it. Well, most men are not going to be very happy about that to say the least.  A certain number of them are going to go ER (go Elliot Rodger). That’s terrible, but that’s just the way it is. If you deny men sex, a certain number of them will flip and go on massacre sprees. Incels in China have been doing this for some time now.

Women can bitch till the cows come home, but this is simply a law of nature. It’s the natural, normal, expected reaction when huge numbers of men are denied sex for much of their lives. Yeah, no one’s entitled to anything. But you women are therefore not entitled to live a life free of the fear of being massacred by maniacs that you created by the policies that you set up. Fair is fair.

Furthermore, ha ha. Alphas aren’t entitled? Players aren’t entitled?  Macho guys aren’t entitled? Don’t make me laugh.

The guys who have sex with the most women are the most entitled assholes of all. They commit 50 times more sexual harassment than nice guys. They are 50 times rapier than nice guys. But women don’t really mind because behavioral or better yet statistical Alphas get to be about as rapey and sexual harass-y as they like.

Women don’t mind being raped and harassed by Alphas. They mind it but they never go to the cops. They never try to get them fired. They let Alphas hit on them annoyingly all night long and try every sleazy trick in the book  and women just say, “Tee hee,” and let them get away with it because Alphas get away with everything forever. Until they don’t. But at least they get a nice long run.

Meanwhile the nice guy of behavioral Beta gets in trouble for looking at women. Literally looking at them! He’s not even allowed to look at them! For a woman, a Beta looking at them is exactly as bad as an Alpha date-raping them. It’s literally the same thing.

A Beta gets in trouble and gets fired for mildly flirting with a woman even one time, for asking a woman for her number or out on a date. Meanwhile, Mr. Alpha POS acts 100X worse and he gets away with it forever, drowning in pussy the whole time until life caves in. Even then he’s only out temporarily and you check back in a bit and he’s back on his feet again, doing the same dick moves as ever.

Another one: Nice guys are only being nice to us to try to get into our pants! Yeah and Alphas aren’t? Anyway, most men are only being nice to you to try to get in your pants. If you women didn’t have vaginas, most of us men wouldn’t even give you the time of day.

Yeah. This is the world, ladies. Most men are trying to fuck you. Terrible, isn’t it? Get used to it. It will this way until your looks go and you turn ugly and then you will brag and swoon every time a man flirts with you or checks you out. The same attention that made you suicidally depressed when you were pretty will be sorely missed and painfully missed when your looks are shot.

Also, Alphas are only being nice to you to get into your pants too, and they are much worse about it than nice guys. They do something called the Honeymoon phase. That’s when they don’t just callously pump and dump you by showering you with love until you give it up and then dumping you out with the trash afterwards.

If they bother to try to have a relationship with you, you get the Honeymoon phase, typical of all Cluster B scums. They shower you with love and devotion as part of a scam to wind their way into your heart. It’s all completely calculated in the most cold-blooded way. And then once they are in and have you nice and trapped and cut you off from all your friends and support and have no where to go and are at his mercy for a place to stay, the abuse begins. And gradually gets worse.

Because all Cluster B’s can do is abuse people, especially in sexual relationships. They literally cannot be any other way. Relationship = abuse for Cluster B’s. That’s how they play it.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Would You Like to Have 20 IQ Points Fewer or More?

Do you sometimes wish you had 20 fewer Iq points? So you can relate to people better. Or 20 points higher? But you may think 95% of people are dumb and end up like Ted Kaczynski.

20 points higher would be very interesting. I love my brain, I love thinking. I’m in love with my brain. We’ve been carrying on a love affair for a long time now. It’s like the most wonderful toy you ever got to play with. 20 points more seems like a total blast, but no doubt it would alienate me from everyone even more.

At 147, I have a hard time (statistically, anyway) with everyone under 117 IQ, which is 85% of the population. So I’m already alienated from 8-9 out of every time people I deal with on some fundamental level. At 167 I would have a hard time with everyone under 137 IQ (statistically, anyway), which is 99% of the population.

What’s important here is the meaning of alienation. If you asked me if I were alienated from everyone with an IQ below 117, I would say of course not! Don’t be ridiculous.

But maybe that’s not what’s important. Maybe what’s important is that everyone with an IQ below 117 is alienated from me! I just now thought of it that way. Of course there’s no way to test that out without doing a very uncomfortable study that is very hard to do, but if you are asking me intuitively, yes, it does seem to be correct.

People just seem to be weirded out and disconnected from me on a fundamental level. That’s been much more the case as I got older, but maybe it was always the case on some level. It’s hard to describe but it’s like there’s some sort of a massive disconnect on some fundamental level. Like there’s a wall up between other people and me and can’t be breached no matter what. I have no idea what the wall or why it is there or anything about it or or whether it has anything to do with IQ.

Perhaps I’m just a freak, but I think it’s deeper than that. For instance, the smarter the person is, the more fascinated they are by me, the less they think I’m a freak and the more they think I’m an especially desirable and valuable person. They’re not alienated from me at all usually. The smarter someone is, the less of a wall or disconnect there is with them.

This is all boiled down to my intelligence because that’s what smarter people find fascinating. But I probably have other pleasant aspects to my personality too. I’ll never fight with you. I’m the least irritable person you will ever meet. I’m funny and I can be quite warm and loving if you ask me. I am actually very kind and  considerate. I’m the stereotypical nice guy.

I guess there’s more to that list even. The funny thing is most people just see that exterior and they say, “Damn, he’s weird,” and they never look under the hood to see what’s there. They’re just as capable as seeing how smart I am as anyone else is, and I probably ought to blow them away more than people near my level.

But it seems like the more you blow someone away mentally, instead of being fascinated by you, they’re either bored or repelled. The boredom and repulsion increases as IQ goes down. And people at my level who should be less impressed by my brain (because it’s near their level so it’s nothing special) are actually the most fascinated by it.

I have no solution to this conundrum. A theory suggests, however. Perhaps the only people who can appreciate the wonder of people with very high IQ’s – the most intelligent people of all – are other smart or very smart people.

Maybe I could have gone somewhere in life, but more probably I would have ended up like those people in The Outsiders – living alone at 40, no friends, celibate or incel, extremely introverted, job paying minimum wage. That’s the typical endpoint for a man with an IQ over 160.

20 points less would give me 127. I say now that I don’t want that but if I had been that way my whole life, maybe it would have been just fine. Most people I know at that level are happy, and people with 127 IQ statistically do much better than people with 147 IQ.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Conservatives Say That Inequality in Latin America Is Caused by Socialism

Transformer (to Jason): I notice you don’t write about Latin America a lot.

I was hoping for Robert to respond to this article but would like your thoughts. I think the issue of inequality in Latin America is very deep. Conservatives like to blame the left and Communism (think Fidel Castro and the current Venezuela government under Maduro), but the situation is more complex.

Conservatives say inequality is caused by socialism and Communism? See what liars they are? Conservatives are the biggest shmucks. See? They can’t even lie properly. The best liars are at least somewhat believable. Conservatives are like the 13 year old pathological liar. He’s just a kid and you can safely dismiss almost everything he says. Seeing as they are such awful liars, why do so many people fall for their laughable, pitiful lies?

It’s the greed, right? Conservatives sell greed. They say support conservatism if you want to make lots of money or keep all the money you have. Support liberalism is you like being poor and having most of your money taken away and wasted on boondoggles and ne’er do wells, many of them disgusting criminals, and the rest at least repulsively amoral and stupid.

I guess if you are selling greed, stupid humans will believe everything you say. Tell him if he wants to be rich he will realize it’s pitch dark outside when it’s 95 degrees and high noon, and he’ll go outside and insist it’s true. Tell them he can keep all his money if he’ll only acknowledge that the sun comes up in the west and sets in the east, and he’ll swear they knew it along.

The truth is the opposite. The more socialism you have, the greater the economy. Venezuela before the crash was the most equal country in Latin America. Belarus and the Scandinavian countries are some of the most equal countries on Earth, with GINI indexes of 25-30, which is about where any country should be.

I admit that conservatives have their good points about their Latin American capitalism, but saying that Latin American inequality is caused by socialism isn’t one of them.

The more rightwing economics you have down there (or anywhere else in the world, for that matter), the more unequal things get. This is because capitalism is exactly how Marx said it was. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer is the natural, typical, expected, and totally ordinary outcome of any pure capitalist system. You could almost write a Goddamned mathematical law about it. I know you can plot it on a linear chart.

The only countries that split up their wealth in any sort of fair way other than, “Everything for the top 20%, and nothing for anybody else!” are societies that have seasoned and moderated their capitalism with ample helpings of socialism. Capitalism is great for growth and crap and distribution. Social is bad at growth and great at distribution.

I think it’s clear that some sort of mixed economies with private, cooperative, family, and public enterprises work best of all. And the commanding heights of the economy must be ruled by the state. This is one thing the Chinese got right. And incidentally, in Japan and even South Korea, it is much the same. And both of the latter countries model their economies in part on, believe it or not, Nazi Germany. There were a lot of terrible things about the Nazis, but their economy was not one of them.

In such a system, the state owns the commanding heights and has the last say in everything. And both quite-capitalist countries use state economic planning to guide their economy. So it’s not true that a planned economy does not work. When state and private actors work together to guide the economy of the country forward, the results are very good.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

I Admit I’m a Misanthrope and It’s One of my Worst Flaws

I’m pretty disgusted by humans. I don’t even really like them. Actually, I hate to admit it but I am a misanthrope. And I hate to say it even more, but the majority at least here in the US deserve every bit of my hatred. I hate them because they are stupid, and stupidity itself is a little bit dangerous by its very nature, so they frighten me.

They’re idiots. I hate idiots. Actually they’re worse than idiots. They’re dangerous idiots, and that’s the worst kind of idiot of all.  So, yeah, I hate most Americans because they are goddamned dangerous idiots who threaten my peace of mind, well-being, reputation, and maybe even ability to earn a living.

If you study people with very high IQ’s around my range and up, you will see that they almost all feel this way.  Worse, as IQ rises, misanthropy seems to rise in tandem just like clockwork.

Above IQ 160, it’s not to find a complete misanthrope. They hate people because they think people are stupid. And to them, most people are stupid.

When you are up here in the stratosphere, every people with average intelligence almost seem literally retarded. It’s disgusting but you feel bad about it for hating them and keep beating yourself up and trying to be nice to them and turn off the misanthropy. Which can  be done.

But when it comes to close friendships or meaningful relationships, about 30 IQ points is the limit. If someone is 30 IQ points above or below you, you will have a very hard time communicating. Some say that meaningful communication is either very difficult or even impossible. Yes, you can become friends, but it will be quite difficult. Leaders who have IQ’s30+ IQ points above those below them are poor leaders. Their underlings don’t listen to them, and rebellions are common.

The best leaders are not geniuses. The best leaders for White people would have an IQ below 130. Above that and you will not be able to connect with  your followers.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: The Teenage Boy Bullshit: The Fake Catholic Priest Pedophile/Child Molesting Epidemic

In short, it never even happened! There were no priests molesting kids*. There was no “kidfucking*.” There was no “child rape.” There were no pedophile priests*. There were not priest child molesters*.

*To be fair, 5% of the cases did involve actual child molesting. And a few of the priests, surely less than 5%, were pedophiles.

We are now in the midst of an idiotic mass hysteria and moral panic about the sexuality of teenage girls. I call it the Teenage Girl Bullshit. In contrast, in the cases of the fake pedophile priests, we are dealing with what I call the Teenage Boy Bullshit.

As noted above, there was either no child molesting or only very little. 95% of it was straight statutory rape, or as I prefer, illegal intercourse.

Kidfucking or child molestation: sex with children under 13.

Statutory rape or illegal intercourse: sex with teenagers 13-Age of Consent.

As it turns out the illegal intercourse in the case of the priest scandal was a particularly ugly kind because it was creepy and coercive. It had to be creepy and coercive because almost of the boys were straight boys seduced into gay sex. In general, straight teenage boys do not want to have gay sex, and thank God for that! Thank you very much, teenage boys! However, they can be manipulated into gay sex via creepy and coercive means.

There’s a problem here: Being seduced into gay sex can be very traumatic for a teenage straight boy and it may indeed cause problems extending into adulthood. Not because a straight teenage boy had sex (God forbid!) as the hysterics say. Instead it was because the sex was gay sex and not straight sex.

If the boys were gay, this scandal would not even exist. No one except the sex hysterics would give a damn because a majority of gay teenage boys are either fucking adult men already or they want to. Most if not all gay men who had sex with adult men when they were teenage boys look back on the experience with fond nostalgia.

Also there was no “kid rape.” There was illegal intercourse and child molestation. Statutory rape per se isn’t really rape. It’s really illegal intercourse. Child molesting per se isn’t rape either. Child molesting and child rape are two completely different things and the latter is a lot worse and more dangerous than the former.

As it is, it doesn’t look like anyone forced anyone to do anything. Rape is forced sex. As my mother pounded into my head a million times as a teenage boy and young man, rape involves force or the threat of force.

I have no idea of the sexual orientation of the boys. Most I heard of were straight. I have no idea if some were gay. I’m quite certain that any gay ones weren’t the ones complaining because gay boys never complain about consensual sex with adult men. They always say they like it.

But most of the sex in this scandal was bad it involved straight boys and not gay boys. The straight boys were tricked into gay sex and this is often bad for their psychological development.

Of course the 5% of cases involving little boys getting molested was very bad. I certainly don’t approve of adult men molesting little boy-children. I don’t know how harmful it is, but I doubt if it’s a good thing. It’s certainly bad for little girls under 13 to get molested by adults, and in quite a few cases the harm lasts into adulthood.

Probably none of the complaints involved gay boys.

The question was posed to me, Would I care if any of those boys the priests had sex with were gay? Of course I wouldn’t care! Other than possibly an abuse of a power dynamic and something a priest should not be doing as part of his job description, it’d be fine with me, and I’m sure it would be fine with the boys too! It’s not rape if they love it. Gay boys almost universally love their teen-adult sex, so I don’t understand what the problem is.*

*They like it if it’s consensual. There was some #metooing of gay men in the movie business by gay teenage boys, but that’s because those men were rapey and coercive towards teenage gay boys, not because they had sex. In a number of cases, those boys were actually raped. On the other hand, some of those gay boys #metooing those Hollywood adult men were teenage male prostitutes. I’m sorry they got coerced into rapey sex but they weren’t exactly paragons of moral value.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: The Undefined and Undefinable Feminist Definition of Rape

As I noted in another post, my Mom brought me up right. She taught me that under no circumstances was I to rape girls or women. She drilled into my head over and over that rape was force or the threat of force. Her message was, “Don’t do it, dammit!” She pretty much said everything other than that was fair game, which is the only sane view of rape.

My Mom’s a feminist, and a pretty bad one at that, getting worse as she ages. But nowadays feminists (most women) would call my Mom a rape apologist and a handmaiden because of the way the feminists have blown up the definition of rape and the fact that feminism gets increasingly insane every year, as is the case with all Identity Politics.

Of course the feminists and their fag “male” allies have no expanded the definition of rape to about the size of the Indian Ocean. Not only that but apparently no one can even properly define it as it’s as vague and  undecipherable as the Linear B inscriptions.

As it is, if a woman thinks she got raped, she got raped. That’s now the definition of rape!

Women actually believe that crap. When you put women in power, the first thing they do is  make vague, unenforceable laws to bring about their desired utopia.

Of course this never works, therefore all through space and time, whenever women are put into power over men, the result is simply complete chaos. People tire of it after a bit, and pretty soon, the sane people say, “Let’s have some sense here. Let the men take over!

And then some sort of patriarchy, benevolent or otherwise (typically otherwise), is reimposed. Society’s not fair after that, but it wasn’t fair under Female Rule either. Pick your poison. You will either be ruled by women or men.

Look around you at the Anglosphere, the UK, and Scandinavia to see the dystopian chaos of idiocy that ensues under Female Rule.

I’ll pick men any day. Women are incapable of ruling societies.  Women can do a lot of things,  but that’s not one of them. It’s fine really. Hey, women can’t do everything. Sometimes the ladies just need to step aside and let the boys take over.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Game/PUA: After Menopause, All Women Are Born-Again Virgins

As she ages, my Mom is turning into a worse and worse feminist every year. I hardly even knew she was one before.

This is happening in tandem with her increasing puritanism. Same thing: every year, she gets more and more puritanical and weird about sex. She was always like that a bit, but at least you could talk to her about it, and to some extent she was always proud of me in a sort of “my son, the stud” sort of way. She always thought my playboy ways were hilarious and she would almost fall on the floor laughing at my latest exploits. That makes sense as most women, and humans in general (even some little kids) think players are funny as Hell for some reason.

And of course, feminism is intimately tied in with puritanism and has been from day one. It makes sense as feminism is simply female thinking empowered, reified and increasingly legislated to become the ruling force in society. Feminist Rule is nothing but Female Thought in Power. And puritanism, along with, oddly enough, nymphomania, is part of the Female Character.

Her increasing puritanism got me to thinking. Menopause nukes your sex drive. Women with no or low sex drives tend to become puritanical anyway,  and the longer they stay that way, the worse they get. So my theory now is that increasing puritanism is something all postmenopausal women experience. It may well get worse with time too, as so many miserable things do.

Postmenopausal women for all intents and purposes turn into complete prudes and born-again virgins. I’ve seen complete whore to nun conversions, just like that! Snap of the fingers.

Postmenopausal women a few years out of menopause (they stay horny for a couple of years for some reason) are basically insufferable, and I don’t want anything to do with them. I’ve been battling puritanical shitwads my whole life. I’m sick and tired of them and their crap.

Postmenopausal women don’t fuck anyway, so what’s the point? Why even be with a woman if she doesn’t fuck? That’s pretty much the only reason to be with her anyway, right?

I’ve got my porn and my hand, and neither one ever turns me down.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20