Tumblr Pedo Blogs – CP, Pedo Moms, Loving Families, Meth Smoking, and Satanism

In response to this post here, Jason is worrying his silly little head about nothing. If you will look below, you will see that there are hundreds of thousands of people on the Net leaving obvious trails and doing things that are far worse than we are doing here. Anyway, it’s obvious that we don’t like child molesters or CP here, so why would anyone be suspicious of our conversations? You all don’t realize how out and open these types are.

Don’t be paranoid about these posts, please. I went on Tumblr blogs and found hundreds to thousands of people more or less openly admitting that they distributed CP and downloaded it to their drives.

Not to mention that I found 50-100 out and out pedo blogs. I mean whoever made that blog had to be a pedo because that’s what all the content was. I don’t mean the content was illegal. It was mostly cartoon CP, CGI CP, CP drawings, CP stories, and clothed little girls wearing some pretty skimpy clothing. The first four are absolutely legal. The last is more up in the air, but if they have their clothes on, it’s probably legal.

There were literally hundreds of people more or less openly posting that they distributed and downloaded CP. They were using a Kik-type program. Kik was popular because it was so anonymous. I believe that the Kik servers were not recording people’s IP’s deliberately.

Anyway, this was some new Kik-type program that was even more anonymous than Kik, and all of the pedos were headed over to this new program. They were giving out their handles on this new program and saying, “Lots of great pics to trade. Look me up!” They didn’t say it was CP, but they were posting on pedo threads, so that could be assumed. Most of the people distributing the CP were men.

I probably found ~100 of either pedos looking for a “pedo Mom” or Moms with little kids posting that either they were pedo Moms or they wanted to become pedo Moms. The pedos and the pedo Moms were interacting on the threads. A pedo Mom is a mother, probably single, who will allow a pedo to molest her kid, generally for money. The Moms probably get in on it for the money and maybe for the thrill. The motivation for the pedos is obvious.

All of those looking for pedo Moms were men, and I got the distinct feeling that they were all pedophiles. I don’t think any of the pedo Moms were pedophiles because female pedophiles barely exist, but I think some of them were off into meth smoking and/or Satanism.

They were just sick women with low morals. It’s generally acknowledged that a lot of men are sick fucks, and it’s true, a lot of us are. But what people don’t realize is that quite a few women are sick fucks too – more than you would ever imagine.

There was also a tremendous amount of Satanism and celebration of evil on these pedo blogs. A very large proportion of these pedo, molester, or CP types were open Devil worshipers. They delighted in worshipping evil. I suppose even they realize that this pedo, molesting, and CP stuff is seriously evil, so if they are going to get into it, they are going to embrace evil in order to slake their perverted desires.

There was also an incredible amount of drug use going on and celebration of such. A very large proportion of these pedo types were into smoking meth. Smoking meth is pretty evil too, so I suppose that was part of the Satanism. So they were celebrating and worshipping evil while being way deep into meth smoking and pedo/CP stuff.

With a lot of these people, especially the meth smokers and Satanists, they did not even seem to be pedophiles. Many said that they had never seen CP before and wanted to see it, or they had never had sex with a kid before and wanted to try it. These people were just trysexuals. They’ll do anything sexual.

A lot of them were probably bisexual, into group sex, threeways, gangbangs, making their own porn, BD/SM, watersports – I mean you name it, they were probably into it, and the more sick,  fucked up, and perverted the sex was, the more they liked it.

To them, sex with a kid and CP was just another fucked up, perverted kink that they wanted to try – quite possibly sickest, most fucked up kink of them all, which of course is part of the attraction. These are people who have embraced evil and are into being evil. So they are looking around for evil things to do because that’s what they are into – being evil and doing evil stuff.

I’m not really into talking about the Devil, but Jason is religious and talks about Devil worship and Satanism a lot. It might be interesting to see what a Christian says about all this pedo – meth smoking – Satanism behavior.

There Must Be Millions of Pedos and Pedo Offenders on the Internet

Question 7 – We are discussing what many consider an inappropriate topic, the kind that sets off bells and whistles among the SJW moral crusaders.

We may not actively endorse CP but are suspects simply due to the huge interest we have on this topic.

From a legal standpoint, are we potential pedophile suspects?

YES or NO

No, not at all. Anyway, looking at this conversation, it’s obvious that no one here is an actual pedophile or even has an inordinate interest in sex with minors.

Just on Tumblr pages alone I saw so much blatant and open pedo-type stuff as discussed below that it blew my mind.

I saw people openly claiming to be pedophiles, screaming that they distribute and collect CP, blatantly looking for Moms with little kids that they can molest, etc. I saw an awful lot of weirdo Moms with little kids out there wanting to be “pedo Moms” and hook up with a pedo and let him molest their kid, probably for money.

There were couples who openly stated that they were a “loving family” and were looking for others. That means that they had some kids and the mother and father were having sex with the kids – that’s what a loving family is. There was a woman who said she caught her husband molesting her 5 year old daughter and at first she was mad, but then she started doing it too.

None of the many people posting said anything about being investigated, much less arrested, based on their Net posting. They were all just getting away with it. All of those people had known Tumblr handles, and it would not have been difficult to get warrants to investigate them based on what they posted, but I guess LE has better things to do.

If the cops wanted to even investigate those people, they could be looking at hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of cases. If you go on to accessing CP, you are looking at hundreds of thousands or millions of suspects. I was stunned at how much of this pedo bullshit there was out there. It made me realize that there’s no way that cops can go after all these people. You would have to launch an investigation into each one.

You can’t arrest someone for posting on the Net that they collect or distribute CP, that they want to be a pedo Mom, that they are a pedo, that they want to get with a pedo Mom, that they have a loving family or that they are currently molesting their kids. I think you would need more evidence than just someone shooting off their mouths. The person could always say they were talking crap, lying, or fantasizing.

A confession doesn’t mean much. People make false confessions all the time. I could confess right now that I am a serial killer who has killed 20 people, raped 50 women, mugged 75 people, held up 100 liquor stores, and have been selling heroin and meth for the last 15 years. I could even make up names of the victims, dates and locations when the crimes happened, etc. I could even describe the crimes in detail.

Of course I have never done any of these things, but that doesn’t stop me from confessing  to crimes I have never done. See why confessions aren’t necessarily worth a hill of beans?

Obviously the cops have to completely triage this whole mess and only go after the worst offenders. If they went after everyone breaking the pedo laws, I believe they would not have enough manpower, they would never sleep, and the jails, prisons, and courts would be flooded. There are too many people breaking the pedo laws. They can even only arrest maybe 5-10% of them.

So as you can see, with hundreds of thousands or even millions of pedo offenders, child molesters, and CP distributors, collectors and accessers out there, a bunch of obviously normal guys with no pedo interests at all (us on this blog) talking about how not to stumble on this bullshit or download it out of curiosity is pretty much a zero on the cops’ Pedo-Meter.

On the weird Tumblr pages alone there seemed to be thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of pedo types or people breaking CP laws. I almost fell out of my chair when I grasped the extent of this bullshit.

The Case of the Blackcat Scans: Material Is Legal until the Cops Decide It’s Not Legal

RL: A naked 7 year old girl standing in the woods is legal. She has to be posed in some erotic position for it to be illegal.

Jason: Never trust the law cause it’s vague. Even the laws making adult porn legal are vague. If you’re in a Bible Belt or semi-Bible Belt state, it could be a scary ordeal. So the best rule of thumb is to avoid cops like Jews avoiding the SS.

Case in point: I’ve read people put in jail over anime of all things. That stuff and the toon CP are not real, but the laws are so vague and in some countries (Canada, Australia) that  matter is explicitly illegal.

Anime CP and cartoon CP? No one’s ever gone down on that in the US. Where did you hear about people going down on that? Did they go down on it in some other country? However, the US has gone after some of the artists who draw the toon CP, which I think is totally messed up. The FBI says toon CP is legal, no one will go after you for accessing or even possessing toon CP, but the guys who draw CP go to prison. WTF?

Jason is correct. The CP laws are insanely vague. Supposedly there are guidelines and some stuff is pretty much legal, other stuff is definitely illegal, and apparently there is material in between, whatever the Hell that means. As I pointed out, a 7 year old naked girl standing on a beach with her naked family has long been said to be perfectly legal. She has to be posed erotically, typically with “lascivious display of the genitalia” as the law puts it, for a photo like that to be CP.

Nevertheless, pigs have gone after parents for taking nude pics of their little 2-3 year old kids romping in the bathtub. You got that right. There were attempts to prosecute these parents. The  parents had sent the photos to a photo developer to be developed, and some moralfag employee at the developing business had noticed the photos and called the cops like an idiot.

The pigs were moralfags too for even going after these poor parents in the first place. I believe all of the parents were eventually let off, but they were put through a lot of Hell before their names were cleared. I believe their names were even published in the paper.

The CP laws are insane. Stuff is perfectly legal until the day it’s not.

The Blackcat scans were a “clothed model” series of very young girls, maybe 11-12 years old, posing fully clothed but wearing very dirty outfits and posed in extremely erotic poses.

I have seen a lot of those scans, and I really don’t like them. I find them disturbing and upsetting for some reason. They feel creepy to me.

Those are children – little girls – and I don’t like the idea of sexualizing children and little girls. Little girls don’t even have a sex drive.

I know this is controversial, but I am certain that it is true. No children have actual sex drives in the way that grown men and women do. Pedophiles insist that children have raging sex drives and are dying to have sex with the pedos, but to me this is just a huge pedo lie.

I did some research to look into this. By the way, this research was very hard to do as the topic of child sexuality – even the fact that it apparently does not exist – is so completely verboten and stigmatized that almost no one writes about it.  ]

If you are interested, the actual female sex drive comes out ~4-5 months before menarche, which nowadays is 13 years old. At least that was my conclusion. So the onset of the female sex drive in the USA right now is 13. You wonder why your 13 year old daughter is boy-crazy. Well, there ya go.

Teenage girls? Fine. They’re already sexualized. Just look at them. They’re sexualized on account of merely existing in the manner that they do. Plus most of them have raging sex drives nowadays, and a majority of even young teenage girls are are masturbating like maniacs. This seems to be a new thing. I don’t remember girls or even women in my generation being like this. Is this the early sexualization that everyone talks about? What’s up with that? Is it all the online porn?

I realize that the Blackcat girls are very pretty, but to me an 11-12 year old girl, no matter how beautiful she is, is simply not a sexual object. She’s beautiful in the way that a waterfall or rainbow is beautiful. Ever wanted to fuck a rainbow? See what I mean?

The girls in the Blackcat scans were all gotten into doing the sessions by their Moms. Both the Moms and the girls were impoverished, typically from rural Russia.

The men who did the Blackcat scans had researched the law very carefully, and at the time they started their business, all indications were that this stuff was perfectly legal. It was borderline CP – sure – but lots of stuff is borderline CP. There’s  borderline CP all over the Net – big deal.

Even the FBI said it was legal. The FBI said, “They’ve got their clothes on, so it’s legal.” Makes sense, right?

That was the known guideline, so the webpage owner went up and set up his Blackcat website, and the photographer took all the Blackcat photos on the basis that LE had said they were legal. Then one day some pigs woke up on the wrong side of the bed and decided the Blackcat scans were not legal after all. Instead some pigs in Florida decided to interpret the law in such a way that it was actually illegal! Even though the FBI said it was legal!

Florida courts went after the guy who ran the webpage (he was a Jew of course – duh!) and the photographer, and both were put in prison. There had been millions of men visiting that site and downloading that stuff, so millions of men had Blackcat stuff on their drives, but not a thing was done to any of them.

The girls were 100% willing. No girl was harmed. After the photographer went to prison, all of the former girl models, now grown women, raised an uproar, saying that they were not harmed by the shoots, and they were very happy that they did them. The Moms all joined in and reiterated the points the daughters had made. All of the former girl models and their Moms had nothing but good things to say about the photographer.

I guess he was not creepy, and he was doing the whole thing respectfully and by the book. I believe he went to great lengths to make sure that both the girls and their Moms were 100% ok with the shoots. The former girl models made Youtube videos about how outraged they were that the photographer went down. At one time there were ~20 Youtube videos from different women, all former child models, decrying the photographer’s conviction.

So You Met an Underage Teenage Girl on the Web and She Sent You Dirty Pics of Her Own Free Will

A girl says she’s underage and sends you dirty pics on the Net? This actually happens, trust me. Even in the last couple of years, I have have had teenage girls aged 14-17 come right up to me on the Net out of nowhere, ask me to have sex with them, start talking dirty to me, and try to send me all sorts of dirty pictures of themselves, mostly nudes.

Well I had a page up on the Net. Maybe it was a porn page. Anyone can make their own porn pages or porn blogs on the Net you know. Maybe they came to me from the porn page.

The 17 year old came up to me out of nowhere and said, “Hey sexy old man! Why don’t you show me what you’ve got!” She was an insanely hot blue eyed blond with a thin body but awesome tits.

The other was a 14 year old girl and described what kind of porn she liked and what sort of twisted, deviant sex she liked. She asked me, “What’s wrong with me? I’m a 14 year old girl? Why am I so sick, fucked up, and perverted?”

Even though she was only 14, she had an insane older man or even old man fetish and she only had sex with men in their 40’s and 50’s who were 30-40 years older than she was. So she not only had a Daddy fetish like a lot of girls and young women, but this poor thing had an out and out Grandpa fetish!

Also she was seriously into degrading sex, as in she liked to crawl on the ground with dog bone in her mouth, dress up like a little girl with a pacifier in her mouth, and all sorts of depraved nonsense. In her conversations with me, she referred to herself as “teenage rapedoll.” Haha.

All I am going to say about these incidents is that no way in Hell am I storing any of that crap on my drive. Even if she sends it to me, I’m deleting that stuff, I’m deleting that stuff right quick.

If you ever receive anything like that, do not store that on your drive. If you have anything like that on your drive, I advise to get it off.

I don’t think pigs would ever prosecute for something this chickenshit and retarded, but you never know.

Assuming the stars aligned and they went after you, I suppose you could always just say, “I assumed she was lying when she said she was underage. I thought she was joking.” If there’s no way to look at her and say there’s no way she could be 18, you might get away with it. On the other hand, they might consider the girl’s word probative as probable cause for her not being of age.

In the case of Weiner, etc., he knew that girl and he knew full well how old she was. So no excuse. But if she’s 3,000 miles away or halfway around the world, it might be hard to argue that you knew her age for sure. The Weiner case was a pathetic chickenshit prosecution anyway. But he sent her a picture of his dick. That’s more serious.

If you even suspect she’s underage, do not under any circumstances send her dick pics or make dirty videos of yourself for her. That’s how almost all men are going down for “CP” when they interact with these teenage girls.

No one’s going to arrest her for receiving some BS picture of her pussy she sent you out of her own free will. But once you start making porn of yourself and sending it to underage teenage girls, you’ve turned the whole world upside down and it’s a whole new ballgame.

Mostly just stay away from JB’s. Even if you love females, sex, and porn, there’s absolutely no reason for a grown man past his early 20’s to have anything to do with JB’s. As far as 18-23, that’s illegal too, but it’s a lot more normal. I will only point out how dangerous even an 18 year old man and a 17 year old girl is nowadays. The feminists and moralfags have truly blown this world of ours to Hell.

The world is crawling with grown women, 18+, who are crazed horny out of their minds. Go for them instead. Why mess with dangerous JB’s? What’s the point? Is there something special about them? I don’t get the attraction.

Over 100 People Have Reported Me to the Police for Sex Crimes, Including Child Pornography and Murder

A lot of my haters reported me to the police, and a lot of people tried to get me arrested. You wonder why I hate moralfags and sanctimonious scum so much? You wonder why I hate cops?

50 people called the police and turned me in as a suspect in the brutal torture murders of two young teenage girls, ages 13 and 14. I even had a damned detective call me up and question me about the case. He apparently decided that I had nothing to do with the case.

Many others called the police and reported me as a “pedophile.” That’s not a crime.

Many of them said I had child porn on my drive and said police should raid my residence to find it. Supposedly my posts proved that I was a “pedophile” and therefore, they assumed that I collected CP.

I don’t collect any “child porn” involving little girl children because I have no interest in such things. I also think it is disgusting and grotesque. Why would I have it on my drive?

Of course, I have a ton of porn on this drive. A lot of it is nudes that were sent to me by various females all over the world. I certainly hope they were all over 18. I would never store any nudes by any underage teenage girls on my drive. I don’t want that bullshit on my drive.

Have I seen it? Of course I have. Assuming it was what it was said to be. But it’s nothing special. There’s nothing interesting about it. I’ve seen these photos on webpages, but like Hell I am downloading that and putting that crap on my drive. Hell no.

Alt Left: Why I Hate the Judicial System So Much

I despise cops, DA’s, courts, jails, prisons, probation officers and the whole vile, despicable system.

Of the above, I think I hate DA’s most of all. I also really hate federal police, even the FBI. The FBI is not cool at all. If they just focused on arresting very bad criminals it would be one thing. But they undertake blatantly political prosecutions all the time, indicting foreign citizens on US charges solely for further US foreign policy, as these are citizens of the countries who we say are enemies.

Check out COINTELPRO if you think the FBI is ok. And they never stopped doing that either. They said they shut it down, but it’s really still going on but underground. In these cases, the government pursued blatantly political prosecutions of US dissidents all the way up executing them (check out Fred Hampton). The FBI also covers up for the crimes that the CIA commits on US soil, including homicide.

Yes, I know we need the people above sometimes to protect us from criminals who actually harm us, but we have far too many laws, and 70% of them should be wiped off the books. Every year there is a whole slate of new laws on the books to criminalize more and more of our lives. They’ve already made half of normal daily life illegal. I guess that’s not enough as they aren’t satisfied.

The government needs to butt the Hell out of our lives, in particular our sex lives. Far too much of our normal sex lives is open to prosecution by the judicial system. That’s ridiculous. What business is it of theirs? I feel that for most problems (70% of laws) people simply ought to be left to sort out their problems on their own. Why are police involved in interpersonal disputes between one person and another? What business is this of the state’s? Butt out.

In particular, many of those either do not victimize anyone or is quite dubious that the “victim” was harmed in the slightest bit by the crime.

In some cases, the “victim” is the government or society. Excuse me. I never realized that “the government” or “society” was a human being! Did “the government” or “society” get PTSD as a result of this crime against it? Did it need therapy for decades as a result of the crime? No? Then why is this even a law in the first place.

In this sense, I am quasi-Libertarian, though I do want to keep many laws on the books, far more than the Libertarians do. I particularly do not agree with complete decriminalization of drug laws and a complete deregulation of business or the capitalists. And this would also be the Alt Left position. We are in a sense Left-Libertarians.

NSFW: Some Women Actually Enjoyed Getting Molested As Girls

NSFW!

Warning: This post contains a lot of highly disturbing material adults having sex minors, including the child molestation of little girls. If you find this sort of thing disturbing and upsetting, then don’t read. If you do read don’t come back and tell what a horrible person I am for writing about this sort of thing.

Also, a caveat: I am not saying it is a good thing for men to molest girls when they are young. Clearly, many girls are harmed by this practice. In quite a few cases, they get over it quickly, but one can argue that there was still harm. If someone robs me and I get over my trauma soon enough, but I still got harmed, let’s face it. And many girls are harmed long term by being molested, and in quite a few cases, the damage lingers into adulthood.

Some of the sequelae of getting molested are Borderline Personality Disorder, involved in the sex trade, masochism, addiction to abusive men, low to zero desire for sex, difficulty in maintaining sexual relationships, and PTSD.  There may be others but these are the only ones I can think of. Some studies have even visually mapped this damage on brain scans.

Now it’s quite obvious that women who get molested vary. Many suffer long term damage, but for many others, the damage is short term. An unknown group of others actually regard the experience as positive.

For those who regard the experience as positive, the sequelae are nonetheless similar to those who got harmed: involved in the sex trade, masochism or a desire for abusive sex, addiction to older men, and the most prominent of all – promiscuity, often extreme promiscuity.

It’s not PC to say that some women liked it and were not harmed at all, but that’s the science, so that’s the conclusion that we need to go with. Such outcomes may have discussed in the famous paper by Judith Reiner et al around 1999 which said that harm from molestation stemmed whether it was consensual or not.

Girls who went along with and agreed to it experienced short term or no harm at all. Those who were coerced (the majority) often experienced long term harm. Pedophiles have been using  this study to justify the molestation of children, which was to be expected. Nevertheless, the science is the science and we must support the truth in all cases, which by the way is an Alt Left position.

The fact that even many women who were harmed nevertheless enjoyed the sex is well-known and this is part of the therapy of the problem.

I knew one woman who was molested at age 8 and got over it. However she said the experience was confusing because it felt good but it was wrong.

Girls and later women wrestle with this internal contradiction. Many of those seriously harmed often experience extreme guilt over the fact that they felt pleasure in being molested. This is one of the main issues that needs to be addressed in  any therapy.

Any man who intends to molest a girl, regardless of the legality of the matter, ought to think of the consequences for the girl. That girl may well be harmed very long-term, for decades or maybe for life. In that sense it is like stealing from her, beating her up, or out and out raping her. Maybe you should think twice about that.

Besides, if you get caught, your life will be pretty much ruined. If you go to jail or prison, you will be in serious danger there and may well be attacked or possibly even killed. You will be on the Sex Offender List for the rest of your life with all the consequences that flow from that. I would say think about it.

This nonsense has been going on too long. Earlier we could plead innocence of cultural values, but now we know better.

The practice is widespread across cultures and is very common even in some primitive tribes in places like Australia and New Guinea. It was very common in ancient Rome and among the poor in  the West during the 18th and  19th centuries when it was associated with crowded conditions. Even today in India, 53% of Indian women get molested as girls.

My own position is that we men have been having sex with those little girls forever now. Isn’t about time that we knocked it off! It’s a human rights issue.

Some women who were molested as girls found the experience positive. Not only were they not harmed but they claimed it was positive and beneficial.

I know it goes against everything you heard, but it’s true.

Some molesters are simply extreme libertines or trysexuals. They have no particular interest in kids and instead are just the types who “try anything” sexually.

I have talked to a couple of women who were raised in “loving families.”

I talked to one who spent half the year in Hong Kong and the other half in the Caribbean and started having sex with her mother and stepfather at age 6. This continued all through teenage years when she was known as the blow job queen at the local junior high (White boys only).

She was a Black woman with a White man fetish, as her stepfather was White, and her Mom was Black. She continued to have sex with her stepfather and maybe Mom to this very day. These “pedo families” are fairly common. It was all a big secret, and she didn’t want to give me too much information, as she was worried I might go to the police and get the mother and stepfather in trouble.

I also talked to an 18 year old girl from the US Northeast who was in one of these families. I guess it was the cousins and the uncles or just the males in the family. They started having sex with her at age 8. She had two sisters, one 14 and another…I forget…9? Both of the girls were also having sex with each other and with the males. It  was all a big secret. I am not sure if any of these men were actual pedophiles or not.

I talked to a British woman age 24 who started getting molested by her uncle at age 9. They apparently “trained” her to be a total slut. From age 13-on she regularly had sex with the uncle and his older man friends, including gangbangs with groups of these older men. She told me about one gangbang when she was 13. They made her recite some line from “Harry Potter” when they came on her.

At some point she got really fucked up about all this as is typical, but then she decided that if this happened, I may as well make the best of it and learn to enjoy it and label it is a positive experience.

She now had a serious older man fetish, and she regularly has sex with older men in hotel rooms, etc. Other than that, her sexual interests were pretty normal.

These older men who had sex with her as a teen took a ton of photos and videos of her getting gangbanged and whatnot. She admitted that it would turn her on to see this stuff and she had been asking around the underground community to try to find the videos of herself, if they ever got distributed that is.

She said people had sent her a bunch of teenage girl CP, and she had looked at it but didn’t find any of herself. She wasn’t really worried about getting caught.

She called me “Mister” and had sort of a strange robotic, emotionless way about her. I saw her pic and she is really hot. Apparently neither her uncle nor the other older men were pedophiles.

I met another woman about 40 who had grown up in one of these “sex families,” and she thought it was a very positive experience. Her father had started having sex with her at age 5. Her sexual interests were pretty normal. Her father was apparently not a pedophile.

I met an 18 year old girl college student from the Midwest who worked as a stripper. She was really nice but she didn’t talk all that much. Her uncle raped her when she was 12.

After that he turned her into some sort of a total sex slave. He trained her to deep throat, and she was also a toilet slave (yuck). She liked some one aspect the latter but not the other part of it.

He tied her to the bed all day when he was gone and put diapers on her if she pissed or shit when she was tied up. He also made her wear diapers when they went out. That’s all pretty gross to me, but she told me that now she had a serious diaper fetish as a result.

He also stuck a dildo her in mouth and taped it in, and she would have to have this thing in her throat all day. This was deep throat training. I asked her if she vomited but she said if that thing is in your throat you can’t puke, which is probably correct. This was all to train her to deep throat.

He also made her have sex with another 12 year old girl at age 12. I asked her why she continued this abusive activity for years, and she said she felt she did not have a choice, and she thought he owned her, which I guess is what he told her.

The uncle also took a ton of photos and film. He got caught when she was 17, and after a trial was sentenced to a long prison term. I asked her what she thought of that, and she had no opinion. All of the photos and videos were confiscated, and there was a ton of it.

Mom was a severe alcoholic and the girl had a lock on her door as a teenage girl to keep the raging mother from coming in and beating her. I guess the mother either allowed the sex with the uncle to happen or she was too wasted to care. The uncle was not a pedophile at all, as he started having sex with her at age 12 and continued til age 17.

She was a total submissive into perverted, abusive sex involving degradation, humiliation, etc. She wanted to be dominated or dommed big-time. I actually liked her and thought she was a good person. She was vaguely bisexual but mostly into men.

I met another who was as Berber woman from Northeastern Mali. Her Dad had started having sex with her at age 9. She and her father were in love. She was 23 years old now and still having sex with the father.

The father pimped her out as a prostitute, and this is what she did all day – got fucked by men. She was into some sort of male worship and said she was put on this Earth to serve and be a slave to men, and she didn’t want any pleasure herself. She was also heavy into degrading sex – the more degrading, the better.

She had sex with women but considered herself straight because she got no pleasure from it. Some of the johns would bring in a girl or a woman and pay for a lesbian show. She told me that she had been “cut” via genital mutilation, and she said all the girls there got cut this way.

I argued that this was bad, and she was very defensive of it and thought it was great because she thought females should just be slaves to and serve men and not get any pleasure themselves.

She was a rather curt and unfriendly person with a list of 100 rules about stuff you could not talk to her about or what sort of tone you had to have with her. She was pretty arrogant about this and quit talking to me after I complained. She was bitchy, difficult, curt, short, and in a chronically annoyed mood.

She thought she was better than other people – she had some narcissism. She got a college education in London and then went back to Mali. She said it was a difficult neighborhood around there with Al Qaeda Islamist types out and about.

She most of these people were apolitical. There were all sorts of warlords and organized crime/smuggler types who were in the area, and these Al Qaeda guys were just another group of gangsters and warlords and really had no particular political or even religious philosophy. Her father was not a pedophile.

Alt Left: Fake News: The Whole Brock Turner Case

You may be aware of the case of Brock Turner, the Stanford athlete swimmer headed for the Olympic Games who was arrested for raping a young woman on campus. He was given a brief term of three months by the judge, a sentence which caused extreme outrage. The judge said he didn’t want to ruin this young man’s life.

But there is a lot more to this case than meets the eye. First of all this is no ordinary rape case. It’s a date rape case and even beyond that, it’s fraught will all sorts of problems.

Now I am not arguing that Turner did not commit the crime of rape (actually sexual assault) according to the letter of the law. According to a close reading of the law, he indeed committed the crime of sexual assault. And I have no problem with his arrest or even his sentence, which I regard as appropriate.

But even rape cases, as in any other cases, need to be examined individually according to the spirit and not the letter of the law. Females are incapable of enforcing laws according to the spirit of the law and not the letter because of their extreme emotional and irrational brains, which are not their fault by the way.

But I don’t see why we should put a bunch of humans with extreme emotional and irrational brains in charge of making and enforcing our laws, sorry. Anyone with a lick of sense can tell  you that that’s a bad idea.

The sordid saga unfolds thus:

The young woman in question, in her early 20’s, was not a student but instead lived nearby and sometimes went to campus parties and hung out with some of the  university students.

She hears about the party via her younger sister. I believe that her younger sister goes with her to the party. They leave around 10 PM and showed up at the party soon after. This is a pretty wild bash, and this young lady proceeds to get positively smashed falling down drunk on alcohol via her own free choice, and in my opinion, bad decisions.

At some point around 11:30 AM, she gets together with Turner at the party. They more or less pick up on each other as is often the case in human mating. A wild 90 minute kissing, etc. makeout session follows all through the party for quite some time and then outside the party, which they leave around 12:30. The couple are seen outside the party around this time and the young woman is described as “all over Brock” just about consensually raping him.

Somehow or other they end up behind a large trash container on campus around 1 AM. They are still making out and apparently Brock is finger-banging her.

Already this is not rape because in California, a man must use his penis to commit rape. You can’t rape a woman with your finger. Apparently you can commit some other crime with your finger called sexual assault or something along those lines. So he never raped her. He sexually assaulted her. Not a big difference but still.

All of this was fine and dandy and consensual, and the charge against Turner was not some BS rape charge for having sex with a drunken woman. He was blasted himself so logically she was raping him too, right? She couldn’t consent so he was raping her, but he couldn’t consent either, so she was raping him. She how these Female Rule laws end up making no sense?

Anyway, at some point in this rutting on the ground behind trashcans like pigs in shit behavior, this poor young woman passes out due to extreme drunkenness. Apparently Turner realizes that she’s unconscious, but he keeps banging her anyway because…I have no idea? He has necrophilic tendencies? He’s a normally horny and totally wasted young male with few self-controls?

At any rate, he finger bangs her for 1 1/2 minutes before some students find the couple behind the trash cans and figure out that he’s sexually assaulting an unconscious woman. I believe the students originally think that the woman might be dead and Turner might have killed her.

There were some males in the group, and they pull Turner off, manhandle him into some sort of griplock imprisonment, and march him off to meet the nearest police officer. Turner cooperates. The officer returns to the scene and sees the passed out half naked young woman. The witnesses say they saw him fingering her while she was passed out cold. Turner is placed under arrest.

Well there  you have it, folks. Not exactly the way it was made out to be, right? I agree that he sexually assaulted her, but given the nature of the case, I have no problem with a few months in jail, which is Hell anyway if you want to know for anyone who’s never been there. Especially for a nice upper middle class White boy like him.

The young woman is very shaken up by all this. She wakes up the next morning in her house. Her clothes and body are dirty – she has dirt all over her. There are dead leaves stuck all over her clothing. She looks in the mirror, hungover the next day, and she’s a wasted, ravaged mess of a young lady. She more or less PTSD’s out as a result of this trauma.

I read her extremely angry and disgusted eight page account, and I actually felt very sorry for this young lass. Clearly she was very much harmed by this event.

Nevertheless, crimes must be judged on what exactly the perpetrator did, not on how the victim reacted to it because victims, especially female victims, tend to overreact. I mean I grab some woman’s ass, and she has a heart attack.

So I need to get 20 years? Maybe I need a few weeks in jail to think about it, or maybe I don’t even deserve cuffs at all, but what’s important here is what I did, which was not much. Her overreaction is frankly her problem, and I had no role in how her body chose to react.

So even reading this poor woman’s very moving account, I am still happy with a three month sentence for Turner. Keep in mind he now has a felony on his record for life. And don’t forget that he will be registering on sex offender lists until his dying day. For a clean-cut young college boy of his ilk, those are a couple of crushing blows and certainly serve as major punishment.

Ok, now you all see why the Brock Turner case was complicated?

 

Alt Left: The Serious Logical Lapses in the Enforcement of Rape Cases under Female Rule (with an Emphasis on Campus Craziness)

The If She Was Intoxicated, It’s Rape Bullshit

An examination of the insanity of what Female Rule has done to the enforcement of rape laws is in order. First of all, almost all women state that sex with an intoxicated woman is always rape. Well, what if she smoked some weed? What if she did some lines of coke? What if she shot some heroin? Why if she was flying on acid? What is intoxicated? One drink? Three drinks? Six drinks?

Lot of questions, huh?

Oh you silly person! You’re probably a man. What’s up with all this crazy logic stuff, anyway?

As usual this crazy law under Female Rule is vague, and in general you have no idea how to avoid breaking the law because you can’t even make sense of what the law even means and what the line is between legal and illegal behavior.

Fortunately Male Rule is still preponderant in most police departments, attorney general’s offices, and courts of law, and the legal system has decided “intoxicated” means in the case of alcohol that she is so drunk that she’s either passed on cold or she’s passing in and out of consciousness.

So boys, if you are even being sexual with a drunken woman and she fades into this sort of quasi-consciousness, it’s best to end the sex when she starts passing out. Just stop.  Because whatever it was before, now it’s rape, and even a pig like me approves of that definition.

The They Were Raping Each Other Bullshit, or Something, or Whatever

For the sake of the idiot feminist version of this law, let’s say a man and  a woman are both blasted on alcohol. He’s wasted so he can’t consent, right? So she’s raping him, right? Legally that’s correct.

But she’s totalled too, no? She sure is. This poor damsel in distress can’t consent either now that she’s a typical female who lacks agency. So he’s raping her, right? Legally that is indeed so.

So what makes sense?  Arrest one and not the other? Which one and why? Arrest them both and idiotically charge these two lushes with raping each other both at the same time?

See how insane Female Rule is?

In the case of the above, rest assured that feminists confidently inform us that it’s always only the man ever raping the female, who is always a childlike helpless maiden with no agency, and the man, no matter how plastered, is always the rapist because men are evil or something. Or whatever. Or bla bla.

Don’t bother confusing feminists or any riled up woman about anything to do with logic or sense because their aroused emotional state will blind them to such things. Which is why most feminist theory is nonsense and why most of what feminists say is not even true.

The Drunken Female Sexual Aggressors Who Attack Men Are Actually Getting Raped Themselves Somehow in some  Alternate Universe Bullshit

There was actually a case at a university recently of a totally plastered female student who more or less ripped the clothes off a sober male student she was with and thereupon gave him a blowjob. Nevertheless, this poor helpless female creature experienced regret rape when she woke up with a hangover and probably a sore jaw, so she screamed rape.

The Kafkaesque Feminist Kangaroo Rape Tribunals on Campus Bullshit

The man was tried before a feminist kangaroo court rape tribunal with the Kafkaesque madness that typifies these proceedings.

He had no right to presumption of innocence because females think presumption of innocence in rape cases is “unfair”.

He also had no right to attorney or an advocate to represent his side, and he even had no right to present his side of the story at all! Once again because women say that in rape cases, it would be “unfair” for the man to have such rights.

He also had no right to confront his accuser on the stand or even to see her at all in court. Once again because women think that in rape cases, this is “only fair.”

Furthermore in the latter matter, women are hot and bothered by the fact that we are subjecting this poor womanchild “rape victim” to a traumatic experience on the stand confronting  her accuser because she might PTSD out, and nothing that harms a precious but extremely fragile female can be allowed.

Some sane people, probably men, have suggested that the poor forever child female “rape victims” could be allowed in court via video, and the accused could confront his accuser in that manner. But no go. Females are such fragile wildflower-type creatures that even showing up in court via video would wilt and traumatize them and cause them to PTSD out again as they wont to do for various reasons or probably even for no reasons.

Anyway, of course the feminist kangaroo court found him guilty of rape and decided to throw this poor shmuck out of the university. The case later became a bit of a cause celebre when sane people pointed out just how lunatic Female Rule actually is.

The Regret Rape Bullshit

Females experience “regret rape” all the time. Th regret rape realization usually hits the next hungover morning, but it can be up to two years later, or for females with exceptionally fine memories, now 17 years later in the latest Matt Lauer case.

Many rape cases the police investigate of women against men are just regret rape nonsense where she consents at the time but then wakes up guilty with a bad memory the next morning and decides that the consensual sex she had the night before was actually rape now that she’s (mis)remembering it correctly. So she retroactively withdraws her consent that she freely gave that previous rollicking night.

Feminists claim that women reserve to right to yell regret rape anytime they want, presumably even on their deathbeds when you would think they had better things to worry about.

Feminists also say that regret rape is real rape when any sane person, like a typical male, knows that all regret rape is garbage, but we’re not ruled by sane people anymore. We are ruled by women, and women are frankly not sane. Not sane enough to write and enforce laws at any rate.

Now maybe you can understand my issues with Female Rule and why I talk about it a lot.

Alt Left: The Crimes of Jeffrey Epstein Will Shudder You to Your Very Bones

Jeffrey Epstein was finally arrested again recently after he got off pretty much scot free from his previous charges, serving only 13 months in a minimum security prison where he was allowed to leave on work release for 12 hours a day. They refiled new charges on him for sex trafficking, as the previous charges were simply for buying a prostitute or pandering prostitution. The girl was only 14 but who cares about that?

She was a little whore like most all of the rest of them. Epstein paid her good cash to jerk him off, and she was so traumatized that just like all the others, she kept coming back scores of times to jerk him off for $300 over and over again. In fact the traumatization was so horrific that she found herself recruiting other teenies to be teen whores just like her for the handjobs and a hand full of hundreds at the end.

I’m sure it must have been so horrible. They were free to leave at any time, but it was so horrific that they just had to come back countless times to be teen whores over and over again.

Oh, poor girls! I’m sure their lives are ruined. All those horrible handjobs for a very handsome and very rich man, and they only got a measly $300 each time! It’s so hard to be a girl! If you feel horny and you want to have sex, you have to get paid hundreds of dollars for it, while us boys get to pay all our own money for sex instead. It’s so much more fun to pay for sex instead of raking in the cash to get laid like a little teenie whore!

This is really all about metoo. When those teen whores besieged his door for the $300 handjobs, Epstein should have been proper and turned the little teen sluts away. Instead he grotesquely harassed, abused, raped, and molested these poor eager willing girls, and to make things even worse and increase the shame and horror, he paid them hundreds of dollars to get laid or perform a harmless meager sex act they were already doing with all the boys their age anyway.

This is sick. When will men ever stop abusing girls and women by paying them to get laid! It’s got to stop. The abuse, the harassment, the endless consensual rapes, the hundreds of dollars all these sluts rake in to get laid and get their rocks off, it’s just so awful.

It makes me ashamed to be a man. To think we treat women this way! How horrible! How awful! No wonder women hate us!

All their money is for them, and all our money is for them, and to make matters worse, they get paid big money for the torturous horror of getting laid! Horrifying! While we men escape the whole horrorshow by giving women all of our money just for existing.

Just think of women were giving us men hundreds of dollars to get laid by hot women. We men would all be screaming metoo!

Metoo! Metoo! Metoo!

Come on, men. Scream it with me. Cry while you do! Cry for our sisters!

These poor women, they can get laid anytime they want, and they even get paid good money for getting fucked. Tragic! The lot of women is a sad one. Nothing but sadness and pain. It’s pain and sorrow all the way, and then they die!

I’m sad! I’m crying! I’m crying for all you girls and women out there! I know! I know! I feel your pain, ladies, I feel your pain. Come let me hold your female heads in my lap while I comfort you for your sorrowful lot in life! And I promise I won’t pay you $300 to let me do it. I’m not that kind of a guy! I’m a good man!

Alt Left: The Lockerbie Shootdown: Libya Is Completely Innocent of This Crime

Like almost all Americans, I bet you believe that Libya’s Ghaddafi plotted to have that Lockerbie jet shot down, killing 190 innocent people, right?  Well you can hardly be blamed. Your government and media have never told you anything else. Except you got played. You got taken. They lied to you. And you believed. Sucker.

The FBI framed Libya’s Ghaddafi and an intelligence agent in his government for the Lockerbie jet shootdown.

A subsequent, many-years investigation concluded that the plane was shot down cadre of the Palestinian guerrilla group PFLP-GC, who have a close relationship with the Syrian government. The PFLP-GC cadre were based on Germany. That was where the suitcase bomb was constructed and where the suitcase was sneaked onto the luggage rack.

Ultimately, it was Iran that blew up that plane. They paid the PFLP-GC $10 million to blow up the plane. It was all payback for the incident where our Vincennes ship accidentally shot down an Iranian jetliner, killing everyone aboard. Lockerbie was payback.

An expert witness later stated he caught the FBI deliberately tampering with evidence in the remains of the suitcase bomb. They deliberately altered evidence to frame Libya and Ghaddafi when they knew full well it was really the PFLP-GC and Iran.

In the 30 years since, almost all experts who study the Lockerbie case have concluded that it was Iran and the PFLP-GC  and that the US government and the FBI framed Ghaddafi and his agent for geopolitical reasons. In fact, the CIA itself issued a report that stated that Libya did not blow up the Lockerbie plane and that instead it was done by Iran.

But the CIA’s perfectly happy that the fake news is out there I guess. The CIApedia, I mean Wikipedia page on the Lockerbie incident still points the finger to the framed party, Libya, and it lists the Iran / PFLP-GC theory as “conspiracy theory.” This when almost all experts now agree that Iran shot down the plane.

One thing that is interesting is that the despicable US media also has no interest in correcting the story or probably any story for that matter. For a while there they were running articles along these lines, but then they dropped it.

When we overthrew Ghaddafi, all of the Western press in utter unison chanted that Ghaddafi was the evil madman who blew up the Lockerbie jet. Didn’t they realize that the case was settled by now and nearly everyone agreed that Iran did it? Didn’t they care?

I don’t think they did. The media hates to admit that it got some story utterly wrong even though it prints fake news, lies, and propaganda day in and day out nonstop. The media never goes back and tells the true story even when the truth comes out. Instead the truth is usually blacked out.

It may also be the case that the media still wants the fake news story that they originally created to continue to be the official lie that goes down in the record. In addition, Ghaddafi is a designated scumbag. He’s a designated enemy of America, though he’s done almost nothing to deserve it except talking smack about us, smack we richly deserved. He’s a useful idiot to frame. A sucker. A patsy. A chump. A fall guy. The guy you leave holding the bag after you do the crime.

Alt Left: The US Is Trying to Destroy a Foreign Company for Having the Gall to Out-compete Our Companies

It’s appalling that the US has even enlisted the Justice Department and the FBI in geopolitics and its disgusting squabbles with foreign countries in pursuit of our wicked and malign foreign policy. But it won’t be the first time.

For instance, the FBI has been enlisted in a war against Huawei. Huawei’s crime is that it is beating the crap out of our similar technology companies. Why is it beating our companies?  Because our companies are crap? I have no idea but they are. They’re beating us. Badly. Very badly. So badly that it’s pathetic.

Because a foreign company is badly outcompeting one of our industries, we have appallingly decided that this company is an enemy of the United States! I knew the government worked for the corporations, but I had no idea it was that bad.

We placed sanctions on this company for no damned reason at all and also put sanctions on any of our allies should they do business with this company. And we arrested one of their executives on utterly fake charges of violating sanctions against Iran. I had no idea that US law extended to Canada and China!  We have banned the use and sale of this company’s products in the US in spite of the fact that its products are the best in the field, far better than our garbage.

The fake news lie that’s been put out there by the lying US government and the lying media is that Huawei is a security risk because it is tied in with the Chinese government. And there might be security holes in Huawei’s software and hardware, just as there might be security holes in everything, especially our very own lives if you think about. Nothing’s secure in this world or life.

Yeah. There might be security holes in their stuff, but no one’s ever found any, but one might show up any day just the same. And a unicorn might show up any day too. So what? Absence of evidence isn’t proof of jack. So because their stuff might have security holes and because if these mysterious holes exist, the Chinese government might use them to spy on us, we have to ban our entire nation and all of our allies from using their technology.

A sick joke, right? Well, Americans are so retarded that everyone fell for this bullshit, especially 100% of the lying “experts” in the media and government, who you shouldn’t be listening to anyway.

Hauwei’s technology is insecure (actually it might be insecure)! The evil ChiComs might use it to spy on us! Right. And tomorrow the sky might fall. I might not even be typing this. Perhaps this is all a dream. Perhaps this isn’t even real; it’s just a simulation in some matrix. Perhaps I am really dead but someone typing this anyway. Perhaps this. Perhaps that. Maybe anything. We can play this game forever.

And never mind that all Microsoft software has a huge back door in it for the National Security Agency super-spooks to come spying on your computer anytime they fancy, no matter what folly reason they may dream up.

Because some spook decided you were an “enemy combatant”, except no one even knows what an enemy combatant even is, and there’s no such definition as “enemy combatant” in international law. It’s an illegal term for an illegal offense for an illegal category you can be charge under by the state illegally. Not that any of that law stuff matters anyway. The state does what it wants. Leviathan never sleeps.

Because some fed decided you provided material support to a terrorist group”except no one even knows what that even means. How do I not provide material support to a terrorist group. I haven’t the faintest idea.

This sordid Huawei saga is pathetic and sickening. It’s like if I am losing a footrace to some guy and in order to stop him from beating me fair and square, I arrange to have his knees broken as he approaches the finish line so I can claim my fake title. That’s not how honest sportsmen, or fair, decent, or honorable men operate.  That’s how thugs, gangsters, criminals, psychopaths and dictators operate.

“He’s beating  me, so I am going  to break his legs!”

Alt Left: The FBI: Agents of Sleaze, Framers of Innocents, Accessories to Murder

Everyone reveres the FBI, but people need to think again. If you think we have a Police State here, nothing resembles that more than the FBI. You never want the FBI to come knocking at your door. Here’s a dirty secret. If the FBI wants to get you, they will get you.

If they think you’re a scum who needs to go down, if they can’t bust or file on you for the charges that they want you on, I assure you that they will dig through your entire life and find some BS to run you up on. “The FBI always gets their man.” Not quite and it’s worse than that. If they want you for some reason, you’re going down. If not for what they want you on, you will go down on something that has nothing to do with it. Few of us are angels.

The FBI covered up for many of the Deep State murders of witnesses to the JFK assassination.  They covered up the police assassination of MLK and helped frame an innocent man, James Earl Ray, for his murder. They murdered a lot of 60’s radicals in cold blood, including a number of Black Panthers. They smeared and slandered others and tried to destroy their lives and careers.

Alt Left: You Have No Idea the Sheer Volume of Vague, Nonsensical or Chickenshit Laws We Have

You would not believe how many laws, even crazy, insane, stupid, and vague laws there are out there. Laws so vague that you have no idea how not to break that law. Where you have no idea if you are breaking it or not. Where you have no idea what’s permissible behavior and what’s not permissible behavior.

Furthermore, with the sheer volume of laws, literally mountains of printed paper out there, no human can keep up with all of them.

Every week I learn of some stupid chickenshit law that I could probably go down on myself if I was so inclined. “Conspiracy to be an agent of a foreign power.” I just learned of that one today. What the Hell does that even mean? What am I permitted to do? What am I not allowed to do? No one knows!

“Harassment” is another one. What’s that? How do I know if I am harassing someone? What does harassment even mean? It could mean anything.

“Annoying or molesting a child” – the anti-grooming law. Literally you can go down on  this law for simply talking to anyone underage. A guy went down on it for a 15 minute conversation in a Pet Mart. I have no idea what they discussed.

“Contributing to the delinquency of a minor.” Even when a girl is perfectly legal, above the age of consent, they can still get you on contributing to delinquency if her parents get mad. Isn’t that stupid?

And if the age of consent in my state is 18, and I go to a state where the age of consent is 16 and have sex with a 17 year old girl, I committed committed the crime of “crossing state lines to assault a minor” or some BS. The age of consent in my state literally follows me around everywhere I go!

And say the age of consent is whatever in my state but I go to a foreign country where the age of consent is 15 and I live there for a while. I hook up with a 17 year old girl and I go down on sexual assault of a minor or some crap. That’s because when you leave the country, US laws continue to follow you everywhere you go like a nagging wife that won’t let go. And federal law puts the age of consent at 18.

So if you live in a state where the age of consent is 16, you can hook up with a 16 year old girl, but you leave the country and go to someplace where the age of consent is 12 and hook up with a 16 year old girl, and you committed sexual assault of a minor. These laws were put it to stop overseas pedophiles who were traveling to foreign lands where the age of consent was 12 or effectively nonexistent and molesting little children of both sexes, often for years on end. Look how they are being abused.

Suppose the age of consent is 16 in a state. You hook up with a 16 year old girl. Everything’s kosher. But now you take a picture of her naked or she sends you nudes on her phone like every woman I go out with nowadays does anyway. Now  you are “manufacturing child pornography” and “receiving child pornography.”

Suppose a 16 year old girl takes a picture of her own self and  keeps it on her phone. If the cops find it, she’s going down on “manufacturing child pornography” for taking a damned selfie.

If I engage in monetary transactions with anyone in Iran, Syria, Venezuela, or Cuba I can be arrested and look at serious jail time. I have no idea what sort of transactions are allowed if any and which are not allowed. You got me.

You can literally be arrested for traveling from the US to Cuba or North Korea. It is actually against the law to visit those countries as a tourist!

If you buy a gun you have to sign a statement that you don’t use illegal drugs. Well Hell, everyone uses illegal drugs. It’s actually normal to use dope and get high. And if you own a gun and happen to be using any illegal drugs during the time you owned that gun or lie on that form, you can be charged and serve 20 years in prison.

If you loan someone your gun for target practice and he uses it to commit a crime, you can go down for accessory to murder. That’s crazy. That’s like I loan someone my car and he kills someone and I go down on vehicular homicide.

Lie on a loan application? So what. Everyone does that. And anyway, it’s between you and the bank, right? Let the bank sue you. It’s no business of the state’s. But you can do serious time for this chickenshit offense.

You work for a company and you learn some of their trade secrets, whatever the Hell that even means. You quit and go work for some other company and you divulge some of the undefined trade secrets of your previous employer. You are looking at serious time now.

But what business is this of the state’s? It’s between you and the employer you violated the contract of, right?  And I don’t see why that contract should follow you around through the rest of your life after you quit the company. I mean while you still work there, fine. But after you leave? Twenty years down the road? Get real.

Did you realize that lying to a police officer is a crime? No one ever goes down on it because everyone lies to cops, especially criminals. I mean what do you expect them to do, tell the truth? I wouldn’t. Why should I? Only the stupidest criminal would tell the truth to a cop and get himself in trouble. No one ever goes down on it because obviously everyone lies to cops, but the law’s still there.

Lying in court is illegal. This is preposterous because everyone knows that people lie in court all the time. Most criminal defendants who plead innocent and go to trial lie on the stand. People lie on the stand all day, every day, year in and year out in this country. Everyone knows this guy is up there lying his fool head off. He’s often got his lawyer helping him lie like a rug.

Really 95% of the people who plead guilty should go down on perjury, but almost no one ever does. Perjury is a chickenshit offense that is only used on political white collar crimes such as we are seeing with this Russia affair.

Did you know it’s illegal to lie to Congress? Why? Why should I tell the truth to those psychopathic lowlifes? They’re not deserving of my truthful statements. I’d lie to them just to show them how much I hate them.

Did you know it’s illegal to lie to a Grand Jury? Why? Who the Hell are they? A bunch of citizen-cops? Why do I have to tell the truth to them? The Hell with them.

Alt Left: Can’t Find the Real Killer? No Problem! Just Go Frame Some Scumbag!

There are times when there’s a horrible murder or series of murders and the police can’t catch the guy.

Everyone thinks that this means that the police are incompetent, but that’s not necessarily true. People get away with murder all the time, sometimes for decades and sometimes for an entire lifetime. Quite a few have yet to be caught even in death. Not only can we not catch killers, but we cannot even catch the ghosts of  killers.

I suggest that anyone who thinks  that this is easy work as an armchair detective on a famous unsolved case.

If you really dive into the rabbit hole, you will come out later with your head spinning. Nothing will make sense. Nothing will add up. Everything will be wrong. It will seem like everyone is lying. Every great theory and bit of evidence will have gone nowhere. Excellent theories being passed around widely by word of mouth will turn out to  have been made up out of whole cloth.

I have worked on cases like this for years, and I came out of wondering how the police ever catch any murderer. Or armed robber. Or burglar. Or most unknown criminals. I don’t understand how detectives solve cases. I have watched these guys in action and they are amazing, almost like magicians who pull rabbits out of hats. I have no idea how they do it.

Because there are 333 million people in the country to sift through and some killers are very good, a number of killers simply get away with murder, even multiple murders. Just think. You only have to sift through 333 million human beings to find the killer! How hard could that be?

When a killer or multiple killer is not found, it’s not typically due to bad policework. In many cases, detectives put in tens or hundreds of thousands of hours. There might be a small room packed with evidence boxes. And they still never caught him.

But the average person is an idiot who thinks with his gut and his retarded snake brain. He doesn’t know what higher thinking is, much less engage in it. But you get enough of these morons together and they can make a lot of noise. A roar, a great big huge stink. One we are obliged to listen to.

The people will start screaming at the top of their lungs that the police are incompetent for not finding some master criminal. They will demand that sheriffs, police chiefs or district attorneys be fired. Such folks come under withering pressure to solve the case.

There have been a number of recorded cases where haggard and harried police were being so browbeaten about not solving a case that they simply went out and grabbed some local scumbag, often a real scumbag.

A convict with a long record who’s been released. Someone who has done some bad to terrible things  – murder, rape, child molesting, child rape, torture, you name it – but served his time and paid his debt, and now he’s walking free. He’s hate-able. He’s so hate-able you want to lynch him on the spot.

Well, the cops just grab this guy (who keep in mind is just a total scumbag anyway) and simply frame him of the murder or murders just to shut everyone up.

Incredibly, the public doesn’t even seem to care that some schmuck, albeit a scumbag schmuck, got framed for a crime. A lot of  people will put their fingers in their ears and start yelling. “I don’t want to hear about it!” If you imply that they got the wrong guy, people will actually say, “So what! He’s a scumbag anyway! If he didn’t do this, he definitely did a lot of other bad things!”

At the end of the day, people just want the case solved. Getting down to brass tacks, they don’t even care that the real killer got away with it. They just want someone, anyone, preferably a total dirtbag, to be convicted of the crime so everyone can finally sleep well at night.

To Live Outside the Law, You Must Be Honest

Well, the moral of the Street is something called “Paybacks are a bitch.” You wrong people on the street like drug dealers or other Street-type people, and they have a tendency to get their revenge on you, and it can be pretty serious.

And the police probably will not get involved to protect you, as word will get out that you were badly wronging people, and they took revenge on you. Cops figure you’re a scumbag who wronged some other scumbags, and they see these crimes as “NHI”, or No Humans Involved. If you got paid back, cops figure you’re a scumbag who wronged people and got what you deserved.

People on the street do not let wrongs so unanswered. That’s why actually most Street-type people like users and dealers, especially of the soft stuff like pot, are downright honest people. There a code of honor among Street people. Dylan sang, “If you live outside the law, you must be honest,” and I swear it’s true.

This Code of Justice has a tendency to keep most low level Street type people (as long as they are not too bad) quite honest if only out of fear if nothing else. Another moral of the streets is “The Street Knows Everything.”

Street people know everything about everyone, all the underground types out there. You can’t really hide secrets from these people. Anything significant about you gets found out, and word of mouth travels like lightning. They even know who you are hanging around with, dating, or sleeping with.

So if you think you can do crimes against Street people and not have anyone figure it out, you are probably wrong. And when they get back at you, they will generally commit some sort of low level crimes against you when doing so, as most forms of revenge tend to be illegal.

Even if it’s only kicking your ass, it’s still against the law. You go to the cops because people took revenge on you, and now you are a snitch or a narc, the worst sort of snitch actually, the kind who wrongs people, gets revenged on, and then goes running to the Mommy Cop to whine about getting his much-deserved reckoning.

The person who got revenged on and his friends typically won’t got to the police because they are probably low level criminals too and criminals, especially drug dealers, simply don’t go to the cops because they don’t want to get caught themselves.

Another thing is that if other Street people find out that you revenged on some guy, as long as you didn’t kill him or something like that, most of them either nod their heads gravely or break out in a big smile, and in both cases, they say, “I won’t say a thing.”

You might be thinking, “Don’t these Street People worry when committing crimes to get revenge that  they might get caught and go to jail? Well, let’s face it. Street people are already criminals for the most part! They almost all committing at least some low-level crimes.

You think criminals worry about going to jail? Hell, they’re already making a career out of breaking the law. I mean they don’t want to go to jail, but criminals are usually a lot less afraid of jail than law-abiders, and

Alt Left: The American Injustice System

County jails used to be very easy-going here in California before the 2011 Realignment which shifted a lot of prison inmates into local county jails with disastrous affects.

Now California county jails are downright dangerous places and in addition, the conditions are often horrific. Cops and guards beat the Hell out of arrestees and inmates all the time and nothing ever happens to them.

You wonder why I don’t like cops too much. Well, they beat the living crap out of some of my best friends for doing nothing at all or for protesting jail conditions. We used to say back in the day that they want to beat up everyone they arrest. It’s just part of the arrest procedure. We’ve had quite a few lawsuits here in California to stop these maniacs from beating people up for no good reason, but they’re still doing it all the time.

I also have a very low opinion of jail guards and even the nurses who work in jails, as most of those people are either out and out sadists (the guards) or cold as ice with zero empathy (the nurses).

I basically hate the whole system, most laws (which are stupid and should be abolished), cops* in general (act like they hate me, beat me up a few times, hassle me  to this day, abuse their authority, lie in court, etc.), guards (see above), jails (see above), prisons (see above but a lot worse), courts (the heart of the wicked system), judges (mostly hanging judges), prosecutors (the worst of them all, generally with zero morals – basically super-cops), and bailiffs (mean as Hell).

The whole system is garbage and I hate every bit of it. I realize we need cops, courts, DA’s, judges, jails, prisons, etc. but the system is completely unfair, messes with way too many people, punishments are far too harsh, jail conditions are Medieval, and cops and guards are sadistic maniacs.

We need a judicial system but not like this. It’s got to be dramatically reformed. We have way too many laws. The cucks, women, cops, narcs, and police state types have succeeded in making just about half of life illegal. Seriously. Half of crimes should just be abolished because they’re chickenshit offenses.  For a lot of that stuff, just let people settle things among themselves.

The Street is a sort of living being constituted of the sum total of all of the minds of all of the people on the Street. It is actually extremely intelligent, even brilliant, in a street smart sort of way.

It is also very honest and moral. There is a Street Code of Honor, and you break it, and you’re going to be sorry. Be cool, be honest, don’t rip people off or wrong people, and for the most part, it’s all good. Start messing people around, and things are going to get ugly real fast.

*A lot of cops don’t like me and for some reason, for decades now, they act like they hate me on sight, something I never understood. But some cops are nice to me, and I like them. A lady cop came up to me in a  coffee shop recently and she was extremely friendly. I was almost wondering if it was a come-on. But she had met me before a few times around town and always acted like she hated me.

I’ve been a crime victim before, and cops are very, very nice when you are a victim. They act like angels. I’ve also worked with police a bit on some investigations. They called me in to interview me about suspects and crimes. These were detectives and at these times these detectives were very nice and friendly. I like detectives a lot more than cops really because they’re far smarter than ordinary cops and have a relatively relaxed moral code.

I mean homicide cops just want to solve homicides.  They don’t care if you smoked weed or even sold it. You’re there to help them solve a homicide or attempted homicide and the low level dope stuff is simply not important or germane to what they need.

Paybacks Are a Bitch

I told you I’m nuts. Just be cool to me and everything will be fine. Screw me over and you may well regret it. Now you are dealing with a maniac.

Some people wronged me badly and I fought back so hard that they basically surrendered and told people that they never wanted to see me again. I forced one man to move! He lived across the street from me and was my mechanic.

He got mad partway through a job when my other friends said they would finish it for free while he charged money. Well, he came over to my house in the middle of the night and switched every wire that could be switched and then turned on the engine. Well, that blows up the engine. I towed the car to my mechanic, and he told me exactly what had happened.

A few days later, I went over to the guy’s house in the middle of the day with a baseball bat and smashed his door in!  Then I calmly walked home. The cops got called but my neighbor the cop convinced them to not take me. Supposedly they wanted to arrest me.

The cops called me up and were a bit sympathetic to my predicament: “Getting your pound of flesh out, eh” they laughed. Then they said, “Hey look, we don’t really like to get involved in this stuff, these feuds between individuals where one person has seriously wronged another. They think it’s a personal matter between a couple of citizens and it has no effect on keeping the streets safe for innocents, which is their job.

But then their tone changed and they said that they didn’t like vigilantism. And then they acted like smashing the door in was seriously psycho behavior, and I was maybe kind of a dangerous nut. They just thought it was a crazy thing to do.

We all agreed I would pay to fix the door. It only ended up being $10. Well, I was still mad so I terrorized that guy and launched guerrilla war against him with the help of my friends, who saw themselves with me as sort of a neighborhood gang with a “We own this neighborhood!” attitude. I could go into all the stuff I did but I won’t.

Mostly I declared war on his house and also I waged phone terrorism on him. We made a bomb out fireworks and a softball (I could show you how to do it), and threw it on his lawn in the middle of the night. It’s more properly a “firebomb” as all it does is detonate, but there’s no shrapnel.

That sounds bad but all it does is burn a hole in the lawn.

Eventually his parents forced him to move and I ended the war. But that’s an example of the type of stuff I do if you really screw me over.

My friends and I were drug dealers (pot dealers), and this guy was a cokehead who got ounces of pot fronted to him by us, sold them for cocaine money and shot it up his arm, then came back and put out the word that he wasn’t going to pay any of us back. So he was going around ripping off dealers.

We had made a similar bomb earlier to the one above earlier, and attached it to the car of on his windshield by his wiper, lit the fuse we made on it, and ran back a ways to watch. It was a huge explosion and it blew up his front windshield.

It’s a safe bomb though because it’s just a “firebomb” as in there’s no shrapnel. It’s like a massive firecracker or M-80. All it does is detonate and shatter the windshield while leaving it intact, and the glass doesn’t fly everywhere. It puts a very tiny hole in the windshield and blows a tiny amount of glass in the car, but it goes off within one minute after lighting it, and you do it in the middle of the night, and no one will be in the car, so no one gets hurt.

We also went out to this guy’s car one night, slashed the tires on his car with a knife, and ran away.

And we engaged in some phone terrorism against him too.

Later we got together with a bunch of other guys and someone lifted up his car and turned it upside down! There were some different people involved this time, as he ripped off lots of people, not just my friends and me.

And this is what happens if you rip off dealers on the Street. Don’t do it!

Alt Left: Labour Isn’t Working: A Radical Program for the Party to Reacquaint Itself with Victory

A most interesting text out of the UK but a group calling itself Alt Left. Though I don’t agree with them on everything, in a broad sense what they are arguing for is more or less within the broad scope of what I had in mind when I founded the Alt Left. This group calls itself Alt Left Publishing.

I had to cringe at some of the more rightwing things this group wants Labour to do, but the fact is that Labour needs to win elections, and if they have to be a bit more conservative to do that, well so be it. As long as we are not electing Blairites, Labour will always be much better than the Conservatives, and UKIP doesn’t look very good either (sort of neoliberal Trump Republicans-lite).

As usual with the Democratic Party here, the Left is shooting itself in the foot with massive overreach by being wildly SJW in ways that the majority of people do not support, and by being fantatically anti-immigration when 70% of the British public want a slow-down on immigration.

Labour is getting massacred on this issue, as many working class folks are anti-immigrant and feel that immigrants are taking their jobs and in addition, these people feel that they are losing a sense of their country.

Working class Labour voters are left on economics while being rather socially conservative, and that’s the Alt Left right there. What’s the point of alienating working class voters, screaming racist at them, shoving hundreds of thousands of unwanted immigrants down their throat, and bombarding them with SJW extremism that most of them reject as too radical?

As the piece points out all this is doing is making more and more of these socially conservative working class Labour voters defect to UKIP, mostly over the immigration issue.

Labour is also alienating people by being openly unpatriotic. I’m not a patriotard myself, but I do want the best for my country, so I suppose I love my country more than a corporate types who deliberately harm our country. I certainly don’t want to do my country any harm! I may disagree with domestic and especially foreign policy, but I’m not so angry about it that I want to screw the country over. I mean I have to live here too you know.

At any rate, the people around Corbyn are openly unpatriotic and do not pay proper deference to national symbols and institutions. Most British people are patriots, particularly socially conservative working class folks.

While I love Hezbollah myself and even have a soft spot for Irish Republicans, most British people despise both Hezbollah and in particular the IRA. The latter is heavily due to anti-Catholic sentiment in mostly Protestant UK, a tendency that goes back to at least the 19th Century to “anti-papist” and “anti-Romist” sentiment at that time. At any rate it does no good when Corbyn lauds these groups. All it does is create more UKIP voters.

What’s the point? Politics is after all the art of the possible.

While I love Jeremy Corbyn of course, most British people dislike him, and Labour has been shedding votes since he took over. It doesn’t matter whether I love Corbyn or not. What matters is that most British people hate him. And a leader hated by most of the population should definitely go in favor of someone more popular.

There are other good suggestions here about being tough on crime and the causes of crime. This is an issue near and dear to socially conservative working class voters, and Labour, like the Democratic Party, suffers from a soft on crime problem. That’s not necessary and anyway, crime hurts the working class.

This is a very long document, 12,000 words and 25 pages. I edited it quite heavily. The Alt Left Publishing website can be reached by clicking on the title below.

Happy reading!

Labour Isn’t Working: A Radical Program for the Party to Reacquaint Itself with Victory

Labour Isn’t Working in many ways lays the foundations for the Alt-Left. It establishes fundamental principles like the importance of group identity, the need to restrain the free market, and rejection of radical social justice.

It’s my view that whether your interest in politics is keen or fair-weather, you’ll be intrigued by the book, though I do recommend it particularly strongly to Labour party members and to those interested in the Alt Left and what it stands for.

The transcript can be read in full below, or alternatively downloaded for free here.

If you’d like to purchase the text in E-book format you can do so here.

T. James

Cover JPEG

Preface

The modern Labour party is out of touch with the working class whom it exists to represent, and many of whom turn increasingly to the Tories and UKIP for answers. Labour has been too scared to address immigration, too complacent to address jobs and too divided to address Europe.

The working class is dead. Long gone are the days of the Welsh miners’ choir and the workplace union meetings. The flat cap is worn now by avant-garde members of the rural middle class, men too old to shake a habit, and metropolitan hipsters.

Blackface isn’t the inevitable consequence of a day spent hewing coal from the center of the earth, but is now a racial faux pas. Where once a hard day’s work involved forging world-class steel, for many it’s now manning a call center in order to best resolve Mrs Smith’s broadband issues.

The modern economy necessitates that even the bricklayer has his own local advertising, Facebook page, and website. He doesn’t consider himself part of a homogeneous working class, but instead an entrepreneur, and rightly so.

The production and harvesting of real resources has been shamelessly outsourced to third-world countries. We allow the rest of the world to grow our food, forge our steel, and sew our shirts, and in doing so, we not only deprive our own people of work, but we impose it on others without the benefit of health and safety, a minimum wage, regulations, or any semblance of automation.

Britain’s economy is overly reliant on the financial sector, leaving us vulnerable to the next U.S.-born crash. Where people once took pride in their work as builders, now they are resigned to employment in this coffee chain or that.

Nationalism now rises in tandem with uncontrolled migration leading to names like Le Pen, Wilders, and Farage taking the establishment by storm. What appeared to be a consistently declining level of global violence has begun to reverse itself in recent years, as the wildfire of extremism continues to ravage the Middle East, prompting the worst migrant crisis yet seen in human history.

Humanity is on the precipice of upheaval, there are new questions, and few answers. Left-wing parties across the West are struggling to rally support, caught between the relentless march of globalization and the toll it takes on workers the world over.

The British Labour party is no exception to this trend, and its inability to mount a competent opposition to the government is enabling a period of unchecked Conservative rule. Exerting scrutiny on the executive is essential to ensure that its policies reflect national needs and not self-serving ends. Thus it is in the interests of both Conservative and Labour supporters that the Labour party resurface as a government in waiting and not persist as a party of protest.

In the wake of the 2015 shock general election defeat, long-time backbencher and maverick Jeremy Corbyn, assumed power in the Labour party. Propelled by an anti-establishment appeal and left-wing policies thought to have been consigned to history, he easily defeated his three opponents.

His unprecedented victory prompted a surge in party membership, from some 200,000 to over 500,000, making it notable for being the largest left-wing party in Europe. It appeared that the man to reverse Labour’s fortune had made himself known.

Yet at the time of writing, far from arresting the party’s decline, the Corbyn administration has only exacerbated it. Polling shows Labour now trail the Conservatives by as much as 18%. The 23rd of February 2017 marked a historic by-election defeat for Labour, not just because they had held the seat of Copeland since 1935, but also because it was lost to the governing party.

Owing to resignations, the shadow cabinet is more of a skeleton crew, much of it manned by newly elected and inexperienced MPs.  The vast membership, which was seen as the formation of a campaigning vanguard, has since been shown to be in large part idle, indicative of a niche opinion in the country, and a thorn in the side of the parliamentary party.

That’s not to say that Jeremy Corbyn killed the Labour party. He merely sits atop its coffin. The party has been in a state of managed decline since de-industrialization stripped it of a clear reason to exist. The program detailed herein will therefore not lay blame exclusively at Corbyn’s door, though it will do so where appropriate, but instead will lay blame where deserved, and offer remedies where needed.

It’s not enough to insist that the electorate are deficient or suffering from a false consciousness when they reject you time after time. Nor is it good enough to abandon the values upon which the party was founded in order to pursue public opinion at the expense of all else.

Instead the party must align its core principles with the will of the people, conceding ground on either side where necessary. It’s essential that in order to recover, the party enter a period of reflection, and in doing so it must produce a meaningful answer to the question so many are asking: “Just what is the Labour party for?”.

If it’s to defend the NHS, then that’s an insufficient reason for the electorate to eject a sitting government. No doubt the creation of the NHS was Labour’s finest hour, but to relentlessly invoke its name at every public rally like a war cry is to cement in the mind of the public the idea of Labour as a one-trick pony.

If it’s to be a nicer version of the Tories, this too is inadequate. Aside from the fact that the Liberal Democrats already occupy that ground, the public at large will always opt for competency over compassion.

It’s vital that should Labour ever seek to win again, it must first rediscover its identity. It should reforge its raison d’être from an anti-Tory think tank to a government in waiting, able to steady the nation through what promises to be a turbulent future. Drawing from various tendencies within the party, significant research, personal experience, and observable reality, what follows is a detailed roadmap for Labour’s return to government.

Chapter I – The New Working Class

Labour once had a core demographic on which they could rely: the working class – a monolithic block who worked almost entirely in heavy industry. Commonly united in tight-knit communities centered on a factory or pit, they were class conscious and proudly so.

To inherit one’s father’s job was not just an expectation but a de facto right. The membership of the Labour party and consequently its leadership still holds to these antiquated views of what it means to be a worker. So long as they fail to recognize the nature and needs of modern workers, they will fail to produce policies that appeal to them.

This isn’t a failure exclusive to the left of the party. After all, Blair did once assert that, “We’re all middle class now”, a view still manifest among those of his ilk who exist in substantial number within the parliamentary party.

It’s not so much that this view denies the existence of the poverty-stricken or the manual worker but that it sidelines them. It relies on those people to vote for Labour consistently and is unconcerned when they stay at home, since most such people live within Labour safe seats won on a minimal turnout.

This leads us to a divergence in approach: one that caters to a romanticized and now largely deceased working class and the other which overlooks it entirely. To portray the party as these two schools of thought and nothing but would be disingenuous, but they do have the most to say on the subject. The so-called ‘soft left’ offers little thought on the matter, and the Kendallites have been too preoccupied with plots in recent times to set out any clear views at all.

In order to identify those whom Labour must bring into the fold, we must first establish those who vote for it currently:

Old Labourites. Blue-collar chaps for whom the memories of Thatcherism are still all too vivid. Formerly miners and manufacturers, many now live in the deprived post-industrial communities of Wales, the Midlands, the North, and Scotland. Increasingly, their inherent social conservatism and skepticism regarding immigration has led them to vote Conservative and UKIP in increasing numbers.

Londoners. Labour enjoys ever-growing support within London, a crowd often misidentified as being part of the ‘metropolitan elite’. While much of this demographic could be characterized by the sort of person who hangs a picture of Marx in their parents’ Kensington 4-bed, such people are a minority. Labour’s London support base can be differentiated by its social liberalism, particularly in its concern for LGBT rights, feminism, and police practices.

Public sector workers. Over 56.5% are unionized and the Tories have been slashing their wages for 7 years. They vote Labour consistently, although they do so in worryingly declining numbers. Guarantee a wage rise above inflation and increased expenditure on our public services, and these voters are locked down.

Ethnic minorities. This demographic can be more or less divided between those of African and Asian descent. The black British demographic is concentrated predominantly in London and Birmingham, the product of a generation who were invited to the UK to rebuild in the wake of the Second World War.

Now living in overwhelmingly deprived communities, over 70% vote Labour. Similarly, Asians of both Islamic and Sikh denominations vote by a substantial margin in favor of Labour[i],  despite having (in common with the Black British community) a deep social conservatism and entrepreneurial spirit that would perhaps more naturally put them in the Conservative camp.

As these groups continue to move out into the suburbs and expand their businesses, it’s likely their transition from being staunch Labourites to reliably Conservative will only accelerate.

Entryists. Often hailing from Trotskyist outfits, their influence is at a peak within the Labour party since the days of militant expulsions. Such people are self-professed associates of groups such as the Alliance for Workers Liberty and the Socialist Workers Party. Though not great in number, it seems Tom Watson had it right when he suggested there are some “old hands twisting young wrists”.

This coalition cannot win elections; it lost in 2010, 2015, and it will do so again in 2020, if not before. Where previously Labour had a clear platform that spoke directly to workers the country over, they have so far failed to adapt to the new nature of work in the 21st century.

Talk of workers’ rights to the 4.6 million self-employed[ii] means precisely nothing. When Jeremy Corbyn gives speeches about Keir Hardy, he might as well be reading from Istanbul’s phonebook for all the relevance it has to the voters he’s attempting to reach.

This sort of rhetoric would suggest that Labour now stands on a platform of reviving heavy industry when in fact no such plans exist. It’s evident that such populist polices are not incompatible with electoral success in modern times.

We can look to Donald Trump’s rise to power as evidence of this. A campaign punctuated with the cry – “We’re gonna put the miners back to work!” – roars which carried the rust belt states and Trump himself to an electoral college victory.

While such an agenda should never constitute the headline of a Labour campaign, there is room for it to form a fractional element of a wider economic plan. With the benefits of automation and clean coal, there’s no reason why we shouldn’t create new jobs in coal, steel and manufacturing: industries whose revival would be predicated on a new regime of tariffs and public infrastructure spending.

Though Labour are often happy to ingratiate themselves with the attendees of events like the Tolpuddle Martyrs’ Festival and the Durham Miners’ Gala, they have nothing substantial to offer on the issue of heavy industry yet are content to bask in the romanticism of it.

While the decline of the British steel industry predates recent governments, it now faces a crisis that threatens to end its very existence. The proximate cause of this crisis is China dumping its own steel at below cost price on the world market. This is comparable to a supermarket opening next to a corner shop and offering loaves of bread for 10p.

Inevitably, the former will put the latter out of business, and then, when it’s free of competition, it is able to raise its prices with impunity. Similarly, if we surrender ourselves to a reliance on Chinese steel, we’ll face higher prices in the long run. Failing to protect them would deliver a coup de grâce to the last bastions of our national manufacturing industries, prompting the decline of communities and our capacity for self-sufficiency.

It’s for these reasons Labour would do well to adopt policies to the effect of the following:

  • Introduce tariffs on Chinese steel to such a point that it becomes unaffordable in the UK.
  • Lobby other European nations to form a steel block, not dissimilar from the Common Agricultural Policy, which will allow for free trade in steel amongst nations with comparable wage levels and health and safety standards.
  • Legislate that all public works must use British steel with appropriate caveats (e.g. certain types of steel are not produced in the UK).
  • Cut the disproportionately large foreign aid budget from 0.7% and put some of that money into retraining post-steel communities and investing in new technology for existing plants

As the supply of steel drops, the free market will necessitate investment leading to the construction of new steel plants, not only in the UK but across Europe. It’s an excellent example of triangulating socialism with capitalism and reaping the rewards of the free market in the 21st century.

Now, I don’t suggest that such policies should be the focal point of a Labour manifesto by any means, on the contrary, they should be towards the bottom of the list, but they most certainly should be on that list.

Such a policy, though necessary, is not an election winner, and speaks only to a specific group of people. It should be brought about in tandem with policies that resonate with the 4.6 million self-employed individuals who are in dire need of strong representation.

These people are more inclined to identify as entrepreneurs than as part of the working class. Mechanics and carpenters are now business people not proles. They don’t care about the history of struggle, or talk of how the EU is essential because it ‘protects workers’ rights’ which is nonsense in its own right, but they do want to have constant work with good pay and little else.

Indeed, until pressure from the Tory-supporting press prompted a u-turn, the Chancellor meant to levy upon self-employed people an even higher tax rate. In the wake of such a clear display of contempt towards the self-employed by the Conservatives, no better opportunity exists for Labour to launch an appeal to white van men the country over.

So, what problems do self-employed people face, and what policy platforms can appeal to them?

By definition they don’t have an employer from whom they can claim sick, maternity, or paternity pay, their work can be inconsistent, and they must continually reinvest their earnings to facilitate the survival of their trade or business.

Such policies should include:

  • Cutting taxes for the self-employed, allowing them to free up income they can use to cover the cost of sick pay and other work-related benefits (alternatively, introduce self-employment working tax credits where feasible).
  • Lowering VAT so that consumer spending increases, thus pushing up demand for new wardrobes, landscaped gardens, vehicle modifications, and so on.
  • Forcing the banks that we taxpayers bailed out to provide loans where feasible to self-employed individuals at a special low interest rate for the purpose of buying tools, refurbishing workshops, or taking on trainees.
  • Sending apprentices to work with the self-employed rather than with huge multinational chains, where they exist as little more than wage slaves.

Again, such policies won’t provoke a landslide electoral victory, but they are essential to attract to the Labour cause the sort of voters who are not only needed to win an election but whose interests lie in the Labour camp; the clue is in the name, after all.

But policy isn’t enough. We can’t expect people who work two jobs and maintain other responsibilities besides to read complex manifestos and pay attention to policy documents – to do so would be an unreasonable burden. Instead we need to talk in a language that ordinary people understand. That is to say: we should speak like normal people.

In 1917 the Bolsheviks condensed a complex economic program into three simple words: ‘PEACE, LAND, BREAD’. It was a message that was understood by every echelon of Russian society without exception. This is no means to advocate Bolshevism, but it serves to demonstrate that exactly 100 years ago, without the benefit of social media, YouTube, spin doctors, and hashtags, it was possible to create easily digestible slogans that summarize a policy platform.

Yet somehow the modern Labour party is entirely incapable of developing a slogan, sentence, paragraph, or message of any length or format that appeals even remotely to its core vote or to those it needs to incorporate into it.

In 2015 Labour produced “A Better Plan for a Better Future” as its campaign slogan. This inspired precisely nobody and means exactly nothing. Given that unemployment in 2015 was 1.9 million[iii], how about this: “Labour Will Give You a High-paying Job”. Or with a little more finesse “Higher Pay, More Jobs”.

At the end of the day, despite the Twitterati’s various obsessions, jobs are the primary concern of most voters, and they have been and should continue to be at the forefront of any Labour campaign. Moreover, nobody speaks the language of the 60’s union bosses or the Marxist Politburo; talk of ‘comrades’ and ‘struggle’ should be consigned to the dustbin of history unless in the context of a historical discussion.

This chapter has thus far dealt with the need for and the avenue by which the traditional northern post-industrial vote can be shored up, and how best the 4.6 million self-employed can begin to be brought across to Labour in greater numbers, as well as a brief mention of language and communication which will be dealt with in greater depth in a subsequent chapter.

With all that said, there remains one ever-growing and crucial voting block who cannot bring themselves to vote Labour for reasons easily condensed into one word.: Immigration.

Blue-collar blokes are sick of being called racists for daring to criticize immigration. There is nothing left wing or liberal about the free movement of people; to the contrary it’s a right–wing, neoliberal idea that disproportionately favors employers.

The Labour party has no need to become radically nationalist, but by God it should be patriotic. It should fly the Union Flag and St. George’s Cross at every speech and every office, and the same for the Welsh and Scottish flags. But above all, Labour should call for a points-based immigration system that guarantees people the world over get a fair shake at entering the country on the basis of having the skills we need in the economy.

Let’s take India’s best scientists and China’s best students and do so on the understanding that they will commit themselves to the country for a specific amount of time. Let’s not feel obliged to take unskilled workers, of which we already have a surplus, in order to further drive down the wages of construction site laborers, baristas, and private hire drivers.

So, here’s a ‘radical’ suggestion for a slogan “British Jobs for British Workers” the words of one Gordon Brown as recently as 2007. This is the sort of slogan that should be plastered so thickly on the walls that they begin to be structurally integral to the building they occupy. Like communication, immigration will be dealt with in detail in a subsequent chapter, but in relation to appealing to the forgotten working class, it must be a cornerstone.

Over 900,000 people are apprentices[iv], mostly young women – an  ideal demographic for Labour voters. Since an apprentice in their first year is entitled to a below-subsistence wage of £3.40 an hour, and those most likely to enroll in an apprenticeship are poorer to begin with, it’s a total no-brainer: Labour should be promising every apprentice in the country a pay rise.

To those who suggest this would be irresponsible spending, we’ll be enjoying the benefit within two years of not having to send the EU hundreds of millions of pounds a year, of which a fraction could be spent on improving apprentices’ pay.

Here’s another groundbreaking slogan “A Pay Rise for Apprentices”. It’s time the unions with their multi-million bound budgets and 6-figure wage packets stopped resting on their laurels and actively began unionizing young apprentices the nation over. An offer of free membership for a year would be hard to refuse.

Others talk of an ‘anti-boss’ brand of populism, but as well as being counterproductive, since we absolutely want bosses to vote for Labour, time has rendered it irrelevant. We now live in an age where peoples’ bosses are oftentimes a relative or a friend, where this isn’t the case, it’s rare that employees don’t know their manager or supervisor outside of the workplace on a casual basis, at the very least as acquaintances.

Any anti-business or anti-boss talk cannot be part of a modern Labour party’s rhetoric or policy. Where there is room for populism, it’s anti-corporate populism.

Let’s make sure Google, Starbucks, and Facebook pay the taxes they’re duty bound to, given that without a taxpayer-funded education system they would have no employees, without the NHS they would have to provide insurance, without public roads they would have no means of haulage, and without internet and phone-line infrastructure they would have no means to even exist.

From the gains made by appropriating the correct levels of tax owed by such corporations, let’s move these profits into delivering tax cuts for small business owners, incentivize them to take on new employees, and expand their trades. It’s by means such as these that Labour can successfully convert traditional Conservative voters simply by offering them a better deal.

We can also reach the middle classes. For the first time in their history, junior doctors went out on strike, and did so on several occasions in the wake of Jeremy Hunt’s punishing reform proposals. Legal professionals are in the process of a mass exodus from the legal aid program, with Scottish wages having dropped over 20% from 2007/8-2013/2014 and trainee barristers earning salaries as low as £12,000 per anum (with training costs of £17,000)[v].

While an opportunity clearly presents itself to launch an appeal to traditional middle class Conservative voters, the Labour party is too embroiled with internal affairs to mount any effective effort.

On this point of traditional Conservative voters, it’s time to speak to farmers once again. We will soon have control over farming subsidies, let’s outbid the Tories on this issue and in addition offer an innovative rural apprenticeship program in order to train future generations in the ways of agriculture, while also aiding overworked and beleaguered farmers.

Furthermore, let’s force supermarkets to pay a fair price for dairy, meat, and vegetables, while subsidizing the cost to the consumer, paid for by an equivalent tax on sugary foods in order to ensure farms thrive while still protecting consumers and simultaneously improving the health of the nation.

Once free from the Common Fisheries Policy, let’s put our fisherman back to work and become the fishing capital of Europe. It makes no sense to subsidize corporations through working tax credits. Labour should promise an increase in the minimum wage and use the welfare savings to fund new infrastructure in our now-decrepit seaside towns.

Through this dual approach, we can not only increase the quality of life of those left behind by globalism while once again making British seaside towns worthy tourist attractions, but also bring back into the fold voters who have long since deserted Labour for UKIP.

Through these methods, we can expand our ever-shrinking coalition to include people from all walks of life, while still staying true to Labour values in a modern and relevant way. Let’s go forward in lockstep with farmers, fishermen, carpenters, shopkeepers, laborers, dockers, lorry drivers, and lawyers.

Some may ponder, then, might this not alienate the metropolitan middle classes, who as of this moment form the last bastion of the Labour bloc vote? Well, the biggest genuine issue for such people is the absurdly high house prices which keep people off the property ladder to middle age, and some of the highest rents in the world.

All the while we spend £25 billion every single year on housing benefit[vi], money which goes straight into landlords’ pockets, (not that we don’t want landlords to prosper).

It’s time to announce a national house building program that takes the money straight out of the housing benefit budget and puts it into building 250,000 homes a year until the housing shortage becomes a surplus, at which point the free market will dictate rents, house prices will return to affordable levels, and the UK will once again become a home-owning democracy.

This is how we can offer concrete solutions to clear issues that will resonate with the 8 million people who live in London. Such a program would also lead to the employment of hundreds of thousands of people, prompting a higher tax revenue and increased spending in local economies throughout the country.

In summary, in order for Labour to properly construct policy that appeals to the working class, it must first understand how the working class has evolved over the past century. It should adopt a dual approach that halts the decline of traditional manufacturing and shores up our export market, while simultaneously engendering job growth in emerging markets, with an eye to appealing to those whose new nature of work leaves them without a natural party to vote for.

This program should incorporate the good work done by Ed Miliband in formulating policies to re-introduce security into the workplace, particularly in dealing with ‘zero-hour’ contracts, while also acknowledging that such policies do not have a broad enough appeal amongst swing voters. Labour must push for full, proud, and secure employment. By these means, Labour will rally all elements of the modern working class to their cause. 

Chapter II Foreign Policy and the Military

Foreign policy is not an election winner. Even when Blair’s hated decision to invade Iraq prompted the largest marches ever seen in the UK, the Labour government comfortably held on to power in the 2005 elections.

However, it’s important to remain principled and strive always to do what is right and best, both for the people of our nation and for those abroad but never at the expense of either. Moreover, Labour faces challenges from the left, notably the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, whenever it assumes an overtly pro-war posture.

There is scarcely a sentient being on earth who still believes Iraq, Libya, or Afghanistan were successful interventions, and for all the times it’s been said, it’s clear we haven’t learnt the lessons of the past. The Labour party should make it clear that they will not involve themselves in foreign military entanglements that do not directly concern the security of the United Kingdom and its allies.

British blood should not be expended to remove a foreign dictator only for that nation’s people to find liberation give way to an unimaginably worse kind of tyranny as has happened when ISIS filled the vacuum that Western bombs created.

Having said that, it is crucial that Labour demonstrate that it does not take security lightly, and its commitment to having first-class armed forces should be clear to everyone.

We have a Conservative government that has sacked soldiers before they could claim their full pensions, moved hundreds of thousands of positions into the reserve army, has aircraft carriers that we can’t land aircraft on, and now, most bizarrely, is offering troops the option of not serving in combat zones in return for a pay cut.

In uncertain global times, Labour should put itself forward as a patriotic party committed to the primary duty of the state: the protection of its own people. It’s essential that a commitment to at least 2% of GDP on defense be made in line with NATO requirements as well as a commitment to nuclear weaponry.

The latter is contentious, particularly within Labour circles, but there are some universal truths on this matter. Firstly, Trident has been commissioned, and should Labour win power, they will inherit the system no matter what their policy is. Secondly, the majority of the population are in favor of nuclear weapons, and confusion on the issue only allows the Tories to portray Labour as a threat to national security, philosophical arguments about MAD aside.

It’s also right that we reverse the horrible mistreatment suffered by our veterans. No individual who has laid their life on the line for the nation should be allowed to sleep on the streets, and as part of the aforementioned house building program, there should be guaranteed homes for veterans with subsidized mortgages, a cost to be taken from the 2% of GDP mentioned earlier.

There should also be jobs in the public sector reserved for them, particularly in the police and border forces. It’s my view that the treatment of veterans is a legitimate use of the term ‘military spending’.

Our foreign aid spending is disproportionate, badly allocated, and unsustainable. We are running a budget deficit of £40 billion, and continue to borrow more money to spend abroad, often sponsoring foreign militaries in proxy wars, or putting money into the pocket of despots to secure exploitative trade deals.

After the United States of America, we are the second biggest foreign aid donor on the planet in real terms. We spend $18 billion compared to the U.S. spending of $31 billion[vii]. That is over half of their expenditure despite being significantly less than half the size of their economy.

There are many cases in which it is not only right but morally incumbent upon us as a nation to send funds and resources abroad, to combat Ebola as a recent example.

But setting an annual target of 0.7% of GDP and dispersing that money across the globe, borrowed money in the first place, only exacerbates the economic conditions this country currently faces, and in the long run will prevent us as a nation aiding other countries to our fullest capacity, since our economic growth is constantly hampered by this gross cost.

Foreign aid does a lot of good, and where it does so it should continue to do so, but where reasonable savings can be made, this is exactly the course of action that should be pursued. The liberal, Guardian–reading, mocha-sipping elites will tweet furiously in response to such a suggestion, as if there’s something essential about the budget being set at 0.7% rather than 0.6%.

It’s important to ignore these people, whose numbers appear  more significant online, as they represent a minority as has been shown time and time again, with only 1 in 4 supporting the current foreign aid policy[viii].

For those who suggest that giving money to space-program-pushing India will somehow engender good relations with developing countries, I’d suggest we could better build relations by ceasing to hinder their economic growth through climate regulation (with caveats) and ending the practice of Western and Chinese companies exploiting the developing countries’ natural resources.

We currently face the worst refugee crisis the world has yet known, and as a party, people, and species, we have a duty to help those in need. In the immediate future, we should accept lone child refugees and house them with willing volunteers in the UK.

Subsequent to this, we should quiz every local council in the country and see what facilities they can spare to house other refugees, prioritizing families. However, there are 60 million displaced people globally and counting. The UK cannot effectively double its population by accepting every single individual – even 5% of that number would bring the country’s infrastructure to its knees.

Thus, longer-term solutions must be found, and they begin with rich Middle Eastern countries which have so far allowed the burden to be shouldered by their neighbors like Lebanon as well as Western nations, namely Germany.

It is time we lobbied Saudi Arabia, to whom we sell jets and whose pilots we train in order to better fly them, we gave a free ride when they invaded Bahrain, and continue to do so as they fight in Yemen killing civilians with British bombs, and whose disgusting head-chopping record gives ISIS a run for their money.

This is not a suggestion to cut ties with the Saudis or the UAE, but given the support both militarily and diplomatically that we provide for them, it’s reasonable to assume we can make demands of them: and if ever there was a need to, it is now. These countries should be taking in great numbers of refugees. They have the infrastructure; they just lack the will.

Further to this, the foreign aid budget should be used to contribute to a wider transnational program to build U.N.-protected safe zones across the Middle East, to prevent refugees making the treacherous journey across the Mediterranean, which in itself will save thousands of lives but also to keep them safe from terrorism and keep them fed, watered, and sheltered until such time that they can return to their country or region of origin.

The geopolitical landscape has suffered a seismic shift in the past year alone, and upcoming European elections look to continue that trend. The long and short of the matter is that we have distanced ourselves from our European neighbors so long as their current rulers last anyway, and thus we must move closer to our historic allies in the U.S.

However, Jeremy Corbyn (perhaps out of some need for the adoration of the echo chamber of his cult of no personality) is making a frequent habit of attacking President Trump vocally, viciously and publicly. He’s joined in such attacks by other high-profile liberals, notably the speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow.

When the Cameron government shamelessly courted the Chinese into buying out our public infrastructure, John Bercow was front and center in welcoming Xi Jinping to address both houses of Parliament.

Yet in a stunningly hypocritical fashion which must require Olympic levels of mental gymnastics to justify, Bercow has come out against Trump addressing Parliament and intends to block him from doing so, all the while being supported in these efforts by the leader of the Labour party. Part of the problem is the disingenuous hysteria around Trump that you’ll find in the Guardian, Mirror or indy100.

But putting that aside, even a blind man can see that it’s absolutely within British interests to foster closer cooperation and trade with the U.S.A., the biggest economy in the world, which also has in common with us in language, culture, and history.  In fact, for anybody who considers themselves on the left, a closer relationship with Trump can only be a good thing for world peace, given his thus-far successful moves towards détente with Russia.

On this point, there’s no need to paint Putin as the eternal bogeyman. There are elements of his governance which we can all criticize from one angle or another, but to invoke the words of a separate J. C. for a moment, “Those without sin should cast the first stone”.

The domestic policies of Russia are entirely an issue for the Russian people, and continuing to burden Russia with ever worsening sanctions not only destroys diplomatic relations but is mutually harmful for both our economies. Let’s work with Trump and Putin to defeat ISIS, and in doing so we will position ourselves closer to their ears to best influence them on any human rights issues we find significant.

We claim ownership of an island over 7,000 miles away from our shores on the basis that its citizens voted in a referendum to remain British. This is no bad thing and we should continue to respect the right to self-determination.

However, when those in Crimea, who are 65% Russian by ethnicity[ix], vote overwhelmingly to join the Russian state, the Western political class sees this as grounds for a proxy war in Ukraine.

This is made even more bizarre by the fact Crimea was part of Russia as recently as 1954, when Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine, and now over 60 years on, it’s reasonable that its inhabitants would rather unite themselves to a superpower rather than a failed state.

Some will surely cry ‘appeasement’ to the idea that we should improve relations with Russia. To those people, I say: compromise is essential in international relations, we can’t preach to the world how they should live and operate, and it’s arrogant and pseudo-supremacist to try and push our liberal democratic model on every culture and people of the earth.

That’s not to mention that Putin did little when we invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, supported French action in Mali, and imposed sanctions against their Iranian allies, yet liberals appear indignant at any suggestion that the Russians be allowed the same freedom in their international actions.

That’s not to say we shouldn’t assume a strong posture – we absolutely should – which is one of the reasons this text has hitherto advocated the maintenance of Trident and spending of 2% of GDP on defense.

Working closely with our American allies, we should aim to maintain peace through strength, but this is by no means mutually exclusive with closer cooperation with Russia, with whom we should be seeking to strike trade deals, closer ties, and better relations. In short, we should make allies, not enemies, wherever possible.

Most people aren’t concerned with international relations. They want food on their table, a roof over their heads, and enough disposable income to live a good life. However, it will never be the case that Jeremy Corbyn could be elected Prime Minister on an anti-American ticket.

It’s a simple truism that the U.S. is a crucial ally, and to worsen our relations in the context of Brexit would leave the UK essentially isolated. Trump’s lewd comments about women are not a hill Labour should be dying on, nor a hill they should have even assumed a position atop in the first instance.

Instead Labour should have a foreign policy that doesn’t indulge in 3-dimensional chess and virtue signalling but instead sends a very clear message. Labour will be second to none in defense of the nation, second to none in rebuilding relations, and unwilling to expend British blood or treasure in foreign wars that do not concern us.

In Europe, let’s form bilateral trade agreements and maintain the same standard of intelligence sharing as exists today, both of which are perfectly possible without power sharing in a technocratic bureaucracy.

The upshot of this in messaging terms is that Labour should state loud and clear that Labour will keep you safe, prioritize our own citizens, and maintain a humanitarian outlook on global affairs. Little else is necessary, and Corbyn’s famous hand-holding with the IRA and Hamas are enough to set him up for a decisive defeat in any British election.

Chapter III – Immigration

Immigration became a taboo subject in the realm of political discourse with the dawn of the Blair Age. Conversation on the matter was shut down, and dissidents were branded racists, outcasts, and forced into silence. A mixture of concern and outrage boiled up amongst those left behind by New Labour, leading to the return of two British National Party candidates in the European Elections of 2009.

Fortunately, both of those vile individuals have since lost their seats and faded into obscurity, with those voters now opting to side with the far more moderate UKIP. Nigel Farage single-handedly put immigration at the center of British politics, and his influence led to a vote to leave the European Union, within which the primary concern amongst Out voters was immigration.

This had been a sleeping giant for some time, and Farage was able to awaken it. However, even now in a post-Brexit world, the issue of immigration is still taboo for many, particularly in the mainstream media. It’s rare that anyone advocating a merit-based immigration system as opposed to no controls at all isn’t branded a racist by a ‘Question Time’ panelist or political opponent.

It’s an issue that’s particularly pernicious on university campuses and in inner cities. In the former, anyone to the right of Chairman Mao on the issue is considered Hitler’s earthly avatar, and in the latter, it’s a common occurrence to find your trip through Central London punctuated with stalls of the Socialist Workers Party distributing leaflets that read along of the lines of ‘Let all refugees in now! Stop racism!’.

Speaking of the SWP, whilst Labour seems curious about its own credibility gap, meanwhile its own shadow chancellor is giving interviews to the SWP[x], so whoever is running the Labour PR machine should enjoy the ‘benefit’ of instant dismissal.

The fact that the views of a tiny vocal minority are over-represented on television and online media makes people scared to air their true opinions, only taking action within the security and anonymity of the ballot box. Over 70% of the country believe immigration controls are not tough enough[xi], and this is a figure Labour leaders should be more concerned with than the number of retweets a platitude about multiculturalism can receive online.

Overwhelmingly, the country is dissatisfied with current levels of immigration. This includes Black and minority ethnic voters of all stripes who believe the number of immigrants should be reduced, and they do so by sizeable majorities[xii].

It’s pertinent to mention that immigration is disproportionately a concern for the working classes, and many of them have fled Labour, leading UKIP to be the main challenger to Labour in a great many constituencies in the 2015 election. Although it’s proven difficult for UKIP to directly take seats from Labour, there are two problems that this bleeding of voters poses.

The first is that it will lead the Labour vote in northern communities to be split with UKIP, thus allowing a Tory candidate to take a seat with as little as 30% of the vote. The second problem is that these UKIP voters distance themselves so far from Labour when they look at its middle class-centric tone that they jump ship to the Conservatives, and if that happened in large enough numbers, a Labour general election victory would be inconceivable for a generation.

We are in the process of leaving the European Union, and thus we will no longer be shackled to the free movement of labor which has given every citizen of the EU the right to live and work in the UK. However, neither the Conservatives nor Labour have made clear the path ahead.

What better opportunity then for Labour to appeal to its forgotten voters, take back the defectors, and win over Conservatives by proposing a strict points–based,Australian-style immigration system. Let’s legislate in order to ensure that only immigrants who possess the skills and resources we need have the ability to settle and work in this country.

Let’s mandate that immigrants should have an excellent grasp of the English language, not just because such a skill is essential (particularly in the medical profession) but also because it will ensure universally beneficial integration.

At the same time, we should make it clear that this country already has enough unskilled workers, unemployed, and disabled people who are struggling to cope as it is, and it should not be incumbent on the country to take more such people in.

It’s here the points-based system comes into its own: for example, if there is a shortage of unskilled labor, we can adjust the requisite points for entry and mandate that people who enter under such circumstances have jobs waiting for them.

Some suggest a migration system based on merit is xenophobic, and to those people it’s worth mentioning that we’ve applied a points-based system to non-EU citizens for years, and as members of the EU, we were giving preference to European migrants who were predominantly White over Indian and African migrants.

A points-based system is totally equitable and accepts people based on ability, irrespective of skin color, creed, or nationality. This is entirely in keeping with the sort of values that led to Labour’s foundation and should remain at the forefront of any respectable leftwing movement.

There is a myth that there is something ‘left wing’ or ‘progressive’ about uncontrolled migration, or that it would be desirable to have an unlimited number of unknown individuals entering the country every year.

Let’s be clear: the free movement of labor is a rightwing, neoliberal, capitalist policy, not dissimilar to the free movement of capital. It’s a symptom of an anarchic free market system that serves the elites extremely well; it drives down the price of labor for corporations, affords the middle classes cheap gardeners and nannies, and perpetually rigs the job market in the employers’ favor.

It’s a fundamental leftist belief that the free market is not infallible, requires regulation, and this regulation should pertain not just to levels of taxation and regulation but also to the distribution of workers.

This is not advocacy of immigration control on the basis of electoral populism, or economic philosophy, though it would indeed be popular, and it does follow philosophically; instead it’s an advocacy on the grounds of basic math.

Plainly, the UK cannot sustain the number of immigrants coming into the country every year. 300,000 is the rough annual net migration figure to the UK per annum. Many point out rightly that a large number of these people are students, and they’re right to do so.

However, whether student or worker, they still take the same toll on transport, health, and social infrastructure.  As a nation, we are building around half the number of houses we need every single year, at around 135,000[xiii], creating a clear deficit in housing availability. That’s not to mention that our own domestic birth rate is over 800,000 per year[xiv].

We already have a dangerous housing bubble which threatens to collapse at any moment, pulling our entire economy down with it, and it’s only exacerbated by such migrant numbers. Of course, part of this problem is that we don’t build enough houses, and issues pertaining to that were detailed in the first chapter.

However, the costs of building such enormous numbers of houses and providing the associated infrastructure would be to say the least prohibitive, and even if it were feasible, it would not be desirable.

Aside from housing there are huge costs associated with the NHS, when people who have never contributed arrive able to take full advantage of it without question. This is one of the factors that has led to a record NHS deficit of £1.85 billion[xv]; although of course underfunding remains the direct cause of this crisis, immigration serves to aggravate it.

You’ll hear from Labour politicians and often to the thunderous applause of their echo chambers, the following platitude: “You’re more likely to see an immigrant working in the NHS than using it”.

Aside from being disingenuous, since it’s entirely determined by happenstance and geography, the point they are trying to make is that because immigrants work in the NHS, we should allow an unlimited number of immigrants to enter the country, as if the former warrants the latter, which is a total non-sequitur.

Yes, we have a large number of migrants working in the NHS, and that’s a good thing to. Let’s keep them there and continue to allow medical professionals into the country in line with demand. Having controlled immigration and having Indian doctors are not mutually exclusive; in actuality an equitable points-based system will incentivize and drive up the number of highly qualified migrant workers relative to unskilled workers.

The people are crying out for a credible party to come out strongly on immigration, and if Labour did so, they would take the country by storm.

Chapter IV – And the Rest

Regarding inertia

As of this writing the most commonly seen Labour slogan is “Working together for real change”. The problem is the party is not working together, and presents no change. The conflict within and between the constituency and parliamentary Labour parties is wreaking havoc on Labour’s public image, and as the well-known adage tells us, voters don’t vote for divided parties.

However, this text will not attempt to dissect the intricacies that have led to this point; instead suffice it to mention a couple of key issues.

Jeremy Corbyn will never receive the support of the current MPs and therefore must go. The only alternative would be to begin a process of deselection across the country –  a sort of Trotskyist Night of the Long Knives, which would only leave the party’s reputation in tatters and replace experienced MPs with amateurs.

There is a divide within the parliamentary party between those representing constituents who are socially conservative working class and middle class social liberals. While Labour has always been a broad church that has incorporated numerous factions, the divisions now seem to be intensifying like never before.

Party loyalty is at record low rates, and people are now more likely than ever to throw out of office the candidate of their forefather’s choice and often on the basis of a single issue. This is more contentious than ever post-Brexit, given that some Labour MPs represent constituencies that voted overwhelmingly to Remain and others the reverse. Inevitably MPs jostle with one another to represent their diverse constituents.

The remedies are imperfect for both issues. For the first, Corbyn must go, which is easier said than done; and secondly the Labour party must support the will of the people and push for a real Brexit that rejects freedom of movement. Neither solution is ideal, but both are necessary, not least because the majority of the country hate Corbyn, and the majority of the country voted for Brexit.

On to the second, and more important, element of the slogan: “Real Change.” The most obvious change that has taken place in the last couple of years is the transformation of the Labour party from a party of government to one that wallows in political oblivion. Change is an important message to transmit, but the kind of change needs to be clear, and Corbyn’s Labour has thus far advocated very few changes indeed.

In fact, in my research for this work, I wanted to see exactly what policies Jeremy Corbyn had promoted in order to deal with them individually. However, when I tried to access Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘priorities’ on his website, it returned an error page reading “Unfortunately the page you were looking for was not found”, which is so patently ironic that no explanation is needed.

Further hunting will lead you to an article in the Mirror listing several flagship policies, which range from unpopular and bizarre like abolishing the monarchy to leftist clichés like ‘tax the rich’, and standard Labour talking points like re-nationalizing rail.

An eager hunter will find a more exhaustive list in a Telegraph article, which is pretty damming for the Labour party PR machine when the right-wing pro-Tory paper gives more policy detail than Labour themselves do. Eventually, one will stumble upon the ‘Jeremy for Labour’ page detailing ten broad policy positions. A brief glance is enough to know it’s a slight rewording of Ed Miliband’s 2015 manifesto combined with some broad meaningless jargon.

“We will build a progressive tax system so that wealth and the highest earners are fairly taxed, act against executive pay excess, and shrink the gap between the highest and lowest paid – FTSE 100 CEOs are now paid 183 times the wage of the average UK worker, and Britain’s wages are the most unequal in Europe. We will act to create a more equal society, boost the incomes of the poorest, and close the gender pay gap.”[xvi]

Do we not already have a progressive tax system? What rate should the highest earners pay? Will you cap executive bonuses? How will you boost the incomes of the poorest? How will you close the gender pay gap?

Such questions could be the only reasonable response to reading such general non-offensive meaningless milk-and-honey talking points. Anyone who feels the media hasn’t given Corbyn’s Labour a fair shake and has undertaken to do their own research will only be doubly disappointed when they discover that in the two years of his leadership, there’s scarcely a new policy to speak of.

For those who seek out concrete information, they should be rewarded with definitive and detailed policy proposals signed off by renowned economists, think tanks, and financial organizations.

Such policies should include pledges to build huge tidal power stations taking advantage of the fact that our nation is surrounded by water, to build offshore wind farms (including specifications on how many of them, at what cost and where the money is coming from), and to build new motorways, detailing how many people such a project would employ and projecting the economic benefits it would bring to this city or that. Alas, nothing of the sort exists.

Not to harp on about political antiquity, but Harold Wilson talked of the ‘white heat of the technological revolution.’ It’s not something that was ever truly delivered on, but it’s a phrase that stuck. What better time than now is there to renew the scientific and technological revolution? In the age of drones, self-driving cars, nanotechnology, and interstellar rovers, the modern Labour party has very little or nothing to say about it.

As a people we have the potential and as a country we have the need to host research and development facilities for the world’s leading technology firms and to have factories producing technology for the modern age. Labour Shadow Ministers should be meeting with Tesla and Microsoft, putting out press releases and winning support amongst the firms of the future, letting them know Britain is open for business.

In tandem with this we need new and forward-looking training schemes. The youth vote is overwhelmingly Labour but also the least likely to turn out.

Labour councilors, MPs and its half million members (Where are they?) should be knocking on every door of every council estate, meeting the unemployed, disenfranchised youth, and giving them a clear, concise piece of paper offering them a world-class training program that Labour guarantees to introduce if it wins the election.

Give these people something to aspire to and something to vote for outside of the Blue and Red tribal dichotomy which means very little to most people.

AddendumI have returned to this section to note that shortly after the time of writing, the Conservative government has unveiled so called ‘T-levels’, which promise to train youngsters in the practical and technical fields of the future. Once again, Labour has been too slow on the draw and attempts to do so now would appear to be a derivative imitation.

Put before people a plan that they can understand and offer them a future: through training programs, scientific advancement, industrialization, automation, pay rises, and tax breaks. Talking points must give way to the tangible.

What matters to most people when all is said and done is the food on their table, the money in their pockets and the roof over their head. Naturally, a sense of community drives many voters, but elections cannot be won through street marches in aid of the NHS. It’s an established truism that Labour will best serve the NHS, and people understand that all too well, but it cannot rely on this one-trick pony to carry it through to government.

Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime

Possibly the best thing to come out of the Blair era was the acknowledgment that the great mass of Labour voters were not ultra-liberal, as the Westminster establishment would have you believe but are in fact deeply socially conservative. As such, it’s crucial not only for the execution of justice, but for the electability of the party that Labour are seen to come down hard on criminals and serve justice to victims.

This should come in tandem with core Labour values about alleviating poverty, which we know to be the leading cause of crime since the devil will find work for idle hands to do. Any attempt to crack down on crime must do so heavily and stringently on perpetrators, while simultaneously delivering a revolutionary jobs program to put those idle hands to work.

As a consequence, such people will be able to sustain a family and home, thus giving people a stake in society they would be unwilling to discard with wanton criminality. The Tories have shamelessly cut back the numbers of police to levels last seen in 2003[xvii]. Prisons are being sold to private companies and the conditions that occur within them as a result is nothing short of disgraceful.

Prison guards are striking, and criminals are forcibly taking control of their own prisons, if such a thing could be believed to be true in 21st century Britain. Not only is this a national crisis that warrants an urgent response, but it’s a political opportunity Labour has thus far made no move to exploit.

It should call for and develop credible plans to introduce an increase in police numbers, prison reform, and higher wages for those on the frontline keeping our streets safe. Labour should be tough on crime because it’s the working class who suffer disproportionately at the hands of criminals without the benefits of gated drives and suburbia to protect them.

The Labour party has thus far failed to make political capital from any of these issues. It should go forth hand in hand with the police unions and declare that Labour will be second to none in its commitment and strength of purpose to cut down crime and clean up our prisons. Labour will serve the interests of victims and not criminals once again.

Corbyn’s irreparably damaging comments that he was ‘unhappy’ with the shoot-to-kill policy have done nothing to reduce the idea that Labour are soft on crime. The party needs to push the message night and day until it’s accepted as a truism that under Labour the streets will be safe again. 

Speaking to the People

Many in the Labour party have become totally removed from the voters they serve. Famously, Emily Thornberry poured scorn on a white van man for daring to hang the English flag on his own home. She was roundly attacked by people living outside the ultra-liberal Westminster bubble and was forced to resign from her then position as Shadow Attorney General, though since then Corbyn has secured her promotion to even greater heights.

It’s no surprise that working-class people continue to turn to UKIP in such numbers, when Labour’s North London elite mocks anyone patriotic or traditional in outlook. The voters of Rochester and Strood where the comments were made had nothing in common with Emily Thornberry and the beliefs she manifests, yet she felt perfectly entitled to go there and belittle the very people whose support she should have been trying to secure.

Unsurprisingly, Labour came 3rd in the constituency, losing over 10% of their vote share on the 2010 election. Seats like these are essential to take in order for Labour to have any hope of winning a general election.

Such events are symptomatic of a wider problem, which at the moment is embodied within the Labour leadership. The public watched in outrage as Jeremy Corbyn failed to sing the national anthem during a Battle of Britain commemoration. The papers made hay when Corbyn made a half-hearted bow at the Cenotaph, and did so, by the way, in a tatty suit. When the Red Flag is sung, it brings a smile to activists’ faces but confusion to the country at large.

Corbyn is known to be a republican. There is no problem with that. But he must understand that the vast majority of the country are in favor of the British monarchy because it speaks to their patriotism, is synonymous with their British identity, and is associated with the wars from times gone by and those lost in them.

Any leader of any party should sing the national anthem with gusto, and do so in the finest black suit with the boldest red tie. A refusal or failure to engage in the traditions that venerate the nation and honor our war dead sends a clear signal to the working class of this country that Labour is not the party for them. Indeed, many in the country view Corbyn as directly ‘anti-British’ given his close ties to IRA figures and his now infamous comments calling Hezbollah his ‘friends’.

Some will suggest that the aforementioned are merely superficial issues. In many ways, they are an issue of presentation, but the image the Labour party and its present leadership is not a secondary or tertiary concern, it should be the primary concern for any party seeking to win power.

It’s all well and good having an excellent manifesto, but if no one reads it or gives it credence because they believe its authors are intrinsically unpatriotic, then the manifesto is entirely useless.

Jeremy Corbyn’s tenure as leader is essentially a job interview with the British people at large. He must win their approval in order for them to grant him power. Yet he can’t be bothered to wear a decent suit, which in the opening days of his leadership campaign was endearing and charming, but at this point marks him as an unprepared amateur.

The Labour party has a war coffer of funds at its disposal, including membership subscriptions of over 500,000 individuals, a long list of big private donors, and a great deal more cash donated by trade unions. Yet for all these resources, there isn’t a single advisor who can tell Corbyn not to wear black suit trousers with a blue suit jacket during Prime Minister’s question time. When members of the public go for a job interview, they dress to impress, and they expect their leaders to do the same.

We need a leader of the Labour party flanked by the Union Flag, bellowing the national anthem, and embracing patriotism the same way the people do. Sadly, it appears the liberal elite feels shame and embarrassment at any suggestion of national pride.

There are people who understand this. Andy Burnham makes a particularly good example. A working-class lad who graduated from Cambridge, he returned to his home town to represent Leigh as a member of parliament, where he notably worked to secure justice for the victims of the Hillsborough disaster cover-up.

From a cold reception in a speech at the Anfield Football Grounds in 2009, he returned after five tireless years of fighting for justice to a well-earned hero’s reception. He wasn’t afraid to speak about that which for so long Labour had considered taboo, namely immigration, and during his bid for the leadership in 2015, he did just that.

Burnham rightly acknowledged all the good that immigration brings, from economic growth to cultural enrichment, while at the same time talking about those left behind by uncontrolled immigration. He talked of a factory worker in his constituency who sat alone during lunch times as he was the only English-speaking worker.

He rightly identified that immigration had disproportionately taken a toll on Labour’s industrial and post-industrial heartlands, and since his failed campaign, he has become even more vocal on this issue.

Alas, for some reason he lacked a certain spark during the campaign, though that aside, he spoke directly to the country, but yet it was the niche Labour party membership who had for the first time the total say on the new leader. Consequently Corbyn won. Burnham has moved out of the front line of national politics towards a campaign to be the mayor of Manchester. Let’s hope that he and his fellows plan a return in the near future.

Chapter V – Conclusions

There absolutely is a place for social liberals within the modern Labour party. The Labour party has a history of pushing through excellent liberal reforms from Barbra Castle legislating equal pay for equal work between the genders to the introduction of civil partnerships under Blair.

Throughout its history, Labour has been at the forefront of liberal reforms that have liberated people of all stripes, and it’s a good thing too. It’s also right that the Labour party platform deals with discrimination against transgender, gay, and black and minority ethnic individuals, but it should not do so at the expense of all else.

Too often, Labour party circles have discussion dominated by issues that (while important) effect .01% of the population or less. The cry of ‘racist’ or ‘transphobe’ is too often an excuse to shut down freedom of speech, particularly on university campuses and by individuals associated with Labour at a student level.

How can it be that lifelong gay activist Peter Tatchell, feminist icon Germaine Greer, and the left-of-Labour George Galloway have all been no-platformed or attacked on our university campuses. The attitudes that lead to such absurd action are rife among Labour party members and less often to be seen amongst the general populace, for whom these individuals would be considered far left, not something-or-other-ophobic.

There’s a false equivalence between parties like UKIP, a liberal isolationist organization, on the one hand, and fascism or racism on the other, and the comparison between them is consistently pushed by groups like Momentum, the Alliance for Workers Liberty and the Socialist Workers Party, all of which are groups operating with or within the Labour party.

Here’s an excerpt from the SWP publication the Socialist Worker, which I have seen distributed by Labour party members outside meetings and talks:

“And in Stoke Central the racist UKIP party, which came second there at the last general election, wants to whip up racism to take the seat from Labour. Socialist Worker is calling for a vote for Labour in both elections. They will be seen as referendums on Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour—and Corbyn could be forced to resign as leader if Labour does badly.

The racist right will feel ecstatic if UKIP leader Paul Nuttall wins in Stoke. Labour has rightly attacked Nuttall for his previous statements supporting privatization of the NHS. But Labour’s official campaign has not challenged UKIP over its racism. Labour will be most effective if it both attacks the cuts and also confronts UKIP divisive racism.”[xviii]

It’s simply not enough to shout ‘racist’ and expect to win an argument. In fact, at this point it’s no longer even a case of diminishing returns, but it’s actually backfiring, making people more inclined to vote for UKIP when their concerns about migration are met with insult by leftists. We on the left should be trying to win debates, not shut them down.

This isn’t an appeal to the SWP to change their tactics. They are free agents and can do as they please. But the fact that the Labour party leadership meets with them, gives them interviews and is commonly seen marching alongside them is indicative of the sort of attitudes that fester in Labour and also appears to be a soft endorsement of such views.

It’s part of a wider problem where certain social liberals are going so far in their anti-racism campaigns that they shut down free speech within the media, on university campuses, and on the streets, more often than not targeting people who were never racist in the first place.

In short, these liberals have become the very illiberal people they believe they’re fighting against. Such people are fooled into believing the rest of the country is on their wavelength, buoyed up by thousands of retweets and Facebook likes, yet they do not appear to understand that their online presence is an echo chamber. The more their preaching is welcomed by the converted, the more steadfast they become in their initial beliefs.

Most people in the country are not anything close to this level of ultra-liberal, and such attitudes do not resonate with them. The great mass of people are patriotic and socially conservative, and their concern with politics extends to ensuring the system provides them with a safety net and the opportunity for employment.

That doesn’t mean the country at large doesn’t have a sense of and desire for social justice. Of course it does. But the best way to ensure it is to first establish economic justice. When Labour party figures engage in extended diatribes about intersectional feminism, which to most people of both genders means nothing, it turns the public off.

Liberalism is a welcome element of the Labour coalition, but it cannot continue in such an extreme form, nor can it override concern for the economy and for jobs. Labour need to talk less about rules surrounding transgender usage of bathrooms in North Carolina, and more, much more, about jobs.

Corbyn’s position is untenable. He has had second chance upon second chance and failed to rehabilitate his image or reform his party. His name is toxic and his leadership destructive, and for these reasons, he must go.

In his place, we need a strong man or woman who understands the patriotism that stirs within Labour’s core vote, who understands the nation’s deep social conservatism, and who is prepared to meet the electorate’s demands for homes and jobs. Perhaps an Andy Burnham, a Gisela Stewart, a Dan Jarvis, a Richard Burgeon, or someone else entirely.

Labour must overcome its misconceptions about the people’s wants by breaking free of both Westminster and its online echo chambers.

The public are not shocked or angered about cuts to the benefits bill, in fact it’s a popular position[xix]. On this, let’s deliver the biggest benefits cut yet seen, and let them fall on the corporate welfare that now costs over £50 billion a year between working tax credits and housing benefit alone.

Let’s force corporations to pay a living wage, and put the working tax credit savings into a jobs program that will mop up any collateral unemployment. Let’s build houses until prices fall and housing benefit drops to record lows. Let’s cut old-age benefits for the very richest pensioners who have no need of them, and distribute that money to the needy elderly according to their ability and means.

Over a million food parcels were distributed by food banks to hungry citizens throughout the country in 2015[xx], evidence if any more were needed that our infrastructure, welfare, and employment programs are totally failing the British people.

Unfortunately, the people accessing these food banks are the least likely to turn out in a general election. Let’s take Labour’s mass membership and send it to deprived communities to knock on doors and win support from those who have never voted before. Such an effort should be supported by its hundreds of MPs, thousands of councilors, and hundreds of thousands of trade union affiliated members.

Labour’s war coffers are full enough to help out its members when they sacrifice their time for the party. Travel and other associated costs should be subsidized in such campaigns.

Let’s take a strong message into the heart of the country, into Scotland, Wales, the Midlands and the North, that Labour will deliver British jobs for British workers.  It will carry through to the agricultural areas which the Tories presume to sit upon since time immemorial and deliver a program to get British farms working again.

Let’s go into London and make clear that Labour is the party for social justice, and that begins with housing. Guarantee the construction of at least 250,000 homes every year and provide credible plans on how it will be done because whether you’re Black, White, trans, gay, straight, male or female, your primary concern is shelter, of which there is currently a dire shortage.

Let’s spark off a renaissance in 21st century manufacturing, now with the benefits of automation and renewable energy. Take to the public a message that cuts in the foreign aid budget will deliver a program of nuclear, tidal, wind, and solar energy expansion that will not just create innumerable high-paying jobs but will have the added advantage of saving the climate.

Let’s wade into the realm of the intelligentsia and say loud and clear that Labour is the party for true liberals, those who believe in rationalism, freedom of speech, and tolerance. Let’s talk to those who face the prospect of a life behind bars and deliver to them a place behind a college desk, a workbench or the wheel of a JCB.

Let us go to the people and promise them; Jobs, Homes and Health.

[i] Khan, O. (2015 May 15) Race and the 2015 General Election Part 1: Black and Minority Ethnic Voters. Retrieved from http://www.runnymedetrust.org/blog/race-and-the-2015-general-election-black-and-minority-ethnic-voters

[ii] Monegan, A. (2014 August 20) Self-employment in UK at Highest Level Since Records Began. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/20/self-employment-uk-highest-level

[iii] BBC Business. (2015 March 18) Economy Tracker: Unemployment. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10604117

[iv] Mirza-Davies J. (2016 November 21) Apprenticeship Statistics: England. Retrieved from http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06113/SN06113.pdf

[v] Blacking, D. (2014 July) So You Want to Be a Legal Aid Lawyer? Retrieved from http://lacuna.org.uk/justice/so-you-want-to-be-a-legal-aid-lawyer/

[vi] BBC Business (2015 September 21) Why Is the UK’s Housing Benefit Bill so High? Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34290727

[vii] OECD. (2016 April 13) Development Aid in 2015 Continues to Grow despite Costs for In-donor Refugees. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/ODA-2015-detailed-summary.pdf

[viii] Leach, B. (2012 December 19) One in Four Support Britain’s Foreign Aid Policies. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9770644/One-in-four-support-Britains-foreign-aid-policies.html

[ix] Lubin, G. (2014 March 16) How Russians Became Crimea’s Largest Ethnic Group, in One Haunting Chart. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/crimea-demographics-chart-2014-3?IR=T

[x] Socialist Worker (2017 February 28) Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell Spoke to Socialist Worker on the Recent By-election Results. Retrieved from https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/44161/Shadow+chancellor+John+McDonnell+spoke+to+Socialist+Worker+on+the+recent+by+election+results

[xi] Migration Watch UK (2014 November 18) Opinion Poll Results on Immigration. Retrieved from https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/249

[xii] Migration Watch UK (2015 March 25) Immigration Policy and Black and Minority Ethnic Voters. Retrieved from https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/11.37

[xiii] Castella, T. (2015 January 13) Why Can’t the UK Build 240,000 Houses a Year? Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30776306

[xiv] BBC News (2013 August 8) More UK births Than any Year Since 1972, Says ONS. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23618487

[xv] Dunne, P. Mckenna, H. and Murray, R. (2016 July) Deficits in the NHS 2016. Retrieved from https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/files/kf/field/field_publication_file/Deficits_in_the_NHS_Kings_Fund_July_2016_1.pdf

[xvi] Our Ten Pledges to Rebuild and Transform Britain. Retrieved from http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/pledges

[xvii] Newburn, T. (2015 November 24) What’s Happening to Police Numbers? Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34899060

[xviii] Clark, N. (2017 February 14) Clive Lewis Backs off, but the Labour Right is out for Corbyn’s Blood. Retrieved from https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/44091/Clive+Lewis+backs+off%2C+but+the+Labour+right+is+out+for+Corbyns+blood

[xix] Wells, A. (2011 May 16) Strong Public Support for Benefit Cuts. Retrieved from https://yougov.co.uk/news/2011/05/16/strong-public-support-benefit-cuts/

[xx] BBC News. (2015 April 22) Record Numbers Use Food Banks – Trussell Trust. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32406120

Alt Left: No, Feminists, the Three Recent Mass Shootings Had Nothing to Do With Misogyny

Of course, the feminists are on full rant, blaming misogyny for all three recent mass shootings. The Gilroy shooter was supposedly motivated by misogyny because he praised an old Social Darwinist tract  that is full racist and misogynistic writing. Nevertheless, there’s no evidence that the shooting was motivated by hatred of women, and in fact, this man said little or nothing about women one way or the other. Nor did he target women in his shooting. He shot at anyone.

The moronic Left media state that the Gilroy shooter’s manifesto, which was basically apolitical and if anything an argument against unchecked population growth, contained  racist and misogynistic statements. He lamented that “Latinos and Silicon Valley twats” were flooding into his town. Sounds like he was upset about rampant population growth in his town.

Yes, he mentions Latinos, but he also mentions Silicon Valley types, and they tend to be either White, Asians, or South Indians. So either he hated Whites, Latinos, Asians, and South Indians equally (or just about everybody), or race had nothing to do with the shooting.

The FBI has since found a hit list of possible targets this man had composed including all sorts of government offices, churches, and organizations from all over the political spectrum. The more you look at this shooting, the more it seems to have not had any politics at all.

The moron feminist media claimed that “Silicon Valley twats” was a misogynistic phrase, apparently implying that he hated female Silicon Valley workers. Yes, twat can refer to female genitalia, though it’s not often used that way. Yes, you can call a woman a twat just as you can call her a bitch or a cunt, and it can be an insult when used this way.

But the way twat is most frequently used in the US simply means something like idiots, fools, morons, dumbasses, etc. So the comment was not misogynistic at all.

Instead he commented on “Silicon Valley clowns,” which isn’t bigotry at all except that our modern bigotry hunters, determined to excavate every bit of hate lurking in the caverns of even the most innocent of sentences, will probably dig some up. After all,  when you go looking for a certain thing, you have a way of finding it, even if it’s via hallucination.

The El Paso mass shooter is also somehow a misogynist in addition to being an “incel,” though no one knows his sex life, and he wasn’t complaining anyway. This is because he was a White Supremacist (fact), and White Supremacists are all automagically linked to misogyny via links with MRA’s, incels, PUA’s, etc. Or so say the serial liars at the SPLC, but they lie half the time their mouths are open, so they aren’t a good source about anything.

First of all, half of incels are non-White. Yes, some White incels are White Supremacists, but many more are not, and most incel boards now have polices against race-bait posting.

In general PUA ideology says nothing about race, leaving aside that clowns like Roissy and Roosh have adopted racialist ideology. PUA ideology is about heterosexual men getting laid by women. There’s no racialism inherent in such a philosophy of seduction unless I missed that lecture in Pick-Up class.

MRA’s are notoriously for being non-racist or anti-racist, and racism has never been a part of the MRA scene to my knowledge.

Yes, many White Supremacist men are quite sexist, and fascism often has strong links to sexism. But fascists never made a habit of murdering women. They just wanted them at home, in the kitchen, or in church (or the German translation of such), taking care of kids, cooking meals, and gaining spiritual sustenance. Kinder kuchen kirch.

A number of the more hardcore White Supremacists do seem to hate women or at least have a very low opinion of them. The crowd around The Daily Stormer and Vanguard News Network (though the latter is more sexist than misogynistic) is a good example of that. But the quietist aspect of the movement as seen in the American Renaissance site is not misogynistic or sexist at all. Neither is Greg Johnson’s more hardcore Countercurrents site.

It’s true there are few women in the White Supremacist scene, but that is probably because hardcore racism and fascism appeal a lot more to men than to women. In fact, fascism is actually designed to appeal to men.

Nevertheless, many White Supremacists and White racists of any type do not hate women at all, and nor are they sexist. If anything, from my depraved dope, booze, and sex-drenched point of view, I find them squares, fuddy-duddies, and party-poopers. They talk a lot about protecting their women, and they seem to mean it. They probably pedestalize women more than anything else.

So of the three mass shooters, only one has misogyny issues, and his shooting had nothing to do with his issues with women. So the feminists are 0-3 on their theory, which is about how they score on every bit of their fact-free ideology.

Photo of El Paso Mass Shooter

Video of the shooting below. The video does not show any shots of the shooter or victims. You cannot see any shots being fired. It is simply a video of a man leaving the store with gunshots heard in the background.

There was a mass shooting today at 10 AM local (Mountain) time in El Paso, Texas. He was a young White man named Patrick Crusius. The toll so far is 20 dead and 26 wounded.

Photo of Patrick Crusius as he enters an El Paso Walmart. Looks like he may have started shooting already in this surveillance photo.

In the manifesto he says he is doing this to stop the Hispanic invasion of his country, which is mostly coming from Mesoamerica. He also references his opposition to race-mixing, race replacement of Whites by non-Whites, and Hispanic illegal immigrants taking jobs from Whites. He also complains about automation taking jobs from Whites.

Like Brendan Tarrant, the mosque shooter in New Zealand, he appears to be neither left nor right as he hates both the Republican and the Democratic Party. Tarrant hated both liberals and conservatives. In the manifesto, Cursius states that he is 21 years old and is a virgin.

Photo of Patrick Crusius taken from his Twitter feed before it got shut down. By the time I got to it, it had already been shut down.
I hate to say things like this, but no wonder he was a virgin. He’s a pretty nerdy and unattractive fellow.

We have no list of the victims yet, but most were probably Hispanics as El Paso is 80% Hispanic. The wounded ranged in age from 35-65, so no doubt he killed are in that range also. Looks like he used an AK-47 type semiautomatic weapon.

He posted his manifesto on 8chan like other shooters in the past. 8chan and 4chan are both said to be extremist forums, but that is not true as they host all sorts of forums on there and pol, which stands for politically incorrect not politics as the media says, is only one of the active forums on there. Sure, it’s pretty active but so are a lot of other forums.

8chan records all IP’s and cooperates fully with law enforcement. They had to do this in order to keep from getting shut down. The owner of 8chan is a White man who lives in the Philippines.

Expect to hear my calls to shut down 8chan or both 8chan and 4chan after this shooting. You can’t ban an idea. They will just take it to the  Dark Web, and there’s no shutting down anything down there.

Photo of Patrick Crusius as he entered an El Paso Walmart in order to conduct his shooting. The photo was apparently taken with a security camera. I have not seen this photo anywhere else on the Web other than the chans. Yes, I read them, even pol on 8chan.

Lousy Arguments the Left Uses to Counter “Racist Facts”

A repost of a previously posted article that is being reposted because it is being linked in a very stupid Cultural Left feminist site run by some cucked male feminist soyboy. This article is said to make me a huge racist even though every single fact I report here is 100% scientific truth. How facts can be racist is beyond me. Maybe someone can explain this to me.

Below is a list of the “racist facts” that I listed in a previous post. But first of all, a look at some great progress. Some good news for once.

Blacks Have Made Much Progress in Ameliorating Black Problems and Discrepancies

Yes, Blacks have closed the achievement gap by 1/3, which shows it was not purely genetic. However, 2/3 of the gap remains. Blacks in the UK have closed the achievement gap completely according to scores on the latest high school achievement tests.

Yes, the Black crime rate can go down and has gone down dramatically in the last 25 years. But that occurred at the same time as the crime rate for everyone dropping dramatically. It’s definitely true that you can have large swings in the Black crime rate. Black violent crime is down 40%. That wouldn’t be the case if it was all down to genes.

Nevertheless, crime reduction becomes an arms race as the White rate declines concurrently with the Black rate so the Black 6X discrepancy remains.

Yes, there are Black societies in Africa with over 1 million members who have homicide rates as low as the Japanese. This shows that a high Black crime and violent crime is not a genetic inevitability. And it shows that genes are not destiny.

An excellent environment which does not occur naturally very often (I call it a superenvironment) can wipe out the entire Black tendency towards crime and violence (which I believe is genetic). The problem is that replicating these “superenvironments” Blacks need to get these problems down to low levels seems to be quite difficult to achieve.

The Black IQ gap has closed significantly among Black children, among whom it has closed by 40%, and in places like Barbados and Bermuda, where it has closed by 50%. Nevertheless a significant gap remains. Blacks have closed the standardized test score gap in high school in the UK. Such scores can be seen as proxies for IQ.

The Black single parent rate was quite low in the 1950’s when 80% of Black children lived with a mother and father. So single parenthood is not a genetic inevitability.

There are wealthy Black areas like Baldwin Hills and Ladera Heights that reportedly have low crime rates. They are the opposite of rundown, slummy, blighted, dangerous Hellholes. Apparently if you get a lot of wealthy Blacks in one place, they can create a well-functioning metropolis.

However, in general, it seems that not a whole lot can be done to ameliorate the Black problems and discrepancies below. This is why most of the people talking about such things resort to extreme solutions such as bringing back Jim Crow and legal discrimination or forming a separate White state.

They advocate such extreme solutions because those are the only real ways to deal with the problems below. The problem here is that the solution is immoral. Immoral solutions are not acceptable no matter the problem.

Now we will look at why there is little point harping on and on about these discrepancies unless you can do something about it. If you don’t have even a partial solution to a problem, why talk about it?

Why Bother Writing about “Racist Facts?”

If there’s no solution, and if writing about this just gets me called racist, makes Blacks and liberals hate me, and stimulates a lot of White racism, why bother to write about this stuff unless I want to use these facts as a stick to beat Black people with? See what I mean? That’s why I don’t bother often to write about these things. I write about them once in a while, but I don’t like to harp on and on about them.

What’s the point? There’s no way to fix them, and all writing about them does is cause a lot of bad vibes, exacerbate hostility and racism in society, and make even more people hate me. Why do it?

Now we will look at the absolutely awful rejoinders that the liberal/Left uses as rejoinders against “racist facts.”

Bad Arguments Used by the Left to Counter “Racist Facts”

Nevertheless, the Left still has no arguments or very poor arguments for all of the facts below. I would like to point out first of all that the Left gets away with calling all of the above facts racist because they say they are lies. So we need to determine if these are lies or not. If they’re not lies, then the facts below are not racist. How can you have racist facts? It’s weird.

Even things like “Black schools tend to perform more poorly,” they will say is a lie because it’s a generalization. They will say, “Lots of Black students do very well in school, so that’s a racist lie!” This argument is a logical fallacy, but never mind. The rest of the allegations, they will just say they are not true.

I will list the previously stated facts below along with the bad arguments that the liberal/Left uses to try to refute them. I would like to point out that all of these liberal/Left rejoinders are very bad arguments. All are illogical or do not even attempt to counter the original statement. And in general, they rely in a huge way on all sorts of logical fallacies.

  •    Black people are less intelligent than Whites as measured accurately by IQ tests. They will say that’s a lie. However, it is simply a 100% fact. It’s not even 1% controversial.
  •     Black people impose considerable costs on society. They will say that’s a lie or White people impose costs on society too, so therefore the statement is a lie. This is factually true. Black people per capita impose much greater costs on society than other races.
  •     Your average Hispanic has an IQ of 90. They will say that’s a lie. But this is a straight up pure scientific fact. There’s no debate about that figure either. It’s accepted across the board.
  •     Blacks commit 6X more crime than Whites. They will either say that’s a lie, or it’s due to poverty (which means it’s still true) or that Whites commit just as much crime except they commit corporate crime. Those are all very bad arguments. First of all it is true. Second of all it’s not due to poverty. West Virginia is the poorest state in the country and it has the second lowest crime rate. The kicker? It’s almost all White. As far as corporate crime, so what? Does it effect you personally? Anyway it goes on constantly no matter who’s in power and there’s no way to reduce it. Since it’s always at the same level, isn’t it a good idea to lower street crime then? Are individuals truly and obviously harmed by corporate crime the same way they are by street crime? I say no. When I am walking in a shady neighborhood at midnight, and there is a guy in a suit and tie walking behind me, I will not start running away because I’m afraid he’s about to violate a health and safety code. Get it?
  •     Blacks are 13% of the population but commit over half the violent crime. They will say that’s a lie, or resort to the poverty non-argument, or talk about Whites and corporate crime, imperialism, or White historical crimes like settler-colonialism or slavery. But it’s true. And White settler-colonialism, slavery, and whatever is all in the past. Imperialism doesn’t affect Americans. Corporate crime is always at high levels, but it doesn’t effect people much at the micro level in a brutal way like Black crime does. Anyway, Blacks commit white collar crime at levels much higher than Whites do anyway, so if corporations were run by Blacks, corporate crime would be vastly worse.
  •     Large cities with high percentages of Black people tend to be slummy, dangerous, rundown, blighted hellholes. They will ask you to define those terms, say there are nice areas in all of those cities, say it is due to discrimination (which means it’s still a fact), or say White cities are slummy too. The terms are obvious. So what if there are nice parts of those towns? Does that obviate the places like look like they just got leveled in a WW2 bombing run? Discrimination doesn’t cause heavily Black cities to turn into slummy, dangerous, rundown, blighted hellholes. You know what causes those cities to be like that? Black people. Black people created those cities in precisely that way of their own free chosen will for whatever reason. There are almost no slummy White cities in the US. Haven’t seen one yet and I’ve been all over.
  •     Blacks tend to be more impulsive than Whites. They will say that’s a lie and demand evidence. Never mind the candy bar test originally done in the Caribbean and redone in the US and elsewhere in the Caribbean now replicated ~15 times. These tests showed conclusively that at least Black children are vastly more impulsive than White children at off the charts rates. And it has to be genetic. Those kids were only six years old.
  •     80% of Black kids are born to a single mother. They will say that’s because of racism or because Whites took all the jobs away. Neither of those things are true. This is true because so many Black men of their own free will refuse to stick around and take care of their kids for whatever reason. I’m not sure why this is but this behavior is also very common in the Caribbean and Africa, so maybe there’s a genetic tendency, no idea.
  •     Many Black men do not stick around and take care of their children. Same thing. Racism makes them do it, or Whites stole all the jobs. Neither of those things are true. Black men do this, it’s a fact, they do it far more than other races, and they do it of their own free will for whatever reason.
  •     Most prison rape is Black on White. Almost none is the other way around. They will say it’s a lie and demand proof. Or they will bring up some weird case of a White raping a Black and say it’s a lie because Whites rape Blacks too. Those are terrible rejoinders. Black men rape White men in prisons all the time. White men almost never rape Black men in prisons. Those are facts. Those Black men in prisons rape those White men of their own free will at insanely disproportionate rates for whatever reasons they have to do that.
  •     Blacks have quite high rates of STD’s. They will say Whites get STD’s too or it’s due to poverty or racism (which means it’s still true). Whites get STD’s at much lower rates than Blacks. Black STD rates have nothing to do with poverty or racism. Who knows what causes it but Blacks are far more promiscuous than Whites on average, so there’s a clue.
  •     Heavily Black schools tend to perform poorly. First they will say it’s not true, then they will say it’s due to poverty and racism. It’s not due to poverty or racism. There is a considerable intelligence gap between Blacks and Whites on average. This average lower intelligence would be expected produce poorly performing schools.
  •     Blacks tend to be poorer than Whites at postponing instant gratification. See the candy bar studies. Liberals reject all of those candy bar studies as flawed even though they have been replicated 15 times. And they were done with little six year old children, so there’s little cultural influence. And many were done in the Caribbean, where there is zero racism against Blacks.
  •     One of the main reasons so many Blacks get shot by police is because they commit so much crime. They will say that Whites commit crime too. Sure, but they don’t commit nearly as much! Unarmed Whites are more likely to get killed by police than unarmed Blacks, so Black Lives Matter is based on a fraud, and obviously the high rates of Black killings by police are simply due to Blacks committing six times as much crime.
  •     Black people tend to be louder than White people. They will say that Whites are loud too and bring up some example of loud White people. Ever taught in a Black school? Ever taught in a White school? Hispanic school? Asian school? Pacific Islander (Filipinos and Samoans) school? I have taught all of those races of students countless times over many years. Blacks are much louder than any of those groups. It’s most horrifically noticeable in primary and junior high, but it can still be heard in 9th grade and even up to 10th grade. 11th and 12th grade Black schools even in the heart of the ghetto are rather subdued because all the bad ones are either dropped out and on the streets, in juvenile hall, or dead.

Update: Mitch McConnell Is Gay

This post has been updated with a lot of new information further bolstering the case that Mitch McConnell is gay.

Mitch McConnell is the leader of the Republicans in the Senate. It is sometimes said that Mitch McConnell is gay, and indeed this appears to be the case.

This is what we know about Mitch McConnell’s homosexuality:

What is known, though extremely covered up, is that around 1964, Mitch McConnell was thrown out of the US Army for an incident whereby Mitch McConnell propositioned another male solider and grabbed his penis at the same time. The soldier reported this to his superiors, who took action against McConnell.

Mitch McConnell was thrown out of the Army for engaging in homosexual activity, but since he was a Senate aide in the summer, he used the Senator he worked for to pull punches and get the reason Mitch McConnell was thrown out of the Army changed from gay sex to having some sort of eye illness which it turns out he didn’t even have.

The Powers That Be then buried this case so deep that it took a progressive journalist forever digging through US government records to finally figure out what was going on. He was obstructed at every turn of the highway.

At any rate, what is known is that Mitch McConnell was thrown out of the US military for homosexual activity. And this needs to be shouted from the rooftops.

Documentation on the case? Google is your friend.

There is further evidence for this charge.

Mitch McConnell has been spotted in Thailand at least once or possibly more than once. Mitch McConnell was seen at private parties in Thailand where wealthy and powerful gay and bisexual American men procure young Thai males for gay sex. In at least one instance, Mitch McConnell was seen with one of his boy-toys at one of these parties.
These reports come from excellent sources very close to McConnell.

And although Mitch McConnell’s sexuality is a very tightly held secret, it is said that all of McConnell’s closest friends “are fully aware Mitch McConnell’s sexual orientation” and have agreed to keep it a closely held secret.

He is married to Elaine Chao, Secretary of Labor under George Bush. Chao’s family is an extremely corrupt political crime family connected to the fascist KMT in Taiwan. He has fathered a number of children by this woman, but many gay men have children with women. Posters on gay bulletin boards report that Chao and McConnell have long had separate bedrooms.

I received some emails after this story was printed. A man told me that he knew the President of Kentucky State University very well. The University President told this man that it was well-known that Mitch McConnell was gay.

I received another email from a Louisville police officer. He told me that McConnell had been caught engaging in gay sex late at night with men in Louisville parks that were known as gay cruise spots. Higher-ups had ordered that McConnell be released each time. I do not know if he was arrested or simply detained in these cases.

If he was just detained, there will be no police report. If he was arrested, there will be a report. However, a colleague of mine, a documentary filmmaker who is researching for a film on McConnell, did a search for police reports on any McConnell arrests, and he could find any.

This post was recently linked to the Reddit group Gaybros. A commenter stated that McConnell is definitely gay and is a regular at a popular Washington DC gay bathhouse called The Crew Club.

I recently received a comment from a Kentucky man who informed me that McConnell had molested a boy of unknown age when McConnell was judge executive in Kentucky. This boy is now a grown man and to this day, he is terrified of McConnell. From the comment:

McConnell is not so much as gay as a rapist that will fuck your kids when you’re not looking. You want to believe in demons? There, you’ve got one [in Mitch McConnell].

Judge Executive is not a judge. It is more like the head of the county, sort of like “mayor of the county.” While he was Judge Executive, McConnell made a name for himself in prosecuting rapists, child molesters, and sexual assaulters. If this report is true, it looks like we might be looking at a case of reaction formation, which would not be unusual for a politician as many politicians use this defense mechanism.

Mitch McConnell is definitely gay and has been actively engaging in homosexual sex since adolescence.

Update: Alt Left: The Sexual Misconduct Charges Against Brett Kavanaugh

Updated post on the rape and sexual assault charges against Brett Kavanaugh. New information is in italic.
My personal opinion is that Brett Kavanaugh is or was a serial rapist who raped women at least 14 times, sexually assaulted women three times, and tried to rape women at least once between ages 17-24, mostly between ages 17-21. His friend Mark Judge assisted in most of these rapes and attempted rapes.
The scorecard on Brett Kavanaugh. Between 1982-88, Kavanaugh, aged 17-24, committed:

  • 14 rapes
  • 3 sexual assaults
  • 1 attempted rape

Conclusion: Brett Kavanaugh is a serial rapist.
1. The first charge stems from 1982. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who was 15 years old at the time, was at a party at a home with several other people. At least one other girl was there in addition to several boys. They were drinking alcohol. Ford went upstairs to go to the bathroom. Brett Kavanaugh, age 17, grabbed her in the hallway and dragged her into a bedroom where his friend Mark Judge was waiting.
Kavanaugh and Judge turned the music up loud so the others could not hear their planned rape of Ford. Kavanaugh pinned her to the bed, got on top of her, and tried to tear her swimsuit off. She screamed and he put his hand over her mouth to stop her screaming. She fought him off the whole time, and after a bit of a struggle, managed to get out from under him. Judge laughed as Kavanaugh did this. This was a misdemeanor, 2nd Degree Sexual Assault, and it carried a sentence of 1-3 years. The statute of limitations ran out on this charge in 1985, 33 years ago. I believe that this act occurred.
2. The second charge occurred in 1983 when Kavanaugh was 18 years old and a freshman at Yale University. A woman named Deborah Ramirez, also 18, went to a drinking party in the dorms. She was the only woman there with 4-5 young men about her age. Kavanaugh was one of the men. They engaged in drinking games and got quite drunk. Ramirez was sitting on the floor when several of the men stood over her and began playing games with a fake penis, asking her to touch it. Brett Kavanaugh then stood up and pulled out his penis and waved it in front of her face, daring her to touch it. He then forced her to touch his penis. She was a good Catholic girl at the time, and she had never touched a penis before.
Word got around that Kavanaugh did this, and people were shocked because that was considered extreme behavior even by the standards of the sexual hijinks going on at the time. This was technically a sexual assault, but no DA would take such a hokey charge. Nevertheless in Man World this is called a dick move, and the punishment for dick moves in Man World is a punch in the face. I believe this act occurred.
3. The third charge involved a woman named Julie Swetnick. Julie charges that when she was 19 and 20 years old in 1982, she went to ten parties that were thrown by Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh. Swetnick said that Kavanaugh would get very drunk at these parties and grope, grind up against, and try to disrobe girls so that sexual parts of their bodies could be revealed. In general, this behavior was done against the girls’ will. She also said that he did not know how to take no for an answer.
She said that Judge and Kavanaugh would target one girl and spike her punch with either grain alcohol or a drug of some sort, probably Quaaludes. This girl would then become so intoxicated that she was incapacitated. The boys would then get her into a bedroom and “pull a train” on her. That means that the boys would line up outside the room and go in one at a time to have sex with her.
There was quite a bit of this when I was in high school, but I understand that it was all consensual. On the other hand, no one was spiking girls’ drinks at those parties. At one of the parties, Swetnick had her punch spiked and ended up in a bedroom while boys lined up outside and had sex with her one at a time as part of a train. She thought she was dosed with a drug, possibly a Quaalude. She was so incapacitated that she was unable to stop these boys from having sex with her.
Kavanaugh was 17 and 18 years old at the time these parties were going on. As far as the groping and grinding up against girls and pulling their clothes aside to reveal parts of their bodies, technically this is sexual assault, but no one is ever going to do down for something that hokey and petty. However, the drugging of girls and pulling trains on them is much more serious.
This absolutely qualifies as rape or even gang rape. I believe that all of these events occurred, and I think Kavanaugh and Judge not only spiked Swetnick’s punch, but they probably took turns having sex with her too. The problem is that there is no way to prove that Kavanaugh and Judge had sex with her because Swetnick was too out of it to figure out who was raping her. If Kavanaugh committed this act, this qualifies as rape. However, no DA would take a rape case from 36 years ago.
4. The fourth charge stems from 1988 and was outlined in a letter to the Kavanaugh committee. A woman who knew Kavanaugh well charged that a mixed group had gone out drinking in a bar at a named location. As they were leaving the bar, a drunken Kavanaugh grabbed the woman and threw her up against a wall in a sexual way. The woman and the others in the crowd were shocked at this behavior. Kavanaugh was 24 years old at the time. This event may well have occurred since the woman provided a detailed statement about it, but as the woman wants to remain anonymous, there is no way to prove it. This would be a sexual assault charge, but no DA would take such a BS case like this.
5. The fifth charge involves a boat in a Rhode Island harbor at a named location in the summer of 1985. A woman charged that one night in this harbor, Kavanaugh, age 21, and Judge sexually assaulted her in a boat that the two men were living in. Details of what exactly happened here are not available. She left and the next morning told two of her male friends what happened. Her male friends went down to the boat where Kavanaugh and Judge were living, and her friends beat up the two men.
The woman remains anonymous. She made this charge in a letter to Senator Whitehouse. It would not surprise me if this case was true too, but as the woman is anonymous, there is no way to determine if this happened or not. The statute of limitations in Rhode Island for sexual assault is not known. The charge here would be sexual assault, but no DA would take a 33 year old sexual assault case.
6. The sixth charge involves a woman who charges that Kavanaugh and a friend raped her in a vehicle. The woman is anonymous and no date is given. The charge was made in a letter to California Senator Kamala Harris by a schoolteacher in Oceanside, California. The woman charges that she was at a party with a girlfriend. The girlfriend left with a male and the woman had no way to get home.
Kavanaugh and a friend offered to give her a ride home. Kavanaugh and the girl were in the front seat, and Kavanaugh’s friend was in the back seat. At some point along the way, Kavanaugh stopped the car and forcefully kissed the woman against her will. The woman objected and said she did not want to do that and that she just wanted to go home.
Kavanaugh then started forcibly disrobing her, taking off her top and bra and trying to remove her pants. She was yelling and telling him to stop. Kavanaugh slapped her face and told her to shut up. Then he told her to perform oral sex on him. She did this and he came in her mouth. Then they took off the rest of her clothes, put here in the backseat, and both men had sex with her 2-3 times each.
This woman’s charges are very detailed and it would not surprise me if there was something to these charges. What is particularly interesting is that Kavanaugh’s friend put his hand over the girl’s mouth when she was yelling. This is exactly what Ford charges that Kavanaugh did to her in 1982 in the bedroom – he put his hand over her mouth as he attempted to disrobe her to silence her screaming. This is good evidence because it suggests that Kavanaugh and his rape buddies had an MO when they went about raping women that involved covering the woman’s mouth to quiet her cries as they tried to disrobe her.
However, as this woman is anonymous, there is no way to determine the veracity of her claims. If this charge is true then it involves at least three counts of rape against Kavanaugh. As we do not know when or where this event happened, we don’t know the statute of limitations on the crime. It seems have taken place between 1982-1985. However, no DA would take a 33-36 year old rape case, even one as serious as this one.
Conclusion. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. If I was going through this process, there is no way that a number of women would come forward saying that I sexually assaulted or raped them because I simply don’t do such things. Since I don’t do things like that, there is no way that a string of women from my past would come forward and all lie about me raping and assaulting them. Life doesn’t work that way. And while it is true that a high percentage of recent rape charges are false, I very much doubt if any reasonable woman is going to make a false rape claim about something that happened 30-36 years ago.
In particular, the three women who have come forward have been vilified, had their lives turned upside down and gone over with a fine toothcomb looking for anything bad they might have done, been accused of being crazy and liars, had their jobs and careers disrupted, and in Ford’s case, had to go into hiding due to receiving many death threats. It’s hard to imagine why any sane woman would put herself through all of that to make up some false sexual assault charge about something that happened 30-36 years ago. Why would any sane person do that?
Although feminist idiots claim that most or all men are rapists, like most things feminists say, this is not true. Careful surveys have found that only 10% of men admit to committing a sexual assault. Men are either rapey or they’re not. Non-rapey men don’t generally do rapey things. They live their whole lives without ever doing things like that.
Rapey men typically don’t do it only once. Usually the rapeyness is part of a pattern of general rapeyness, sexual assault, and out and out rape that they have usually done on more than one occasion. In other words, it tends to be a pattern of behavior that doesn’t happen just one time. All of this fits together with the suggestion that Kavanaugh is a rapey guy due to the repeated charges of sexual assault and rape against him over a period of years by different women.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Alt Left: Rape Culture Idiocy

Is there anyone on my site who thinks this rape culture folly even exists at all? I mean I’ve never raped anyone in my life. None of my friends have ever raped anyone in their lives. I don’t know any men who have ever raped anyone in their lives, at least that I know of. Where’s the rape culture. If this was a rape culture I probably would have been raping all this time.
Rape culture theory says the US has a rape culture that encourages men to rape females, that lets males off the hook when they do it because police officers, DA’s, judges, juries and our fellow men in general all sympathize with the rapists and let them off the hook. This is madness. Most men don’t sympathize with real actual rapists, I mean males who break the actual laws against rape. I’m talking real rape here. Real rape is legal rape. There’s real rape and there’s feminist rape. Feminist rape is whenever some female says she got raped, it was rape, no matter what happened. Feminists expand the definition of  rape every year and make ever increasing and ever crazier demands in terms of consent.
The intention here is obvious. Many feminists hate men, hate masculinity and especially hate heterosexual men. This is especially true of radical feminists. I assure you that if radical feminists could make heterosexual sex illegal for men, they would do it. In fact the feminists who first made up these laws hated heterosexual men, said all heterosexual sex was rape, and seemed to be trying to make it as illegal as possible. I refer to Andrea Dworkin and Katharine McKinnon. All sexual harassment came directly from Dworkin and McKinnon, two of the most insane man-hating bitches that have ever lived. Robin Morgan also made some statements about shutting down heterosexual sex and forcing all women to be lesbians. They weren’t exactly shy about their goals.
Do male cops really sympathize with actual rapists, I mean stranger rapists like the guy with the ski mask and a can of mace types? Do male judges really sympathize with these guys? Male DA’s like rapists? We men in general like rapists and support them and try to get them off the hook?
This whole theory sounds completely insane. There is no rape culture in this country, for God’s sake. Now if you go down to Latin America or over to the Philippines, India, Egypt, or South Africa, now you are getting somewhere. If we had a rape culture, all of those men would not have lost their jobs for flirting with women (sexual harassment) or touching women (sexual assault). There would have been no #metoo nonsense. There would have been no #timesup crap. The Kavanaugh hearings would not be rocking the nation like they are. The fact that all these things are happening are arguments against the existence of a rape culture, not in favor of one.

Alt Left: The Sexual Misconduct Charges Against Brett Kavanaugh

1. The first charge stems from 1982. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who was 15 years old at the time, was at a party at a home with several other people. At least one other girl was there in addition to several boys. They were drinking alcohol. Ford went upstairs to go to the bathroom, and somehow she got into a room with Kavanaugh, age 17 at the time, and his friend Mark Judge. Kavanaugh pinned her to the bed and tried to tear her clothes off. She fought him off the whole time. Judge laughed as Kavanaugh did this. This was a misdemeanor, 2nd Degree Sexual Assault, and it carried a sentence of 1-3 years. The statute of limitations ran out on this charge in 1985, 33 years ago. I believe that this act occurred.
2. The second charge occurred in 1983 when Kavanaugh was 18 years old and a freshman at Yale University. A woman named Deborah Ramirez, also 18, went to a drinking party in the dorms. She was the only woman there with 4-5 young men about her age. Kavanaugh was one of the men. They engaged in drinking games and got quite drunk. Ramirez was sitting on the floor when several of the men stood over her, pulled out their penises, and forced her to touch them. She was a good Catholic girl at the time, and she had never touched a penis before.
Kavanaugh was one of the men who stood over her, whipped out his penis and forced her to touch it. Word got around that Kavanaugh did this, and people were shocked because that was considered extreme behavior even by the standards of the sexual hijinks going on at the time. This was technically a sexual assault, but no DA would take such a hokey charge. Nevertheless in Man World this is called a dick move, and the punishment for dick moves in Man World is a punch in the face. I believe this act occurred.
3. The third charge involved a woman named Julie Swetnick. Julie charges that when she was 19 and 20 years old in 1982, she went to ten parties that were thrown by Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh. Swetnick said that Kavanaugh would get very drunk at these parties and grope, grind up against, and try to disrobe girls so that sexual parts of their bodies could be revealed. In general, this behavior was done against the girls’ will. She also said that he did not know how to take no for an answer.
She said that Judge and Kavanaugh would target one girl and spike her punch with either grain alcohol or a drug of some sort, probably Quaaludes. This girl would then become so intoxicated that she was incapacitated. The boys would then get her into a bedroom and “pull a train” on her. That means that the boys would line up outside the room and go in one at a time to have sex with her.
There was quite a bit of this when I was in high school, but I understand that it was all consensual. On the other hand, no one was spiking girls’ drinks at those parties. At one of the parties, Swetnick had her punch spiked and ended up in a bedroom while boys lined up outside and had sex with her one at a time as part of a train. She thought she was dosed with a drug, possibly a Quaalude. She was so incapacitated that she was unable to stop these boys from having sex with her.
Kavanaugh was 17 years old at the time these parties were going on. As far as the groping and grinding up against girls and pulling their clothes aside to reveal parts of their bodies, technically this is sexual assault, but no one is ever going to do down for something that hokey and petty. However, the drugging of girls and pulling trains on them is much more serious.
This absolutely qualifies as rape or even gang rape. I believe that all of these events occurred, and I think Kavanaugh and Judge not only spiked Swetnick’s punch, but they probably took turns having sex with her too. The problem is that there is no way to prove that Kavanaugh and Judge had sex with her because Swetnick was too out of it to figure out who was raping her. If Kavanaugh committed this act, this qualifies as rape. However, no DA would take a rape case from 36 years ago.
4. The fourth charge stems from 1988 and was outlined in a letter to the Kavanaugh committee. A woman who knew Kavanaugh well charged that a mixed group had gone out drinking in a bar at a named location. As they were leaving the bar, a drunken Kavanaugh grabbed the woman and threw her up against a wall in a sexual way. The woman and the others in the crowd were shocked at this behavior. Kavanaugh was 24 years old at the time. This event may well have occurred since the woman provided a detailed statement about it, but as the woman wants to remain anonymous, there is no way to prove it. This would be a sexual assault charge, but no DA would take such a BS case like this.
5. The fifth charge involves a boat in a Rhode Island harbor at a named location in the summer of 1985. A woman charged that one night in this harbor, Kavanaugh, age 21, and Judge sexually assaulted her in a boat that the two men were living in. Details of what exactly happened here are not available. She left and the next morning told two of her male friends what happened. Her male friends went down to the boat where Kavanaugh and Judge were living, and her friends beat up the two men.
The woman remains anonymous. She made this charge in a letter to Senator Whitehouse. It would not surprise me if this case was true too, but as the woman is anonymous, there is no way to determine if this happened or not. The statute of limitations in Rhode Island for sexual assault is not known. The charge here would be sexual assault, but no DA would take a 33 year old sexual assault case.
6. The sixth charge involves a woman who charges that Kavanaugh and a friend raped her in a vehicle. The woman is anonymous and no date is given. The charge was made in a letter to California Senator Kamala Harris by a schoolteacher in Oceanside, California. The woman charges that she was at a party with a girlfriend. The girlfriend left with a male and the woman had no way to get home.
Kavanaugh and a friend offered to give her a ride home. Kavanaugh and the girl were in the front seat, and Kavanaugh’s friend was in the back seat. At some point along the way, Kavanaugh stopped the car and forcefully kissed the woman against her will. The woman objected and said she did not want to do that and that she just wanted to go home.
Kavanaugh then started forcibly disrobing her, taking off her top and bra and trying to remove her pants. She was yelling and telling him to stop. Kavanaugh slapped her face and told her to shut up. Then he told her to perform oral sex on him. She did this and he came in her mouth. Then they took off the rest of her clothes, put here in the backseat, and both men had sex with her 2-3 times each.
This woman’s charges are very detailed and it would not surprise me if there was something to these charges. What is particularly interesting is that Kavanaugh’s friend put his hand over the girl’s mouth when she was yelling. This is exactly what Ford charges that Kavanaugh did to her in 1982 in the bedroom – he put his hand over her mouth as he attempted to disrobe her to silence her screaming. This is good evidence because it suggests that Kavanaugh and his rape buddies had an MO when they went about raping women that involved covering the woman’s mouth to quiet her cries as they tried to disrobe her.
However, as this woman is anonymous, there is no way to determine the veracity of her claims. If this charge is true then it involves at least three counts of rape against Kavanaugh. As we do not know when or where this event happened, we don’t know the statute of limitations on the crime. It seems have taken place between 1982-1985. However, no DA would take a 33-36 year old rape case, even one as serious as this one.
Conclusion. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. If I was going through this process, there is no way that a number of women would come forward saying that I sexually assaulted or raped them because I simply don’t do such things. Since I don’t do things like that, there is no way that a string of women from my past would come forward and all lie about me raping and assaulting them. Life doesn’t work that way. And while it is true that a high percentage of recent rape charges are false, I very much doubt if any reasonable woman is going to make a false rape claim about something that happened 30-36 years ago.
In particular, the three women who have come forward have been vilified, had their lives turned upside down and gone over with a fine toothcomb looking for anything bad they might have done, been accused of being crazy and liars, had their jobs and careers disrupted, and in Ford’s case, had to go into hiding due to receiving many death threats. It’s hard to imagine why any sane woman would put herself through all of that to make up some false sexual assault charge about something that happened 30-36 years ago. Why would any sane person do that?
Although feminist idiots claim that most or all men are rapists, like most things feminists say, this is not true. Careful surveys have found that only 10% of men admit to committing a sexual assault. Men are either rapey or they’re not. Non-rapey men don’t generally do rapey things. They live their whole lives without ever doing things like that.
Rapey men typically don’t do it only once. Usually the rapeyness is part of a pattern of general rapeyness, sexual assault, and out and out rape that they have usually done on more than one occasion. In other words, it tends to be a pattern of behavior that doesn’t happen just one time. All of this fits together with the suggestion that Kavanaugh is a rapey guy due to the repeated charges of sexual assault and rape against him over a period of years by different women.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Sexual Misconduct Charges against Trump: The Run-Down

I believe that Trump did act inappropriately towards women a number of times. He sure pissed off a lot of women with his forward behaviors. I can’t recall most of the cases, but I can comment on a few.
He absolutely beat up and violently raped his ex-wife. There’s no doubt in my mind about that. He definitely broke the following laws: assault (he assaulted her so badly that he actually yanked some of the hair out of her head) and rape (the threw her down to the floor and violently raped her against her will). The ex-wife was paid off and part of the payoff was that she could not talk about the episode.
I also think that he beat and raped a 13 year old girl and a 12 year old girl at Jeffrey Epstein’s apartment in the 1990’s. The victim was named and highly credible. Trump threatened the 13 year old that if she talked, she would end up like Maria, the 12 year old. At the time he said that, Maria had not been seen in some time. The implication was that Trump and/or Epstein had had Maria killed. I feel that he broke the following laws: assault (he punched her in the head), rape (he violently raped her against her will), and laws against sex with a minor (she was 13 years old).
The 13 year old, now in her early 30’s, sued Trump in civil court. The woman finally dropped the case because she was getting a lot of death threats. The case was settled out of court when Trump apparently paid the woman off. As part of the settlement, she was not allowed to talk about the case.
His behavior in going into the locker room where underage teenage girls were changing for his pageants. There were naked 15-17 year old girls in there. He was running the pageant and there was nothing they could do to stop him. He broke no laws here, but this is creepy behavior. I mean come on, people.
I would have to go back over the other charges to see what to make of them, but few if any of them actually rise to the level of criminal sexual assaults. Most are under the murky rubric of sexual misconduct, and no one even knows what that is. Technically they were all sexual assaults, but this sort of thing happens constantly, and police never even arrest on hokey charges like this because if they did, 10 million men would be imprisoned in the first year. Cops have better things to do than cuffing some guy for copping a feel in a bar.
I will say that Trump has left a whole string of women pissed off, even years later, over his excessively aggressive sexual behavior. Trump’s been acting excessively sexually aggro with females for a long time now.

Game/PUA: The Big Lie about Sex with an Intoxicated Woman Being Rape

Tulio: What I also found is that a huge number of reported rapes are actually acquaintance rapes and involve a guy having sex with a woman who drank too much. I’ve had sex with women where we were both heavily intoxicated. If the girl decided to go to the cops the next day and say she was raped, I’d be included in that statistic.

Yes, and police almost always refuse to make an arrest in these cases, which encompass 45% of rape cases.
Like you, I’ve been having sex with intoxicated (on alcohol and other drugs) my whole life. I guess I’ve been raping females my whole life, and I’ve committed thousands of rapes. I’m such a bad boy. Where do I go to turn myself in?
It’s not illegal to have sex with an intoxicated woman, despite what so many (all?) ridiculous women think. So far, every woman I have talked to has told me that if a man has sex with an intoxicated woman, it’s rape. Are there any women who don’t believe this? I mean think about. Women who are drunks or alcoholics get raped virtually every time they have sex.  And if the man is intoxicated too, why isn’t it true that she raped him? Or that they both raped each other?
The legal standard is “incapacitated.” That means either passed out or passing in and out of consciousness. If she’s not so drunk she’s incapacitated, no DA will take the case.
And if she’s so wasted she’s incapacitated as in passed out drunk, DA’s almost never file because there’s no evidence. Especially young men aged 19-23 have sex with women passed out on booze ALL THE TIME. And they almost never go down on it. Actually there are many amateur porn videos uploaded all over the Net showing males doing exactly that – having sex with a passed out woman.
Pro tip to the males reading this blog: If she is passing in and out of consciousness while you are involved in a sexual situation with her, stop the sexual behavior. You’re raping her. And if she is all the way passed out, for Chrissake don’t do anything sexual with her. Not only are you raping her, you’re also a necrophiliac in my opinion.
I am not sure what the standard is if she is falling down or incoherently drunk. Incoherently drunk might meet the standard of incapacitated. You really want to have sex with a woman who’s that wasted? She’ll probably puke in your bed for Chrissake.
But if she’s merely been drinking and she’s not incoherent or passing out, go ahead and have sex with her to your heart’s content. Drunken females are often ravenously horny.

On Black Women and Prostitution

I am getting an awful lot of blowback on writing about my recent discovery that Black women are far more likely to be prostitutes or quasi-prostitutes than other races of women. This is something that finally dawned on me after six decades of living. It has been suggested that my observation, admittedly not made on a scientific basis but instead on intuition, is simply false.
Well, here are some facts.
Black girls are 13% of all girls in the US. However, 55% of girls arrested for prostitution are Black. So Black girls are 13% of the population but 55% of the girl prostitutes. That’s almost as bad as the outsized homicide rate, where Blacks are 13% of the population but commit 53% of the homicides. The homicide rate is starkly elevated and caused many to sit up and take notice with shock in part because it confirms what they always suspected anyway. The prostitution rate is even more elevated and once again confirms what people suspected based on intuition.
The linked article offers many possible reasons. 49% of Black minors do not graduate from high school. That is an extremely high dropout rate of almost half of all Black minors. However, 75% of Black girls arrested for prostitution dropped out of high school. So the Black girl prostitute population is a population of school dropouts who grew up without significant parental figures.
The article also said that 75% of Black girls arrested for prostitution grew up in homes without either a mother or a father.
From the article:

The fact that more than half of girls who end up turning to lives of prostitution have grown up without fathers, suggests a need for male attention and acceptance. Additionally, the fact that more than ¾ of the girls who end up selling themselves grow up missing one of their parents is a sign that we need to rally behind our children as a community and support our single-parent families, remembering the notion that “it takes a village to raise a child….We need to teach our girls to value themselves and create a culture that supports that value.

Another possible reason for the high numbers of Black females working as prostitutes is the possibility that prostitution is tolerated in the Black community as no big deal. However else they feel about it, prostitution is definitely not tolerated or considered a legitimate job in White, Hispanic, and Asian communities. It is considered a shameful and lowly way to make a living. If prostitution is seen as a legitimate way to earn a living in Black communities, it should be no surprise that Black women are so over-represented among prostitutes.
From the linked study above:

For example, in their study, Carmen and Moody intimate tolerance of prostitution by
the Black community:
Prostitution was no alien thing to black women, who have been sexually exploited since slavery. In every Southern city in the 1920’s and ’30’s, the red-light district was on the other side of the tracks in the black ghetto, and young white boys “discovered their manhood” with the help of the two dollar whore.” Prostitutes were integrating blacks and whites long before there was a civil rights movement.
Arlene Carmen and Howard Moody, “Working Women: The Subterranean World of Prostitution.”

Pimping may also be seen as no big deal or as a reasonable way to make a living in the Black community. This is suggested by anecdotal evidence that almost 100% of street pimps are Black, and these Black street pimps are some of the most horrible human beings you will ever meet.
From New York City. In Brooklyn, Black women make up 1/3 of all women in the borough, but they are 94% of the women arrested for prostitution. This shows how few non-Black women wish to work as prostitutes. Non-Black women make up 2/3 of the population of Brooklyn, an area where prostitution is rife, yet make up almost none of the very common prostitutes on the street, almost all of whom are Black.
One reason that Black women are so commonly arrested for prostitution is that they are far more likely to be streetwalkers than other races of women where women tend to see streetwalking as the lowest of the low.
Here a Black woman who traveled around Europe and Africa as a single traveler was mistaken as a prostitute everywhere she went in Europe. In Barcelona, she was told that there were certain streets she should not walk down after 8 PM because everyone would think she was a prostitute. She goes walking down a street in Barcelona, and every hundred feet there is a new Black woman prostituting herself on the corner. They are all from Africa. How many people in Spain are Black? The number must be very low, maybe 2%. Yet they are 100% of the prostitutes on a major street in Barcelona. A Black female commenter discusses how she was walking down a street in Greece at night, a street filled with African prostitutes glaring at her as if she was one of them.
Twelve women on a tour in Dubai try to get into a bar. They are all barred except for two of them. Later we find out that the other ten were barred on the grounds that they were suspected prostitutes.
As you can see this problem of Black women being seen as prostitutes is related to the fact that so many of them are just that. Among other reasons why this is bad is that Black female travelers get mistaken for whores everywhere they go, much to their consternation. So this harms the Black women who are not prostitutes too.

Crime Rates in Black Countries, among Black Populations and in Black Cities and Neighborhoods around the World

Thinking Mouse: Many African nations have a similar homicide rate to far eastern Europe, despite having much lower incarceration rates and younger demographics.

Incarceration rates are low because the police are often incompetent and much crime is not prosecuted or even reported.
Black Africa has had some of the highest homicide rates on Earth for decades. Crime is so bad there are travel warnings against going to most of those countries. Are there travel warnings telling people not to go to Eastern Europe? I recently went through the US State Department warnings for Black Africa and in every single country in the region, there were warnings about high levels of crime and violent crime. I believe Senegal was somewhat of an exception and most of the crime there was property crime.
I would not feel frightened going to Eastern Europe. I would feel frightened in most large Black African cities except possibly in the Sahel. I have heard that Senegal is relatively low crime. There is terrorism now in the Sahel though, so it is dangerous on that basis, but the crime is not very high. Of all of the countries in Black Africa, I would probably recommend Senegal as safe enough to take a careful vacation there. I’ve also heard that it is a very interesting country. It might be nice as a human to visit Black Africa once in a lifetime.
Generally the Muslim parts of Black Africa are safer, more orderly, calmer, and have less crime than the Christian areas.
However, there is an ethnic group of 1 million people in Burkina Faso that has a homicide rate of ~1/100,000, about the same as Japan’s. So this shows that not all Black populations automatically commit lots of violent crime and homicide. But whatever environment this group has created to make such a safe culture does not seem to be easily replicable outside of that group. The group is Muslim, and study of Muslim texts is mandatory for all young people, so the group is educated. Elders are revered and respected and children fear their wrath and do not disobey them much. Elders take it upon themselves to mentor youths and young adults as a matter of course. Ethnic pride is high and members read texts about the group and participate in frequent cultural exercises.
In addition, much of the crime in Black Africa is simply not reported, as police are incompetent, corrupt, and take bribes. In a number of those countries, police set up roadblocks specifically to take bribes from motorists.
The Black Caribbean has a high violent crime and homicide rate.
I read a recent figure for the UK that Blacks were 2% of the population, and they committed 20% of the homicides. In the US, Blacks are 13% of the population, and they commit 53% of the homicides.
All of the high homicide US cities are Black. In LA, the top nine most dangerous police precincts are in Black neighborhoods.
Has the commenter ever been around large numbers of Black people? Gone to school with them, went to their parts of time, driven around in cities where there are many of them? You need to stay out of areas where there are large numbers of low income Blacks. Those areas dangerous as Hell. I taught in Black schools for years.
You had to leave school before sundown. Once I went back to see my school at 9:30 at night and it was absolutely terrifying. Basically these neighborhoods can be more or less ok in the daytime (I drove around them a lot and went out to eat a lot), but don’t go off the main streets even in the daytime and make sure you are out of the area after dark.

There Are Many Good Black People even in the Ghetto

However, having worked in those schools for years and spent some time in the deep inner city of LA (South Central LA), I will say that it is trivial to meet decent people in that area. My car broke down twice in Black areas, once in South Central and once in Compton. Both times, Black adults came out and helped me get my car going. In both cases, there was an older man in his 40’s. In one case there were some young men in their 20’s helping him. They were extremely nice people.
I dated a Black woman in South Central and though she was a scumbag crack addict, I spent some time in her barbershop talking to some older Black men in their 50’s and 60’s. They were extremely cool. One  man acted a bit strange around me and I asked my date and she said he hates Whites and has not been around them much. But he was very nice to me, although he seemed  a bit awkward around me. I think he was surprised to find a friendly, decent Black man.
Even in South Central, a lot of the older Black men from 40-60 are very good people, assuming they are not imprisoned and are still alive. Particularly if they own a home. Black culture has a way of winnowing out the worst people who tend to spend much of their lives incarcerated or else die young.
A number of the incarcerated ones get out and though they are not great people, I would not say they are bad people either. I spent a couple of hours talking to a 45 year old Black man who had done ten years in prison for robbery and attempted murder. He seemed quite a bit calmed down.
People tend to age out of crime and bad behavior anyway and even among adults, it is young adults who act the worst and commit the most crime. Even many psychopaths burn out in middle age and become depressed/alcoholic while the condition lessens and moderates quite a bit.
The Black teachers and aides at the schools I taught at were generally very nice people, although some were pretty angry. I mostly befriended Black female teachers. Some of the administrators were very cool too.
However, in the very heart of the ghetto, in deep Compton near Willowbrook, not only were the students the worst of all, but they hated Whites the most. In addition, a number of the Black female teachers seemed to hate Whites, something I never dealt with before.
Many of the older Black women even in the ghetto are very good people, especially if they are deep into religion. Even some of the Black students I taught were good people, especially if they were deep into religion. At one school, a Black female senior seemed to be in love with me and asked me out and tried to get my phone number.

Though Bad People Are a Minority in the Hood, There Are Simply Too Many of Them

The problem with these areas is not that everyone is lousy. In fact there are many decent and even good people even deep in the ghetto. However the rate of lousy, bad and out and out evil and dangerous people is much higher than in White areas. There are just too many bad people around (although they are a minority) such that it makes traveling and spending time there a dangerous endeavor.