Alt Left: Are Males Violent Because of Patriarchy?

The feminist argument is that males are violent due to patriarchy. They say this because all feminists reject biological gender and think that gender is a social construct. So you deconstruct gender, get rid of masculinity, and wa-law, males are as pacifistic as females.
I have said for a while now that if you want to understand men and women, study mammals, especially the higher-order ones. The males are always far more violent than the females. They fight, sometimes to the death, for access to females. The most Alpha male mammals end up with entire harems of females. The rest of the Beta male mammals are resigned to bachelorhood and probably never breed.
It’s even true with cats. I have had many cats in my life. The males were far more aggressive and even violent than the females. And these males had been castrated for Chrissake. Many of them seemed to have an almost wild, restless energy about them such that they never seemed to calm down much.
One thing I learned that in general you cannot have more than one male cat in a household. Most times I got more than one male, they fought like maniacs. They almost tried to kill each other. The theory is that the males are territorial. The other male is encroaching on the first male’s territory. At the moment I have only female cats. They are so much calmer. In case anyone is wondering, humans are mammals. If male mammals are a lot more violent than female mammals, wouldn’t it be logical to assume the same is true in humans?
I am indeed a biological essentialist. I think the feminists cut us men way too much slack. The feminists are Utopians. They think that if they can just fix up society enough, we men will stop being so aggressive and violent. If only it were that easy.
I’ll take the feminists one step further: Males are innately violent. I would even expand that to males and humans who behave like males.
Masculinity is not a requirement. Gay men are quite violent. Gay male relationships are more violent than relationships between men and women. Further, transwomen are extremely unmasculine in behavior (they behave like ultra-feminine women), but we can see how violent and dangerous many transwomen are – probably more so than cisgender men. I think this is the autogynephile group. The true transsexual group, mostly homosexuals, is probably less violent than cisgender men and probably even less violent than cisgender gay men.
It is from this evidence that I would say that the problem is something inherent in us men – in our minds – and just waging war on masculinity won’t get rid of it.

Why Are Some Animals Gay? Are There any That Do Not Reproduce Due to Being Gay? Wouldn't That Be an Evolutionary Disadvantage? If It's Just a Selected Few in a Group, How Do You Know That It's Not an Anomaly?

Answered on Quora.
The PC line is that homosexuality is widespread in the animal kingdom. Actually it’s not. This line is taken to extremes recently, and it is not uncommon to hear PC types say that 10% of all types of birds and mammals are gay. That’s clearly nonsense.
There are cases of two same sex birds incubating an egg, but apparently there was a shortage of the opposite sex that gave rise to this.
I had a cat once that went into heat. You can hear and even observe when a cat is in heat. I won’t go into details. You will have to figure it out for yourself. When this cat was in heat, one of my female cats tried to mount the female in heat!
Bonobo chimpanzees (at least the females) are apparently often bisexual, but I am not aware of any gay bonobos.
If you drive mice crazy enough in the lab or subject them to very crowded conditions, male mice will attempt to mount each other. This is called lordosis. This pseudo-homosexuality is a side effect of the mice being driven crazy by overcrowding or whatever.
However, sheep are a good case for homosexuality in the animal kingdom. Approximately 6% of male sheep prefer to mount other male sheep. I am not sure what they accomplish when they do that, but that’s what they do. They don’t have sex with female sheep. That is quite an excellent analogy in the animal world to male homosexuality among humans. As far as why sheep are like this, I have no idea at all.

In Social Species Considered to Be More Intelligent, Are Females or Males Likely to be Dominant?

Answered on Quora: 
In most mammals, males are far more aggressive and even violent than females.
Take cats. I have had many cats in my life, sometimes whole herds of them, up to five at a time. Male cats are far more aggressive and violent than female cats. And they are so territorial that I can never have more than one male cat in a house. Frankly even one is an issue. The more I study male and female cats, the more I think they resemble male and female humans.
If you study other mammals – seals, elk, deer, etc., you will find much the same thing.

Well, At Least It Lived


There is something wrong with me. I hate people who attack animals more than I hate people who attack people.

This video is instructive. Yes, there is cruelty here. However, the cat survived. I don’t know where the video was taken, but it looks like it was shot in a US housing project. These Black idiots look like typical US ghetto Blacks.

There are worse videos like this on the Net. Setting kittens on fire, and crushing them under female high heels. The Japanese woman who crushed a kitten in Japan was identified on video by vigilantes and arrested, but she only got a light sentence. I would have killed her myself, with my bare hands. I won’t even upload animal cruelty videos to my sicko site, as they bug me so much.

There is a famous video out there of a US marine tossing a puppy into a deep ravine. It’s dubious it could have survived. The video looks bad. The Marine was arrested. However, he has an interesting story. He and other Marines found the dog in Iraq. It was dying of something, maybe dehydration. They were walking it back to base, but they didn’t think it was going to make it. So they threw it into the ravine and made the video. Who knows if the story is true or not, but it’s a good story.

I’m not sure the point of this gif, but I think that you see a lot more obvious sadism and love of cruelty in Black males than you do in White or Asian males. Idi Amin was a paradigm of the worst that a Black man could be, in all of the stereotypical ways. The egocentrism, the cruelty and love of sadism; he was as bad as a Black man gets in every classic way. He was the paradigmatic Black man gone bad. To expand on this point, you don’t see a lot of sadism and love of cruelty in Black male adults, but you do see more than in other races. And you see a lot more of it in Black boys than in boys of other races.

If regular Whites were caught making a video like this, they would probably be ashamed. These guys will never get caught, and if they were, they won’t be ashamed.

The cat does seem to be onto them in a way. Look at the huge tail while they are petting it. That’s a sign of fear and aggression.

After that kick, it used up one life for sure. Now it has eight more to go.

Some Observations on Felines and Canids

Repost from the old site.

I’ve been having some conversations lately with some of my smart friends about felines and canids, and here is some what we think we have worked out.

First of all, a cat is supposedly as smart as a 1½ year old human. As a human, albeit a human who is also a cat-lover, I find such a comparison insulting. I just spent some time with my 1½ year old niece. No way on Earth is my cat as stupid as that kid was.

I’m spending some time as a caretaker for my 86 year old father who lives 33 miles away. My folks have two cats and recently acquired another one. This one is a Siamese named Cleo. When I met this cat, very quickly, I thought it was one of the smartest cats I have ever known. I don’t know why, but someone said that Siamese are an intelligent breed.

The other night, one of other cats, Callie, got the night-crazies and took off running across the house for no reason. Cleo saw this and immediately chased her for equally no good reason. I immediately began to reassess my opinion of her as the smartest cat I’ve ever known. I asked around about this.

Turns out that in general, if a cat sees another cat take off running for any reason, the observer cat will often give chase. Why? Possibly instinct. They seem to be programmed to chase after any non-predatory moving object.

Many prey animals, like the rabbits who live around here, practice freezing as a form of predator avoidance. On the principle that predators generally hunt by following rapid movement rather than attacking stationary objects. The rabbits around here will freeze and let you walk right up next to them before they take off running.

There have been some mountain lion attacks here in the West recently. Attacks have, in general, been on little kids or on adults either jogging or riding bicycles.

Reason? A little kid is about the size of many of the mountain lions more slow-moving prey objects. An adult human really is not, except if it is running or riding a bicycle fast, in which case apparently it is about the size and speed of a deer, one of the lion’s favorite prey animals.

As long as you are strolling along in the woods, the cougar usually won’t bother you. But start jogging, and you turn into a human deer and you might just get nailed.

Observations of wild cats have shown that wild domestic cats make few sounds except when fighting or mating. Why do cats meow? Probably because we make sounds, and their meows are their way of trying to speak human language back at us.

Cats are generally solitary, and the cat adaptive style is to hide. If you notice, your cat at home likes to hide in really weird and hard to find places. Often a place where it can see out but you can’t see in. They will do this whether they are threatened by other cats or by dogs or not.

The reason cats hide? Probably instinct. The cat style is to hide and only come out at night. Wild felines such as bobcats and mountain lions hide much of the time and are mostly nocturnal.

This is also why cats bury their shit. They are probably not naturally fastidious, but instead, I suspect that they do this to cover up their trails from predators. This is also why they roll around in the dirt. They are covering themselves with dirt to hide their scent from predators.

On the other hand, the dog has a different adaptive style. Does a dog ever hide? What for? A dog is always walking around, right out in the open, afraid of nothing. With wild dogs it’s pretty similar. Coyotes and wolves are active all hours of the day and tend to roam around in plain sight. Foxes do hide, but they are pretty small, and they also spend time hunting in broad daylight (I’ve watched them).

Cats are generally solitary (although lions are an exception), and dogs are pack animals. Cats hide because they are solitary, and dogs walk around in plain sight because they are instinctively pack animals with little to hide. Wolves, jackals and hyenas travel in packs. If something wants to kill a hyena (and a lion might), it would have to deal with a whole pack of howling hyenas that would come to the defense of the hunted one.

Hunting in packs is also a strength. A pack of hyenas could possibly even kill a lion, and I suspect that they do sometimes.

Since dogs are pack animals and find strength in numbers, they don’t give a damn about burying their shit or rolling around in the dirt. There is no need to cover one’s tracks when one has strength in numbers.

One of my friends insisted that canids and felines are closely related, and that both go back to some ancestral canid-feline duoform. Raccoons and bears are related to dogs, but they supposedly split off from proto-dog after the split from proto-dogcat. I don’t know enough to comment on this, as I’ve never heard of dogs and cats going back to a feline-canid ancestor.

Libertarianism – The Enemy of all Non-Human Life on Earth

As several posts on Occidental Dissent make clear, libertarianism (and its mainstream congener, neoliberalism) is utterly incompatible with the preservation of any non-human and non-domesticated or non-utilitarian life forms. Libertarians like to throw up weird scenarios whereby preserving wildlife, wild spaces and wild places would somehow be more economically viable than exterminating them, exploiting them, and devastating them.
The problem is that this never works out in praxis. Even when we environmentalists produce reports showing that preserving forests and meadows is worth way more than chopping them down or ruining them with cattle, 100% of libertarians always line up with exploiters. I’ve been reading them forever. Libertarian environmentalist is an oxymoron.
Since neoliberalism is just libertarianism, neoliberalism also can never support environmentalism. Market-driven environmental policies must be some kind of a cruel joke. They can never work. In strict economically rational terms, it is either never or almost never economically rational to save species, habitats or places. Destruction and extermination is where the money is, and in neoliberal theory, maximum return is the only variable we are allowed to consider.
Libertardarians now argue that humans (I guess maybe those of White European stock) now care enough about environmentalism that we can zero out government, privatize everything, and everything will still be hunky dory for the bighorns, the spotted owls and timber wolves. Yeah right.
In the first place, this would only work with White people, because only Whites can be environmentalists at the moment, and only more advanced Whites in North America and Europe need apply even here. That’s because Whites in Latin America and Russia have proven to be utterly capable of taking care of the environment. Native Americans and Siberians can probably preserve things too, but they don’t run any states.
Let’s test out the libertarian theory on most liberal-minded of the more progressive Whites on Earth, the ultra-liberals in California (though not a White state anymore, nevertheless, California is one of the most pro-environmental states in the nation).
The argument that humans now care enough about species to preserve them is proven wrong here in the West. Even here in ultra-liberal California, the glorious salmon are nearly extinct. The striped bass fishery in the Delta and Bay has also been ruined. The vast herds of Tule Elk that roamed all over the valleys and coastal areas of our state have been decimated and only exist on miniscule preserves that look like petting zoos. Fishers and spotted owls are being driven extinct by the timber industry as we speak.
A lot of CA endangered species are not real celebrities, but salmon would seem to have quite a bit of worth. Yet the salmon fishery in CA and up and down the West has been decimated. And even the ultra-liberal CA senators like Dianne Feinstein insist that we have not creamed the salmon enough, and need to take them out once and for all now. Feinstein’s mostly doing this for one of her rich Jewish buddies, Stewart Resnick of Beverly Hills. So much for liberal US Jews!
The notion that humans (Anywhere!) now value wildlife enough to be trusted with preserving them in a libertarian society is seriously wrong, and we can prove it right here in California.
In the 3rd World, humans are so bestial, venal, animalistic and backwards that they indeed are well on the way to extrerminating everything non-human, non-domesticated and non-utilitarian in sight.
An excellent argument in favor of White superiority (which I agree with) is, as I noted above, that Whites are really the only humans on Earth (who run states) that care about non-human life enough to preserve it.* Virtually every other race and ethnic group of man will gladly exterminate every single non-domesticated species and non-utilitarian species in its land at the drop of a hat.
Preserving species is something only Whites can do. And it’s something that only White governments can do, the White private sector haven proven endlessly to have failed at this endeavor.
*I honestly wish that non-European states were capable of not exterminating everything in sight, but I doubt it. The Middle East is an environmental catastrophe. The only environmentally decent place is Israel, but that’s populated by White people. The only environmentally progressive place in Latin America is Costa Rica, but once again, that’s a White country. It seems that all Arabs and mestizos can do is destroy.
Asians seem like a nightmare in environmental terms. They aren’t even capable of tender feelings towards cats and dogs, which they massacre for sport and food, so how can they possibly be trusted with non-domesticated things. The Japanese have been some of the worst scofflaws in international fishing and their bestial exploits in whaling have earned them the scorn of the planet.
True, in some ways, Koreans and Japanese seem to want to preserve what’s left on their lands, but environmentally, those places are pretty much human-nuked anyway, mostly by overpopulation. A preservationist impulse isn’t worth much if there is nothing left to preserve.
The hunter-gatherers of Southeast Asia never had the caretaker mindset of American Indians, instead opting for the more primitive mindset of “kill everything that moves.” The extinction process in SE Asia is very advanced and the state does very little to stop it. Environmental consciousness is extremely low.
Probably Vietnam is one of the more standout states. China is just now starting to develop an environmental ethic, but it doesn’t seem to be very advanced, and in a lot of ways, environmentally, China looks like America 1890.
I’m amazed that anything non-human and non-bovine is still walking around in India, where the extinction process is quite advanced, the state is extremely weak, and poachers are everywhere.
Russians have always been some of the most backwards and barbaric of the Whites, and environmentally, that’s still the case. Since the collapse of the USSR things have really fallen badly apart. Market hunters and poachers stalk the land. In Siberia, the poacher harvest of salmon is the same size as the legal harvest. The Amur Leopard and the Siberian Tiger are hanging on by their bare claws, and I expect them to go extinct soon.
Africa has to be one of the worst places on Earth to be a species of wildlife. Africans are primitive people, and primitives tend to kill anything that moves, usually for food. The only reason that there were still huge wildlife populations 50 years ago is due to White colonists, who forbade the Africans from wiping out the animals. With decolonization, Africans quickly set work slaughtering anything that moved.
That they had not done so in centuries past was due only to the crudity of their weapons. You can’t kill many animals with a spear. In 1965, Africans with firearms were a threat the animal population of the continent. The large megafauna were only saved when the former White colonists were called back in by concerned Africans to save the animals.
Many of the large animal populations still exist, but poachers and bush meat hunters take a devastating toll. I don’t see anything positive in the future. Africans don’t seem to be capable of not exterminating animals.
One argument is that non-Whites do these things because they are poor.
Equatorial Guinea now has a PCI of $21,000/year. Anyone seen any nice environmental initiatives coming out of there? Has the wealth of the Japanese prevented them from killing whales? Has Korean wealth prevented them from waging mass pogroms against dogs and cats? Has the relative wealth of Brazil and Argentina prevented environmental devastation in these places? The Gulf Arab countries are extremely wealthy, but my understanding is that they are environmental wrecks.
So much for the “they do it because they are poor” line.