Eastern Thinking Versus Western Thinking

Say you don’t love something or hate something but instead that you have a whole range of feelings towards it ranging from love to hate to everything in between, and most Westerners will either look at you in awe like you are a Godhead or condemn you as a crazy person, with the latter reaction being the norm.

Most Westerners are silly Manicheans, so that sentence is seen as insane. But any intelligent Asian man would just nod his head. Long ago, they figured out that everything’s a grey area. Remember what Mao said about Stalin? “Stalin was 70% good and 30% bad.” That makes complete sense to any intelligent Asian.

To a Westerner, perhaps especially to an American, that sentence is “insane.” And most Westerners would describe it exactly as such. Westerners don’t do grey areas. Neither do Muslims. Nor Jews. Must have to do with those Abrahamic religions, where things are either good or evil and no ifs, ands or butts about it.

The Jews do try to get away from that with their Talmud, which is 13,000 pages of a bunch of rabbis sitting around debating this or that and never really coming to much of a conclusion about anything. Except most Jews never read one page of the Talmud. Tell a Jew about the evil and sick stuff in that book and they will yell at you. Except you’d be right.

Hinduism tried to get away from that too but mostly by deciding that there wasn’t really such a thing as evil, except the only evil being not fulfilling your Dharma, that is, taking care of your loved ones, tribe, caste, etc. And if you have to do that by stealing millions of dollars, Hinduism says that’s a-ok.

Of course Buddhism tries hardest to get away from this the most to the point where Zen will hardly admit that much of anything is true or even worth pondering about. Instead, as Candide wisely opined, one should simply cultivate one’s garden. Do that, think of nothing but what precisely you are doing, and there you will find satori.

Alt Left: The Patriarchal and Homophobic World of the Yemeni Arabs

I used to go to the local store that was owned by Arab Yemenis. They come from an extremely patriarchal culture where the men rule and the women stay out of the public eye or else. There was one father my age (a very dirty old man – as dirty as I am or worse), his sons, and their friends ranging from 16-40. All of them talked to me all the time.

Unlike in the US, in that culture, a 16 year old boy can talk to a 55 year old man because no one is gay or even suspected to be so. Both are part of a Super ManWorld they’ve got over there, a world of men where all males are part of the exalted Brotherhood of Males, and age means nothing.

You see pictures of the Arab world and even Arab little boys and teenage boys are often seem with adult men of all ages, even elderly men. No one cares. They’re all part of tribe – the tribe of men. And they don’t have weird Western anxieties about homosexuality. Sometimes I try to talk to high school boys about this or that – I saw some walking to school the other day, and I asked them if school was back in session, considering the COVID problem, and they acted like I was some weird gay man who was going to try to fuck them. It’s so weird. I’m not even gay! I guess Pedo Hysteria has hit high school boys too. So pathetic.

You see in the Yemeni Arab world there is no such thing as male homosexuality. Doesn’t exist. All men are considered straight until proven otherwise (which is the only attitude about men that makes any sense and used to be the case before ~1980), and you damn well better have some good evidence. In that culture, you can’t even ask a man if he’s oriented that way. What a ridiculous question! You want a punch in the face?

If you are not seen with a woman, not dating, not getting lucky, or just single, they don’t really care, especially if there’s evidence got women in the past. It really helps if you act like a man and walk the walk and talk the talk. There’s a notion that this guy’s straight but he’s just not getting lucky. Because any masculine man without a woman is straight and he’s just not getting lucky. Or maybe he hates women. Which, in that culture, is considered a reasonable and even comical reason for a man never marrying.

This Western idea that a man who’s not seen dating women for a while is obviously gay is nonexistent because as I said, there’s no such thing as male homosexuality. One time I was going through a long unlucky streak and I joked to the old man that maybe I should consider guys just to get my rocks off. At first he looked stunned and then he started laughing his ass off at me like I was the most idiotic object of ridicule around. He couldn’t stop laughing. “Do it,” he said. “Go ahead and do it.” And then he laughed at me some more.

You see, homosexuality is so beyond the pale and considered nonexistent that if any man seems like he might be that way even a bit, he’s pretty much the laughingstock of the town. You’re the biggest fool around. You’re ridiculous. You’re fall on the floor laughing moronic. I figure that treatment of ridicule is probably what keeps those men from doing that in first place, plus probably most men over there just aren’t very faggy in the first place due to the extreme patriarchal and homophobic culture.

I have no idea if there are gay men in Yemen. But I imagine you could wander around the ManWorld there without seeing a single one or having one single man flirt with or hit on you. Which would be a welcome respite from the fagged-out West in my opinion. Not that biological gay men should be hated for being gay. They should not; it’s an immoral act. Nevertheless, most if not all straight men are homophobic, often very homophobic because homophobia is part of normative masculinity (now referred to as toxic masculinity) in our country, a norm that most straight men try to live up to because failure to do so is so frowned upon.

In other words, while we go out of our way not to hate gay men, we straight men still very much dislike the very idea of male homosexuality and especially gay male sex, which is sickening to us. I imagine most straight men, me included, would be perfectly happy if we could wave a magic wand and make it so no more biological gay men were created.

Men will always do this sort of nonsense for all sorts of other reasons, but those men are not actually gay in a biological sense. They’re just straight men doing some weird, stupid shit if you ask me. Weird, stupid shit that they need to stop doing as soon as possible if they want me to give them the goddamned time of day. I’ve seen enough situational homosexuality for 20 lifetimes. I’ve had quite enough of that bullshit. For God’s sake, if you can’t get a woman, jack off, dammit! Don’t go fuck a guy! What the Hell’s the matter with you? What is your major malfunction?

Some Yemeni men are openly homophobic, but to most, it’s simply a subject that is too absurd and ridiculous to discuss. I did talk to one man in his 30’s about it, and he acted like it was the weirdest thing he ever heard. He was grinning and laughing the whole time but he had this mystified look on his face. It was both comical and unfathomable.

He was genuinely baffled about how they could possibly like men and mostly how they could possibly not like women. To him it was just all too weird. He acted like they were aliens. Most straight men feel this way. We get it. Guys want to fuck guys, ok. Men will fuck anything, probably a hole in a wall if you greased it up. But how on Earth could a man possibly not be attracted to women? I thought that again today at the supermarket where I ran into a couple of women with really nice, big tits. Of course I looked at them by instinct but then I thought, “How on Earth could gay men not be turned on by this? Are they aliens?” It’s not so much hate as sheer, utter befuddlement. We truly don’t get it.

Alt Left: Teenage Girl Sexuality Moral Panic

Have you seen all these mental midgets accusing everyone and their uncle of being “pedophiles?” This is getting downright stupid. Everyone and their uncle has been accused of a being a “pedophile.” How many of these morons have ever met even one pedophile? How many have talked to one? Talked to one at length? Talked to one at length about their sexual orientation? Well, I have. I worked with a couple of these guys in my practice. One was a very difficult person but I worked with him for months. And I made him a whole lot better too, by the way.

How many of these people getting called “predators” and “pedophiles” are the real thing? 1%? Is it even that high? I’ve been saying for a long time that we are in the midst of a mass hysteria and moral panic about this ridiculous subject, which has somehow managed to conflate the perfectly normal and healthy sexual desires and lives of teenage girls with child molesters who molest little girl children who have no sex drive or interest in sex.

Really this moral panic is, as so many of these Retard Infections are, about sex. Sex, you know, that all-American eternal hangup. What this really is is a mass hysteria around the sexuality of teenage girls. It’s Teenage Girl Sexuality Mass Hysteria. Notice how little of the time they talk about actual molesters and pedophiles and how it’s always some guy committing stat rape with some horny as Hell jailbait teenybopper who probably seduced him in the first place?

We Americans just can’t bear the notion that these girls have an actual, very strong sex drive, have very real sexual lives, needs, and desires, that they like, pursue, and seduce grown men, and that all normal men are strongly aroused by them. True to our puritanical roots, we just can’t bear any of this. Hence the pearl-clutching epidemics.

I’d also like to point out that idiot moral panics are often about “kids.” Remember the moral panic about “drugs,” especially marijuana? You know what that was really all about? I was around in that era back in the day, an advocate for legalization when it was hazardous to be one, and I lived through that particularly insipid moral panic, an actual moral panic about marijuana. It was all about the kids. Kids were smoking pot. Kids were taking “drugs.”

Remember the Satanic Panic of the 1980’s? All about the kiddies, no? Save the little children from the satanic child molesters who could literally fly, had sex with animals, flushed them down toilets, beheaded babies in front of them and forced them to drink the blood, and abused them in airports and bowling alleys.

At the end of the day, as always, it’s all down to “think of the children!

Repost: A Skunk and Potatoes Man

Repost from the old site.

When I was working as an anthropologist for a local Indian tribe, I had to go through all of the anthropological literature about the tribe. This took quite some time. There was quite a bit of hostility from the Indians towards the anthropologists, which is stupid, sad, and mostly just ignorant.

The legend had grown up among many of the Indians that the anthropologists who had come through were the “enemies of the Indian people.” I researched the folks who had come through and it didn’t seem to fit.

We are talking some of the biggest names of all like Alfred Kroeber. Kroeber and his wife loved the Indians in a time at the turn of the century when Indians were not so popular. The legend continued that the crafty Indians, in order to fool the wicked White men, had concocted lies to tell the anthropologist.
Anthropological field work is hard enough without having to deal with this kind of crap, but it does come up at times.

Fieldwork manuals will tell you, first of all, that you need to develop a strong sense of cultural relativity if you are going to do fieldwork.

You have to decide that whatever it is these folks do in terms of their culture and values, no matter how weird, stupid, horrible, or noxious, it’s ok. You aren’t going to make any judgments about it.

You want to chop off little girls’ clits? Ok, no big.

You put grandpa on an ice floe when he gets old? Understandable, I’d do the same with my own Dad.

You treat your women like shit? Hey, I can understand, in dating countless women over a lifetime, I’ve built up a nice boiling witches brew of hatreds and grievances myself. Keep them ball-breaking bitches down! You go, guys! Show them cunts who’s in charge! Damn right they better put out or else! They owe us! We rule!

I think you get the picture.

This sort of thing may prove difficult for many folks.

In fieldwork, you need to do this to get along properly with your subjects. If you don’t accept their lifestyle with “unconditional positive regard,” it’s probably not going to work very well. You get subjects lying to you like they did with Margaret Mead and all sorts of stuff.

I actually spent a lot of time on this agonizing question, and I called up famous anthropologists all over the country in trying to solve this empirical question. Had the evil White anthropologists really been had by these crafty noble savages, fresh out of Paleolithic?

Turns out they probably had not. Further, I uncovered a lot of data that suggested that all of the anthros had a good relationship with their informants.

Another thing you can do is go through all of the old data and see how well it all lines up. Turns out that all of the data I had from 1873 through 1970 lined up very well.

There were times when I spotted some lying. Indians said that wild horses and buffalo used live in Central California, and they used to hunt them. The last wild horses lived here 10,000 years ago, and buffalo never did. The anthro himself wrote in his field notes that he thought they were lying to him.

There are several ways to test this. One thing you can do is to interview informants over a period of time, say weeks or months. You can work with a single informant any number of times over that period. You can ask the same question over and over a few times and see if the answers vary.

Another thing you can do is go around to different informants and ask the same question. If only one informant says, yeah, we ate vultures for breakfast, and the others say, “Hell no, we did not, he’s lying,” then vulture-eater is probably lying.

You can interview informants alone and with others, changing the others around, and see if their stories change when they are with various others compared to what they say when they are alone. You can shoot questionable material to others and see if they back it up. In fact, you need to try to back up all of your data. One informant is pretty shaky.

It all rests on the sort of relationship you have with your informants. Bad relationship = possibility of poor data. Good relationship portends good data.

I decided that there was some tragic reason why the Indians harbored this hatred for the anthros. Obviously, the anthros just represented Whitey.

Plus many of them had this crazy idea that all the anthros had used the Indians, gone back to Berkeley or wherever and used this illustrious knowledge to write famous books about the Indians and got rich. The anthros got rich, and the Indians never saw a dime. It’s not true, but it felt good to them.

There was a sadder aspect to this anger. All of the great stuff on these Indians had been written by White people. Everything on the language, the culture, everything.

Why couldn’t the Indians write down about their language and culture themselves? The suggestion is that they are too stupid to do that, so they have to have the Smart White Man come and do it for them, and that’s totally humiliating. A reaction to humiliation is rage.

I went through Sylvia Broadbent’s Grammar of Southern Sierra Miwok as part of my work. One informant, who worked as some sort of “House Indian” in Yosemite National Park, was well-known for being a showman, liar, and teller of tales. He also knew a lot of language, but he threw in lots of other words that other informants had never heard before. She ended up rejecting a lot of his data as spurious.

As you can see, this is not exactly hard science. Where do you think “physics envy” comes from? It gets hard to get mathematical proofs of much of anything in the social sciences, which is why the physicists sneer that our sciences are “soft sciences”.

So much of our judgments in these tough cases in fieldwork is play it by ear, seat of the pants, I know it when I see it intuitive stuff.

Unfortunately my project floundered over some of the Indians’ rage at the anthropologists. I had gathered this data and was set to write it up, and the whole thing got shot down.
Because elders said that the Indians had lied to the anthros, every word of the notes was up for grabs. There were known knowns, known unknowns, and worst of all, unknown unknowns, the last category being what the otherwise non-empirical Indians deemed the notes.

I was on a salary anyway, so it really didn’t matter. One of the amusing things was the sort of things that they disputed. They were livid about the notes that reported that these Indians tole the anthros that they used to eat skunks, rattlesnakes, and gopher snakes.

Their rejection of this food, of which the rattlesnakes at least are proven to taste precisely like chicken (of course), is based on a primitive but common mode of thinking. Rattlesnakes are poisonous, so they are evil, so they should not be eaten. The suggestion is that the meat is poison too. Only an idiot would eat poison meat.

Skunks smell horrible when you piss them off, so obviously their meat must taste like their horrid odor. Someone else opined that their meat is “probably pretty oily.”

Turns out, according to the New York Times in 1913, skunk is one of the delicacies of the woods, right up there with possum, deer, and bear. The main obstacle in the way of proper enjoyment are the speed bumps of human psychology. As long as you associate the meat with skunk-stink, it might taste pretty bad. Convince yourself it’s really fillet mignon and you can dig in for a hearty meal.

Tender eating, skunk meat tastes like either chicken (obviously), goose, duck, or rabbit, depending on your powers of dissociation. You really need to figure out how to dress skunk meat properly in order to keep the stink away from the choice cuts. Baked skunk recipe here.

As I feel I’ve been figuratively eating skunk most of my life anyway, I may as well take the plunge some day. If it’s really as good as they say it is, I assume it will be coming to Chez Panisse or Spago anytime now.

The gopher snake was also rejected as food, but I have often wondered what they tasted like. A while back, I was catching them by the side of the road a lot. If they were near dead, I’d bring them home and throw them on the lawn for my cats to play with, or drag them around on the lawn and let the cats chase them.

Of course I washed the snake blood off my hands and my car. People who saw me doing that still think I’m a really weird person.

After the gopher snake died, I brought it inside and seriously thought about figuring how to cook the sucker. I finally gave up and threw it out in the woods in back. One cool thing about living in the woods is any small dead animal you toss into the woods will always vanish within 1-2 days max. Carrion doesn’t stick around long in nature; it’s the feral equivalent of dumpster-diving.

I later asked some people how to slice up and cook a gopher snake, and everyone thought it was one of the most outrageous things they had ever heard. I guess they still think I’m weird too.

Anyway, the Indians insisted that they never ate gopher snake. “Ugh!” One Indian said, “They taste like dirt. It lives in the ground!” He curled up his nose.

I’m told this is more erroneous thinking, and the guy’s probably never chowed down one anyway. This cognitive error states that a thing tastes like what it lives in. Gopher snakes spent a lot of time in subterranean mode pushing up daisies but living to tell about it, so therefore, they must taste like dirt. It lives in dirt; it tastes like dirt. Probably not. By this logic, pork tenderloin ought to taste like mud, and it doesn’t.

Of course, inquiring minds the world over (Well, at least me anyway) are dying to know the ins and outs of how to hunt, kill, and skin skunks. Forget the kitchen for now. Procurement and dressing are tough enough.

Try here. Turns out skunks may be trapped, shot, killed by bow and arrow, drowned, or asphyxiated with car exhaust. Clearly the trick is to kill em without getting sprayed. This ends up being quite the challenge. Skunk dressing is so involved that colleges ought to offer six-month courses for certificates in it. The first story here is quite amusing. It’s pretty much skunk-skinning gone wrong about every way it could. I got a kick.

Alt Left: Two Different Types of Sexual Orientations – Gender/Sex and Age

There are different types of sexual orientations.

Sex/Gender Orientation

First is the orientation to persons or objects of attraction. Heterosexuals are primarily attracted to the opposite sex. Homosexuals are mostly attracted to their own sex. Bisexuals have significant attraction to both sexes.

Sexual Orientation and Sexual Behavior Are Not Synonymous

Sexual orientation is somewhat independent of behavior. Heterosexuals are quite capable of homosexual behavior, and many homosexuals engage in some heterosexual sex. Bisexuals may be behaviorally heterosexual or homosexual for long periods of time.

Orientation is what you are primarily attracted to – behavior is who you have sex with. In cases such as ancient Sparta, the two did not line up very well at least for teenage boys and young men.

Age Orientation

The second is age orientation.

Teleophilia

Most people, including me believe it or not, are teleophiles – that is, they are primarily attracted to mature persons. This usually means age 16+ because 16-17 year old adolescents are almost indistinguishable from adults in terms of their sexual features.

As the age of the person declines below age 16, teleophilic attraction tends to decline, however, all men still have measurable but much lower attraction even to girls aged 7-13. Some studies show that normal male attraction to girls declines steadily from age 16 to a very low level at age 7, and below age 7, there is no measurable attraction. This is probably correct and any man with significant attraction to very small girl children below 7 is no doubt quite pedophilic.

Girls still have female features of women, especially after age 7, and these features grow more prominent from age 7-12. Around age 10-11, most girls develop very long legs; in short, the legs of a woman. Normal males are attracted to girls this age mostly to the extent that they like their legs, since their legs look like an adult woman’s.

The more a minor looks and acts like a woman, the more attractive she will be a normal male. The more a minor looks and acts like a child, the less attractive she will be to a normal man. The opposite is true for a man with a pedophilic or hebephilic attraction.

For instance, letting little girls under age 13 wear makeup is probably a very bad idea because many normal men say that when little girls put on makeup, they start to look a lot more attractive to men. I can concur that this occurs. It also makes me very uncomfortable. A little girl is not a sexual creature, as she has no sex drive per se. Why sexualize a non-sexual creature? Childhood for both boys and girls below age 13 should be sexless. Normal children have little or no interest in sex.

Note that since teleophiles react maximally in the lab to 16-17 year old girls and most Americans consider such a strong attraction to be “pedophilia,” the remarkable conclusion is that the current feminist and social conservative hysteria about “pedophilia” means that 100% of normal American men are pedophiles! That sounds like the very definition of a mass hysteria right there!

Ephebephilia

There are also ephebephiles like Jeffrey Epstein who are primarily attracted to girls age 15-19 or mid to late adolescents. Girls this age often have significant to fully developed adult features and bodies. Psychiatry has decided that ephebephilia is completely normal, therefore, there was nothing wrong with Epstein psychologically.

Epstein was not a pedophile in any sense of the word despite continuous descriptions of him in this way. Nevertheless, most men are probably not ephebephiles.

Women reach their peak attractiveness to normal men at age ~23. Men reach their peak attractiveness to women at age ~27. As you can see, women prefer their men a bit older and men prefer their women a bit younger. This seems to be a natural tendency of the human race as even the Romans remarked up this fact of human nature.

A man can still have a child when there is snow on the roof (when his hair is White), but a woman’s time is short.

– Roman saying of unknown provenance.

Hebephilia

Hebephiles are primarily attracted to pubertal persons around the age 12-15. All attraction is gone by age 16. Hebephilia is quite a bit more normal than you might think. 26% of all men react as strongly or stronger in the lab to 12-14 year old girls than they do to women.

In most cases there is strong attraction to mature females too, so most of these men never act on this attraction as adults. Hebephilic attraction is generally antisocial in adults, whereas attraction to mature persons is pro-social. Faced with strong prosocial and antisocial attractions, most probably focus on the prosocial attraction and repress or suppress the antisocial one.

Considering that idiot popular culture (99% of people) would say that any man as or more attracted to 12-14 year old girls as to adult women is clearly a pedophile, our ludicrous culture would easily class a minimum of 26% of all men as pedophiles. That’s 28 million “pedophiles” in the US, idiots. Good luck executing all of them or locking them all away forever!

It is important to note that hebephilia per se is not considered to be a mental disorder in any way. In other words, it is quite normal. Nevertheless acting on it is a moral and legal problem but probably not a psychological one as in mental health we don’t deal with crime as mental abnormality per se. We are only concerned if people are crazy or disordered or not.

Pedophilia

Pedophiles have a primary attraction to children under age 13. It is quite common. 3% of adult men or 3.3 million American men are pure pedophiles of this type. Substantially more common are men who are as attracted to children under 13 as they are to mature persons. 18% of all US men fall into this category for a total of 21% of all men being as attracted to children under 13 as they are to adults, a shocking figure. Our current culture would clearly call all of these men pedophiles. So once again we end up with 20 million “pedophiles.” Good luck executing or imprisoning for life 20 million American men, moral hysterics!

Note that we don’t even bother to call all men who react maximally to children under 13 pedophiles! We would have to call 20% of all men pedophiles, and no one wants to do that. In mental health, we are mostly concerned with the 3% pure pedophiles because the only way they can satisfy their sexual urges is with a child under 13. This makes these men dangerous almost by definition. Hence it is recommended that they get with an empathetic therapist regularly to keep from acting on their attraction and offending.

Here probably even more than with hebephiles, most of this 18% of men above probably repress or suppress the antisocial attraction to children under 13 and instead focus on the equally strong attraction to mature persons.

In contrast to hebephilia, pedophilia is considered a mental disorder if it is upsetting to the person or if they have acted on their urges with children under 13. It is interesting to note that pedophiles who have never molested children and are not bothered by their attraction are considered to be completely normal psychologically.

Alt Left: Why US Conservatism Fails – Social Conservatism/Support for Working Class Whites and Neoliberalism Are Always Incompatible

There Is No Society

Margaret Thatcher summed it up well when she said, “There is no society.” This is what all conservatives want. They want there to be no society at all. It’s odd because this white picket fence White America they all want to go back to was a society if there ever was one. So all rightwingers want to get rid of society (as it’s bad for business) but then the paradises they all want to go back to had deep societal structures.

Why US Conservatism Fails – Social Conservatism/Support for Working Class Whites and Neoliberalism Are Always Incompatible

Just as Keynesian economics, social liberalism, and even social democracy always inevitably pave the way for and give ground to neoliberalism in the future, social conservatism and neoliberalism are never really compatible, at least not in the US. Another problem for Republicans is selling their project to working class Whites while pushing a project – neoliberalism – that is designed by its very nature to devastate all workers but the working class first and foremost.

Hence the Republicans claim to speak for the White Working Class while pushing the very economics that is causing declining life expectancy, opioid addiction and overdose epidemics, complete social degeneration, and economic wreckage in White working class America. The Republicans have always done this by getting working class Whites to vote for them on social issues. But then the Republicans never really get around to fixing any of the social issues.

Abortion legal yet? Of course not.

Got a handle on illegal immigration?

Porn illegal? You kidding?

Social degeneration arrested? You must be joking.

Divorce and single parenthood? Pull the other one.

Drug abuse, sales, and use? Please.

For abortion, porn, and illegal immigration, the Republicans don’t want to fix any of these issues. They just want to say they will and then never do it. The daughters of the rich get abortions too. I’m sure the rich love their porn, depraved degenerates that they are. And Republicans will never fix illegal immigration because their corporate and small business supporters want to keep the illegal flow coming for the cheap wages and control over labor.

Divorce, single parenthood, social degeneration, drug use, sales, and abuse, including opioid use and overdose epidemics? Curiously, the neoliberal economics that Republicans push tend to directly cause all of these forms of cultural decay and degeneration.

US Conservatism Will Always Be Incoherent

As usual, conservatives are incoherent. The problem isn’t capitalism, it “state capitalism” or “state interference in the market.” This is the Libertarian idiocy. Yet every time there’s a crisis in the market – and under neoliberalism there will be more than ever – the capitalists all go running to the state with their hands out asking for the workers to bail them out. The only thank you the workers get is a giant IOW for trillions of dollars they have to pay back that they loaned to the capitalists.

I go to rightwing blogs all the time and I see them flailing about. Many are starting to figure out that neoliberalism is utterly corrosive of all of the socially conservative values that they wish to cultivate.

Neoliberalism will always support mass immigration and illegal immigration to keep wages down.

Neoliberalism will always oppose any moral structures in society because the more we let it all hang loose, the more consumers we have.

Neoliberalism will never be race realist because capitalists care absolutely nothing whatsoever about race. It means nothing to them. The only color capitalists have ever cared about is green.

I see them flailing around, searching for something, anything – that will give them their social conservatism while keeping their free markets. Huey Longism, “agrarian socialism”, distributism, antisemitic campaigns against “banksters” that leave the rest of the neoliberal economy alone, on and on.

They want the usual starvation of the state with low taxes and no social programs, but that always results in no society at all or something that looks more like Somalia than Norman Rockwell.

They decry the pain that neoliberalism has inflicted on the White working class while refusing to recognize that neoliberalism had anything to do with it.

They never have any solid proposals about anything because their love of neoliberalism, a small or near-zero state, no regulation, etc. always runs afoul of their desires to limit immigration, slow the decline of the White working class, arrest the decay of values and behavior, and adopt some sanity on race, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity because the two things are utterly incompatible.

You either have one or the other.

You can’t have both.

Alt Left: Why Do “Liberal Democrats” Support US Foreign Policy to the Hilt?

Why do Americans support US foreign policy? Part of it might be apathy. They simply can’t be bothered. Americans don’t seem to care how many bombs we drop or people we kill as long as no Americans are getting hurt or killed. It’s a pretty sociopathic way of looking at the world.

Actually, it is not so much that they don’t care as they are brainwashed. Just about every “liberal Democrat” I know supports US foreign policy to the hilt. Every bomb we drop, every person we kill. They back it all the way. As finding out the truth about US foreign policy necessitates figuring out the constant to  regular lies, tricks, provocations, and false flags, a reality-based assessment of US foreign policy quickly starts looking like very quickly like conspiracy theory.

Most “liberal Democrats” reject all so-called “conspiracy theory,” no matter how true it is, even when the MSM uncovers it.

Of course it is the MSM pushing all of these lies, scams, tricks, cons, and false flags, so they almost never blow the whistle on the conspiracy theory. Even when they do, no one seems to care. I remember the NY Times proved that the mortar attack that killed the US contractor was done by ISIS, not be the PMF. Most “liberal Democrats” I know just said so what, the PMF has probably done other bad things.

Liberal Democrats are horrific on foreign policy. Democratic Party foreign policy has always been reactionary. But all the Democrats in Congress go along with it and so does the media. It’s very hard to get Congressmen to go against US foreign policy, and the media basically never does, as they get most such news from the CIA anyway. Remember Operation Mockingbird?

There is a “bipartisan foreign policy consensus.” It was smashed with Vietnam, and the Deep State regarded this with horror and spent decades trying to get rid of the “Vietnam Syndrome.”

Now the consensus is back. Part of the problem is that in order to go against US foreign policy, you need to side with the so-called enemies of America. When Democrats go against foreign policy, Republicans immediately accuse them of supporting the enemies of America.

But it all goes deeper than that. I’ve thought about it a lot and when liberal Democrats can oppose US domestic policy, they are not saying America is bad. America’s just fine. It’s just the evil Republicans who are bad. America itself is still good. It’s just been hijacked by bad people.

But when you attack US foreign policy, you are attacking the Army! And basically you are saying that America is bad, America is evil. Because foreign policy is never seen as basically good but only bad when it gets hijacked by bad people called Republicans. Instead it’s that US foreign policy under Republicans and Democrats is always 100% good. It’s always America itself that is doing this or that BS overseas. In order to attack US foreign policy, you have to say that America itself is bad or evil.

The vast majority of liberal Democrats don’t want to say that. A lot of them just believe the “America is 100% good” line. Others probably don’t want to be seen as traitors and America-haters. Patriotardism is the religion in America, even among liberals. And exceptionalism is the foundational myth of America that never went away.

Bottom line is “liberal Democrats” are complete crap. There’s nothing liberal about them! I respect Republicans more than these phonies. Republicans come right out and say they’re reactionaries and then act like them. At least they are consistent and true to their word. Liberal Democrats claim to be progressive but govern as reactionaries.

Ever notice that BLM and other woketards never attack US foreign policy? Like not even one time? Ever notice that they don’t even talk about economics? See? All they talk about is divide the working class Identity Politics Cultural Left insanity. Which for some odd reason gets the complete support of the US corporate class for reasons that are still uncertain for me. Those “hip, woke” corporations are still totally reactionary, like all corporations, on economics and foreign policy. They’re just left on cultural BS that doesn’t effect their bottom line or basic philosophy.

Alt Left: TThe SJW Left Is the Fake Left

As long as few Americans die, Americans don’t care what sort of terrible things we do overseas. It doesn’t matter how many people we kill. It doesn’t matter how many countries we destroy. It doesn’t matter how much money and oil we steal. It doesn’t matter how much land or countries we illegally occupy. The American people strike me as a rather depraved bunch.

The thing is that if you discuss all the terrible things our military does overseas, most people throw a block up. Most people believe US foreign policy and the behavior of the US military is 100% pure good fighting against 100% pure evil. I can hardly get one person, even a “liberal Democrat,” to criticize US foreign policy or the army.

And some of these people are fanatical SJW’s. So you see most SJW fanatics support full-blown US imperialism, bombing, destroying, killing, stealing, conquering, occupying, bullying, menacing, the whole nine yards.

One more reason that the SJW movement is fake. It’s not even the Left. It’s the fake Left. You think 1% of those woke SJW corporations is even 1% progressive on anything important like US foreign policy, US imperialism, and economics? Get real! They’re rightwing as Hell on all of those issues.

So the SJW Left isn’t even doing any good. And it’s probably dividing the workers because all people labeled as oppressors – Whites, men, straights, cis people, nationalists – tend to go rightwing because they Left is demonizing them and calling them oppressors.So the SJW’s are like a gigantic rightwinger manufacturing facility. They’re a factory that churns out conservatives by the boatload. Congratulations!

I will show you how the SJW Left is the Fake Left.

No Communist country ever called a certain race or ethnic group of the country oppressors and singled them out.  There has never been one anti-White or anti-European Communist country anywhere on Earth, though South Africa comes close. Still, the South African Communist Party doesn’t run the country and the ANC is just another rightwing party by now. But South Africa is the only place on Earth that a White-hating Left has come into power.

No Communist country ever demonized men or masculinity, nor did they attack men for the crime of trying to get laid. Sex was seen as a healthy drive between male and female workers. There has never been one anti-male Communist country on Earth.

No Communist country ever demonized straight people. In fact, most were very conservative, and in most places, homosexuality was made illegal as a bourgeois vice.

Needless to say, no Communist country ever demonized cis people and exalted trans people as the best thing since sliced bread.

Alt Left: Fascism and National Socialism: An Attempt at Some Definitions

Fascism:  An Attempt at a Definition

You can define a fascist country as an ultranationalist ethnic nationalist nation founded on a blood and soil mindset with an ideology based on Lazarus, the bird that rises from the flames. In fascism, there is a nationbuilding effort whereby the nation is seen to have fallen apart, typically by too much liberalism, pacifism, degeneracy, chaos, or economic problems.

The fascist comes in saying that they are going to bring back the glorious days of the founders of the land. So from the ruins of the present, the past will be mined to create a national myth and this mythos will be used to rise the country up from the ashes of ruin to the greatness it deserves.

Typically the unfortunate present moment is blamed on others, minorities or other countries that are singled out for hostility and blame.

Military missions of conquest are not unusual as the nationalist myth often if not always says that the borders of the land used to extend further than they do. Hence the project is Greater Ruritanian and reuniting all of the former Ruritanian lands which were stolen by the Other, the non-Ruritanians. In addition, if there are any Ruritanians residing in nearby lands, the project will be to reunite those areas with the homeland.

Fascism is typically conservative as the present moment is seen as tainted with modernism and democracy, both of which are associated with cultural degeneracy. Traditional sex roles are reinstated and the woman’s role is resigned to the kitchen, church, and home.

There is an exaltation of heroism, aggression, raw power, and even brutality, often in defense of the homeland. There is a self-sacrificing tendency where to die for one’s land is the greatest honor. And there is an exaltation of violence, usually for repression or invasions but sometimes in a Sorelian sense, violence simply for the sake of violence because violence is seen to have a mythic cleansing power especially over the permissive, excessively free, and degenerate present.

The military is exalted, battles of the past are discussed and exalted,  and often defeats are spun as victories as in the Battle of Kosovo with the Serbs in 1389. Men are exalted to be masculine, heroic, and sacrificing. Effeminate men, sexual outliers, crossdressers, and homosexuals are typically persecuted as grotesque and degenerate aberrations from tradition sex roles, which are seen as nearly divine.

School curricula are rewritten and often you end up with textbooks full of lies from front to end as in the nationbuilding in Poland after WW2. Statues are built to the greats of the land. Often there is Garden of Eden effect such that humanity is seen to have arisen exactly in the country.

At other times, the land is seen as the center of the Earth around which all other lands revolve. Examples in the Land of the Rising Sun in Japan and the land of the Four Winds in China.

The Land of the Rising Sun implies that when the sun rises in the morn, it first shines on Japan, hence Japan is the first nation to be brightened and in a sense becomes a satellite around which other lands revolve.

The Land of the Four Winds in China refers to the belief that the north, south, west, and east winds all arise directly in China itself and flow outward to the rest of the world from there. So China is the source or ground zero for all of the wind and moving air in the land. It’s literally the center of the world if not of the universe.

Trumpism is indeed fascism. Make America Great Again. See how that is talking about the ruins of the present and going back to an earlier time when the nation was great.+

A lot of out and out nationalist lying about history, minorities, languages – Hell, you name it, nationalists lie about it – usually goes into the construction of this mythological great past.

It’s called blood and soil because the ethnicity is seen as the “sons of the soil” or land itself, land that has been fertilized with the blood of the ancestors especially in n nationalist impulses where they fought invaders or minorities.

The blood also refers to the fact that there is only one ethnicity in fascism.

In Ruritania, all of the minorities have to become Ruritanians. Stop wearing minority clothing, practicing minority festivals and and lifestyles, give up the minority religion and especially stop  speaking the minority language.

Hence all minorities will become Ruritanians simply by assimilating to Ruritanian culture. Standard fascism gives minorities a break in that they are merged with the ethnic group even though they are a different ethnicity.

Racist Fascism or National Socialism

Racist fascism or Nazism is much worse because the minorities don’t stand a chance as their very blood itself itself is tainted, hence there is no way to escape minority status and become a Ruritanian. They are dealt with by segregation, expulsion, or murder, which can be genocidal.

They will be repressed, arrested, beaten, impoverished, uneducated, and often the state will move Ruritanians into their neighborhoods to drown them out. They will be tortured, their homes will be demolished and their neighborhoods will be bulldozed. Often their churches and monuments are targeted for destruction.

The intelligentsia  and the leadership of the land may be attacked and even killed, sometimes in  large numbers. This is done so the minority will be leaderless and even without thinkers.

They will also be killed, often in small numbers, but sometimes in much larger numbers, into the tens and hundreds of thousands or even a million as in National Socialist Rwanda. There were millions, 15 million, exterminated by the Nazis in World War 2. You keep hearing about the 6 million Jews, but did you realize that another 9 million people were also murdered? Well, they don’t count because they’re not Jews so they’re not special, as only Jews are special or “chosen.”

They are also often expelled from the land as their presence is seen as a literal toxin upon the body politic. Hence words like cockroaches, vermin, rats, infection, disease, virus, plague are used to describe the minority group. Nazis referred to Jews as rats and vermin and disease metaphors were also often used.

It is often stated that the nation has an “infection” – that is, it is literally infected with the minority group, which is a plague upon the land itself. Look around you and see how people act during plagues. Also, what do you do with a tumor? You cut it out. So you cut the minority out of the land, slicing them away with a scalpel. How do you treat an infection. You pour drugs at it to kill the infectious agents. Hence mass killing  of minorities is can be seen as germicidal and even a measure of positive public health.

The dehumanization makes it easier to mistreat them or even kill them.  After all, in Rwanda they were not killing humans. They were literally killing cockroaches. Six foot tall cockroaches with two arms and two legs, but cockroaches nonetheless. What do you do if you see a cockroach? You stomp on it and grind it into the floor. Hence “grinding the minority into the floor” is transferred to the minority group and mass murder is nothing more than squashing bugs on floors. Human bugs but bugs nonetheless.

PUA/Game: Had a Date the Other Day

It seems like I live the life of an incel these days, but now that I think of it, even in these dry days, my life is far better than any incel’s has ever been. Also, things happen to me that, if you are a straight man, are the sorts of things you want to happen to you at least once in your life. I will call things Things You Want to Happen to You in Life because they’re probably not real common. Once one of these things happens to you, you can almost die happy the next day for you will have fulfilled your duty as a man wrt women anyway. Not that that is all there is to life.

Well, it was about time I had a date for God’s sake. At my age the sex scene is not much, that is if there’s anyone left doing it at all.

I met this woman on an online dating site. Those actually work, well, sometimes they do. And it’s not worth the money at all for the number of dates you get out of it. She was my age, 63. She looked fantastic. Well, at my age you need to develop a taste for women your age, as you do all through life.

Once you start thinking the women your age are disgusting, you’re screwed. What are you going to do? Date young women. Good luck with that! A lot of women my age look damn good all through their 50’s and quite a few even into their 60’s, at least to age 63. After that, I’m really not sure. Of course at some age if you live long enough, everyone’s looks are blown, but I’m not there yet.

She was born in Mexico, Mexican-American, legal immigrant who became a citizen. She came here at age 15 and had been here ever since. Logically, her English was a bit broken and she had a heavy accent. But I can speak Spanish pretty well, so we spoke a mixture of Spanish and English to each other and I defined unknown English words for her. She was easygoing and liked to have a good time, which is a cultural thing with these people. Hispanics are an easygoing race.

They’re relaxed. They sort of don’t give a damn. They laugh a lot, even at what we Whites consider corny or stupid jokes. They clown around. They act childish for laughs. They engage in slapstick behavior. This is especially true for the men, for whom it often seems that no joke is too stupid or childish. I suppose the accusation is that they don’t care enough or are not serious enough, but I don’t think that’s a valid charge.

I also figured out when dating this woman that this culture is a Hell of a lot more sexual than I ever thought. Even for the women. It’s all just underground. Or maybe she’s free of behavioral standards now that she’s postmenopausal.

We somehow arranged a date when I was going to be down in Fresno. We met at a Starbucks. She came out of her car and walked towards me and immediately started running her hands over my pants.

“I love your pants,” she says. In other words, that means she’s horny. She wants to fuck. If not now, at some point.

This is another of those Things You Want to Happen to You in Life. You want to go on first dates and have women running their hands all over your body like you’re a new toy she got at Christmas. Unbidden. This is how I used to get treated as a young man. I suppose it’s the lot of Chads if your Game is good enough. Women treat Chads like toys under the Xmas tree. They even pass them around to their friends.

“Hey, look at this new toy I got – Chad! Want to play with it for a while? Go ahead!”

Or they share the toy together.

“Hey look at this new toy I got for Xmas. Want to play with it together?”

And as is suggested by the toy under the tree metaphor, they act very childlike when they are playing with their new Chad toy. I experienced all of this as a young man.

This is another of those Things You Want to Happen to You in Life. You want women to treat you like a sex toy, a new toy she got under the tree for Xmas, that she loans out to her friends or even shares with them. You accomplish this, and you’re the Man. I have no idea how many men get this treatment, whether it’s just the lot of Chad or if other men can accomplish this too. Maybe chime in in the comments.

The whole date was like this. She kept putting her hands all over me the whole date. Usually it was, “I love your pants.” Hint: that means, “I love your cock,” basically. It also means you’re making her horny. Just go ahead and let them touch you and act like it’s fine. I don’t know about touching them back. I usually don’t but you probably can. If you do, smile and laugh and act like it’s a silly game. Actually you should be doing this all through the first date.

We went to order coffee and I pressed up next to her, squeezing my body against hers. She leaned into me. I didn’t ask for permission!

This is another of those Things You Want to Happen to You in Life. Five minutes into the first date and she’s already so comfortable with you that she’s rubbing her body up against yours. You win!

I’m not sure if I would start leaning into her so fast into the date. I don’t usually do things like that. The first thing I do on a date usually is hold her hand or put my arm around her. I don’t ask permission. I just do it in an extremely confident way like she would be an idiot if she turned me down. Don’t act shy or hesitant when you do that. And don’t ask permission, dammit! Just do it.

If she won’t let you hold her hand or put your arm around her, that’s a very bad sign, and you are probably never going to have sex or a relationship with her. You can still salvage it but it will be difficult. The  main thing is that in general, don’t keep trying to hold her hand or put your arm around her. Especially if she turns you down angrily. That’s an extremely bad sign. Nothing good is going to happen with this woman, ever.

If I am in the car with her, I often just put my hand on her leg in the passenger seat. She almost always just lets me. Act like it’s nothing. Like you are drinking a glass of water, that normal. Don’t ask permission and don’t act lame and nervous when you do it. Just do it like it’s a normal thing to do.  Other times I just kiss them when I first start the date. Say she gets in car to start the date. I simply lean over and kiss her, usually very gently. She usually just does it and they usually like it if you do it gently enough. Don’t be a rapey jerk. It’s not necessary, for one!

According to #metoo, this is some sort of sexual assault, at least the not asking permission part. But this is the kind of stuff you need to do on dates. You need to get physical with her in some way or another. Do it right, not too aggressively. And laugh and giggle while you do it. Sex is pretty damned funny after all. You realize that, right? Women think it’s funny too. Treating sex like it’s funny can get you far with women.

In the coffee shop, I find out she likes White men. She dates White men. She’s basically White herself and I tell her, but she insists that she is “Hispanic” which is supposedly different, and that her skin is “brown” though it looks as white as mine. A lot of White Mexicans do not like to identify as White. Some do. Race has been obliterated in Mexico by mestizaje propaganda, so maybe that’s it. But of course you never stamp out race. You just drive it underground.

She’s talking to her friend on the phone. Her friend has a date with a White guy from my same city. Not a large city. She laughs and says she thought the woman was going out with me.

This is another of the Things You Want to Happen to You in Life. Her friend is going out with a new guy, and she wonders if it’s you. Why is that good.?Because you’re such a damned stud that you could very well be dating her and her friend both, that’s why! It shows she thinks you’re a womanizer, and you’re really good with women. Women say they hate playboys, but really they love them.

I say her friend is going out with me. This actually works great because women love a player as much as they say they don’t. Then I tell her I’m lying. It’s all funny.

Everything is locked down due to COVID, so we find a bench outside of a closed restaurant and sit down and drink our coffee. No, I’ve never been married. Women are shocked but I just tell them, truthfully, that I’ve probably dated 200 women in my life. It’s not so impressive. It works out to ~5/year. You never marry and you can rack up the counts, date-counts, laycounts, you name it. It’s more a function of time and opportunity.

I say I’ve been in love many times and had a number of long term relationships. I just never married any of them, that’s all. This is good. As a man you need to have some long-terms. Since age 40, I’ve had several long-term relationships, 6 months – 5 1/2 years. I feel very good about myself for that. It shows a certain maturity and plus women like to hear it.

Older bachelors get treated pretty badly. What’s your excuse? The one man they allow to get away with this is the playboy. For the rest, it might not be good. You’re going to get thrown in some loser pile. And when you’ve had a number of long-term relationships, you can say that you lived your life a lot like a married man anyway. The only difference is a formality. But if you’ve never married, you better have a good reason dreamed up. It’s pretty important how you answer that question. You really don’t want to come across as inexperienced sexually. It’s 100% FAIL.

Anyway, at one point, she brings up sex. I don’t think I did. I don’t think you should bring up sex, at least not directly. I usually just sit back and wait for the woman to say something. They usually get frustrated with me after a bit and blurt out something quite sexual. It’s ok to come off a bit shy in that area. I’ve been doing it my whole life. But she shifts the conversation to sex, 100% guarantee that’s she’s getting horny and she wants to have sex with you, either now or at some point in the future.

The feminists can object all they want. If a woman doesn’t want to have sex with you, she won’t bring up sex. That’s one way you know if you’ve been Friendzoned. This of course does not apply to cockteases, but cockteases are straight up evil. When I bring up cockteases to men, the typical response is, “They should all be killed.” I’m not advocating such a thing of course. It wouldn’t be right. But it shows you how much we men hate these crazy women. And if there are any women reading this, don’t be a dicktease. Just don’t.

I think I mentioned that half the men my age were impotent. It’s true. I think I said it to give me out in case, you know, things don’t work as expected. I also told her that most women my age not only have no interest in sex but they have no interest in even meeting a man. She acted shocked by both statements and assured me that she still liked it. I didn’t go any further. This is not the time to go into the difficulties of sex for women at this age. Save it for later.

Towards the end of the date, she says, “So? What do you think? You like me? Am I good enough?” This is absolutely one of the Things You Want to Happen to You in Life. Do you see what she is doing? She’s insecure. She thinks I might dump her or reject her. That’s the opposite of some thirsty idiot who is desperate for sex. Don’t act like you are desperate for sex. Act like you could care less if you have it or not.

If she thinks you might dump her, you’ve made her insecure. Sadly, this is actually a very good thing. It’s better than if she thinks you’re so desperate for a woman you will go with anyone. You are a man with options. Maybe a lot of women like you. Maybe you are a prize. After all, you are that rare creature – the non-thirsty man with options with can pick and choose which women he likes and is willing to turn down women all the time. I’m not sure how to react to these comments but I always say something along the lines of “You’re fine.”

I’m not sure if there’s some advantage to acting like, “Hey, maybe I will dump you if you’re not good enough? Are you good enough?” It’s sounds scary because it seems like you are rejecting her and she might take off. Maybe someone else can weigh in. Also it seems a bit evil to be suggesting that maybe some woman just isn’t good enough for you and you might dump her. Not sure if I have the balls to be so mean.

Also this is an excellent sign on a first date. It means the date went great, pretty much, if it’s ending on this note. She’s literally asking you for your approval. Because she thinks you pick and choose based on quality. And she wants to be quality.

We walk to her car and she drives me to my car. Let the woman drive anytime she wants. It’s not cucked or gay or anything. They actually like to be in charge. It doesn’t matter who’s driving the car. It doesn’t make you less of a man to be the passenger. Trust me. Although it’s probably ideal on a date that you take separate cars or go in  your car because then you’re the man running the show (dominant) and she’s in the not-in-charge submissive role of the passenger. I’m not really sure what the statistics are on this – whether you can let women drive you around on dates or not.

At the end, she drops me at my car. She leans out her window and says, “Call me tonight.”

Perfect! It’s 4:30 PM and she already wants to talk to you in a few hours! She misses you already! Good show!

So like a complete idiot, for some reason I go home that night and don’t feel like calling her, so I don’t. Not sure what happens after that, but things get weird. A lot of phone tag, not answering messages, and soon all my messages are read but not responded to and all my calls are going to voicemail. I figure she dumped me. Like an insecure idiot, I blame myself and say I must have done something wrong on the date. But it doesn’t make sense as the date ends on a perfect note. Any date like that – well, you didn’t do anything wrong, trust me.

I stew on it for a while until I tell my Mom about it. Then it occurs to me. I didn’t call her back that night when she asked me to. And then she dumped me! My Mom helpfully points that out to me because I’m too insecure or stupid to figure it out. So, yeah. She tells you to call her after the first date, call her. Call her tomorrow? Do it. Call it her later that night? Do it. If you don’t, she may well dump you.

I do feel better now though because I know there’s nothing wrong with me. I just screwed up like an idiot again as usual.

Alt Left: Repost: The Moriori and the Dangers of Pacifism

The saga of Moriori is instructive.

The Maori have long been known as ferocious headhunters and cannibals who had one of the cruelest and evillest cultures on Earth. The Moriori seem to be a Maori split dating back to about 1500 or so. They left New Zealand and colonized the Chatham Islands. The Chatham Islands are small, very cold and isolated, and there is not a lot of food other than from the sea.

Moriori legend has it that initially, widespread tribal warfare, headhunting and cannibalism was practiced as the normative cruel Maori culture. On such a small island, this savagery was disastrous, and soon the population plummeted to near extinction. A leader arose among the Moriori, Nunuku-whenua, who preached a new doctrine of extreme pacifism, Nunuku’s Law. Nunuku’s Law was strictly adhered to 300 years.

Fighting was allowed between males, but it had to be conducted with each armed with a stick the width of a finger. At the first sign of blood, the duel was called off, and the beef was considered settled. Homicide, rape and other crimes were reportedly rare to absent among the Moriori for centuries.

In 1835, the Chatham Islands were invaded by Maori warriors, who promptly proceeded to slaughter, cannibalize and enslave the Moriori. The Morioris gathered for a meeting to decide whether or not to fight the invaders. Many young men argued for fighting back, but the elders decided that Nunuku’s Law could not be violated for any reason.

The Moriori ran away and hid and were found and dealt with by the Maori.

Rightwingers have used this episode to exemplify the folly of pacifism.

Morioris were forbidden to marry each other, and Moriori women were forced to marry Maori men. It was a true genocide. From 1835-1862, the population declined from 1,600 to 100. Tommy Solomon, the last pure Moriori, died in 1933.

Tommy Solomon on his yearly visit to Christchurch. He was definitely a big fellow! He married a Maori woman, so his descendants are technically not pure Moriori.

Although popular myth says the Moriori were exterminated by the Maori, several thousand mixed-race Moriori still exist today. The Moriori language is extinct, but efforts are being made to raise it from the dead.

The saga of the Moriori gives the lie to the notion that race is destiny, at least among Polynesians.

It is commonly thought that Polynesians selected for extreme aggression on their long sea voyages to colonize distant islands. Food may have run low on these voyages, and the survivors may have killed others and cannibalized them to survive.

Perhaps the biggest and strongest were the ones most likely to survive the voyages, and this explains the huge size of Polynesians, probably the largest race on Earth, and possibly their high levels aggression and outrageous cruelty.

In modern Westernized societies, Polynesians characteristically become an Underclass with high crime, violence, gang membership and general pathology. In traditional societies, they often do well.

Whatever Polynesian genes look like, the saga of the Moriori shows that they are not doomed to high crime rates or Underclass pathology.

Genetics is the clay, culture is the sculptor.

Alt Left: Repost: Mao Messed Up

I think an assessment of Mao ought to be made on a scientific basis, beyond politics. Anti-Communists and rightwingers have an extremely poor record as far documenting this sort of thing, so I almost want to dismiss everything they say.

Probably the best sources would be leftwingers or even Communists who also happen to be some sort of China scholars. To the detriment of Mao, a number of Leftists, socialists and Communists who are also China scholars are starting to contribute some very negative things about Mao.

The good side is quite clear. Life expectancy doubled under Mao, from 35 to 70, from 1949 to 1976, in only 27 years. Supporters of fascism and Hitler are challenged to provide evidence that Hitler’s rule benefited anyone. Nazism was at core a death cult. Life expectancy collapsed in Germany under Hitler and in all of the regions that were occupied by Nazis. Nazism wasn’t about improving life for the common man at all; it was about war and endless war and endless extermination of the less fit.

Communism, with the exception of Pol Pot’s rule, where life expectancy collapsed in Cambodia and 1.7 million died, has been quite a bit different. Most Communist regimes have killed people, but at the same time seem to have saved many lives, often millions of lives. So it gets hard to tally things up.

I suppose pro-Communists would say that the many deaths were necessary in order to save so many lives. That’s an interesting argument and ought to be taken up. Was there a way to save so many lives without killing millions of people? I hope there would be, but I’m not sure.

Pre-China Mao was vastly deadlier than China under Mao. The life expectancy figures make this clear. Czarist Russia was 3 times deadlier than the USSR under Lenin and Stalin. This is where this “greatest killers of all time” crap runs into the mud. If the death rate was 3 times higher per year under the Czar than under Stalin, just how was Stalin the worst killer of all time?

Same with Mao. I don’t have good figures, but once again, it looks like Nationalist China in the 1920’s, 30’s and 40’s was 3 times deadlier per year, or maybe more, than Maoist China. If the death rate collapsed under Mao, how was he the worst killer ever?
The truth is there are plenty of ways to kill a man. You can kill him with a bullet or by sending him to a camp, or you can kill him by disease and lack of food, the silent and uncounted method that the capitalists prefer.

Nevertheless, an accounting of deaths under Mao needs to be done. Just glancing at the data here, it’s already looking like Mao was way worse than Stalin. Way worse.

The initial consolidation of power in China was brutal. Whether the landlords were killed by the party or by the peasants is not that relevant. Mao said that 700,000 landlords were killed, and even he thought that was too many. China scholars think it is higher, from 1-4 million. I would dismiss the 4 million figure, but anywhere from 700,000-3 million is possible. Further research is needed here.

The Anti-Counterrevolutionary Drive of 1950 followed, an attempt to uncover supporters of the Nationalists and counterrevolutionaries. Tens of thousands were killed, or possibly up to a million, let’s call it 20,000-1 million. Further research is needed.

Anti-Christian Campaigns of the 1950’s. These were launched against mostly Christians, but also other religions. “Many thousands” are said to have died. Definitely some further work is necessary here.

Anti-Counterrevolutionary Campaign of 1953. Mao said, “95% of the people are good.” The Party assumed that this meant 5% were bad. Hundreds of thousands died.

The Great Leap Forward Famine happened between 1959-1961. Unlike the fake Holodomor of 1932-33, it’s looking more and more like most of the blame for this horrible catastrophe can be laid at the feet of Mao himself. The man was a fanatic. He was told that there was a famine, and in early 1959, he backtracked on some of his crazy ideas, while he blamed subordinates for the famine.

Then there was the Lushan Conference in May 1959. Mao accused Peng Dehuai, a critic of the Great Leap, of conspiring against him. Peng was purged, and the Great Leap went was ordered to go ahead full speed. If there had been no Lushan Conference, there would have been no famine. There followed two years of catastrophe, in which there was overprovisioning of grain from the peasants which was then stored in warehouses in cities, where it rotted or was exported for scarce foreign currency.

Much of the problem was that local officials were wildly exaggerating harvests, hence the overprovisioning at the state level. They thought that with bumper harvests, they could take grain from the countryside to the cities without problems. But there were no bumper harvests. Harvests had collapsed.
Finally in 1961, the state figured out that it had screwed up royally and started mass importing grain. Caravans of grain trucks flowed to the countryside, and the famine was over. But many were too weak to even walk to the trucks to get the food.

Mao is blamed for an atmosphere of terror that led underlings to fake bumper crops where none had occurred. With no democracy in the party, no one wanted to contradict Mao. Mao himself had some utterly idiotic ideas, which he was allowed to implement due to lack of party democracy. After the Great Leap, the party realized it had screwed up bad. Even Mao knew that. The Cultural Revolution was in a lot of ways Mao’s attempt to regain face after getting egg on his face in the Great Leap.

As far as deaths during the Great Leap, this is still up in the air. Even Maoists admit that there were 15 million excess deaths in the period. Some of the higher figures use preposterous accounting techniques whereby people who had never even been born were counted as “deaths.” Tell me how that works. Nevertheless, the figure may be higher than 15 million. At any rate, it’s the worst famine in modern world history, and it’s a permanent blot on Mao’s record.

The Cultural Revolution was sheer insanity. Many received poor educations as schools were shut down. Many cultural relics and buildings were destroyed, and a good part of China’s cultural heritage was smashed up.

People were killed and hounded all over China for little or no reason. Red Guards rampaged all over China, torturing, humiliating, imprisoning and murdering all sorts of people, including local party officials, teachers and even university professors. When someone was hounded, the humiliation went on every day and there was no escape. No one would dare to come to your side, not even your spouse. Deng Xiaoping’s son was tossed out of a window and paralyzed from the waist down.

Red Guard factions battled each other in cities across China with weapons looted from local Army depots. Sometimes Army units joined in. Red Guards in one city would attack Red Guards in another city. Women and children were murdered and kids were even buried alive. Enemies were cannibalized in one area. Ridiculous, insane and anarchic, right? Sure.

In some parts of China, victims of the Red Guards are still angry. The Red Guards are still around, older now, but still living in the villages alongside their victims. Their former victims hate them. Lawsuits have been brought against former Red Guards, but the courts have thrown them out.

From a Communist POV, one of the most tragic things about all of these persecutions and killings, when one reads the details of the individual cases, is that many of the victims were not even counterrevolutionaries. Many were dedicated, hard-working Communists and revolutionaries, often devoted Maoists. Lord knows why they were purged and victimized.

The insanity and anarchy of the Cultural Revolution is one reason why the Party wants to keep a tight reign on power. China descends pretty quickly into wild and deadly anarchy.

Lately, I’ve been reading a lot of Chinese Communist Party publications and the theses and dissertations by students at Chinese universities, which tend to toe the party line. As a rule, the Cultural Revolution is regarded as a big mistake by ultra-Left forces, and the Party definitely wants to avoid such messes in the future. I’ve even some some Party critiques of the Great Leap, though not much is said about that. It’s clear that the high ranks of the Party regard the Great Leap as a disaster.

There continue to be some very serious human rights abuses in China, as this 89 page report from Human Rights Watch reports. Even from the POV of a Communist, some of the abuses of these petitioners seem just flat out wrong. There doesn’t seem to be any legitimate Communist reason to be attacking a lot of these poor petitioners.

Surely in a Communist system, petitioners should have the right to protest uranium pollution of rivers, corrupt officials abusing their posts and stealing land, etc. In what way are these folks counterrevolutionaries?

But it’s not true that everyone who protests in China goes to jail. There are around 100 public protests every single day in China, often involving large groups. Only a few of them get arrested, harassed, beaten, tortured or jailed. But I guess you never know when your card will come up.

The fact that some of the harshest critiques of Mao’s crimes, excesses and stupidities are coming out of the Chinese Communist Party itself shows that slamming Mao can be done within a socialist, Leftist or Communist framework.

Can it be done in a Maoist framework? This I’m not so sure of.
The Party will not come out and make public its findings on Mao as the USSR did with Stalin because the party continues to wave the banner of Mao and practically rules under his name and visage. It’s possible that slamming Mao would so delegitimize the party that it might be fatal for the CCP. It’s a tough call.
For the anti-Semites, I have a homework assignment for you. Since Mao was a Communist and Communism is Jewish, obviously Mao was a Jew. Please uncover the secret Jewish connections of Mao and his closest supporters in the CCP.

Jimi Hendrix, “Star Spangled Banner”

Jimi Hendrix, “Star Spangled Banner.”

This is the very famous version from Woodstock, 1969. Too bad I was too young for that at age 12, otherwise I should have gone for sure. It’s pure noise but I love it, so what! So sue me! I don’t believe this song was recorded before Woodstock but I might be mistaken.

The intro here is by Little Richard, yeah he was gay as Hell but so what, he was great anyway. The end is Jimi Hendrix on the Jimmy Carson Show. Anyone remember him? I do! Listen to how soft his voice is. And check out that hippie getup. Dig it, man, dig it! Love that peace sign at the end too.

I’m not sure if I met a lot of them, but from what I recall, most Black hippies were pretty cool. I think I met a Black hippie in 1978 when I drove my ice cream truck and of course sold pot and hash out of it on the side like the old Dragnet shows. One night after work, we were smoking hash in my car with this hippie dude with an “Eat the Rich” shirt and this Black hippie dude. The Black dude was playing a Parliament Funkadelic tape. That was funk, some sort of psychedelic post-hippie weirdness. You have to go look it up on Wikipedia. Those guys were too much. They were freaks!

Black hippies acted more like hippies than Black people. They didn’t act much different from the  White hippies. I’m not sure there were a lot of problems with them either. Maybe it was self-selection or maybe the  peace love dope hippie scene calmed them down, who knows? I’d much rather see Blacks wearing hippie getup, dropping acid, and flashing peace signs than acting like ghetto rappers and destroying cities and being pissed off for no reason over retard causes like BLM.

Ronnie Milsap/Kris Kristofferson and Rita Coolidge, “Please Don’t Tell Me How the Story Ends

 

“Please Don’t Tell Me How the Story Ends,” by Ronny Milsap. Supposedly a big hit in 1974, except I’ve never even heard of it! There’s also a Willie Nelson version.

The song itself was written by Kris Kristofferson, the great songwriter. I believe he wrote it for Ronnie Milsap. Here’s Kris Kristofferson and Rita Coolidge performing it live. What’s odd about this performance is that they performed this just as their marriage was ending. Look in Rita’s eyes. Hell, look in Kris’ eyes.  They both look sad, but Rita looks sad as Hell. It took her a long time to get over Kris Kristofferson. That’s why she was single for so long after she broke up with him. Wasn’t she beautiful though?

See how Kris is dressed? See how his hair is cut? That’s how we wore our hair and dressed in the 1970’s. Faggy shirts, faggy pants, faggy long hair, the whole faggy nine yards. We even sort of acted like fags. Well, just a little bit. More like Mick Jagger/Iggy Pop pure androgynes if you catch my drift. Women really went for pure androgynes like that bigtime.

The idea back then was dress like a fag, sort of act like a fag (but not too much), play your cards right, add in some good looks and killer game, and you’ll get lots of pussy! So that’s what we did. We dressed like a bunch of faggots, acted a little tiny bit faggy, and, well, some of us…got lots of pussy! And almost none of us were the slightest bit gay either! Because you know, that was a bridge too far back then. As it should be.

I swear men will do anything women demand they do to get laid. If women made us stand on our head for two hours while counting backwards from 100 in order to get laid, a lot of us idiots would probably just do it. The feminists have got it all wrong. The women have us by the balls, not the other way around. They write the rules, we play the game. They can change the rules all the want, and we’ll follow like pathetic puppy dogs. When you’re a pussy addict, the pussy dealers (the women) can play you like a fiddle. And most of us fool men will do anything for a fix, just like any old addict.

C’est la vie!

“Did You No Wrong,” Sex Pistols

Very nice! “Did You No Wrong” by the Sex Pistols. This song was never included on their most famous album, Never Mind the Bollocks, here’s the Sex Pistols, one of the greatest rock albums ever made that did more than any other record to kick start the punk rock movement. This song was only released as a B-side to God Save the Queen, which was released in May 1977.

The famous record jacket from the Sex Pistols very early single, “God Save the Queen.” The Virgin version had “I Did You No Wrong” on the B side.

The album was not released until October. It somehow went to #1 on the charts even though it caused a wave of outrage because it pretty much insulted the queen and by extension, the UK itself. It was actually banned by the BBC! After it was banned, the group rented a boat on the Thames River that flows through London and played the song at a very loud volume as the boat floated down the river. I remember when this song came out.

I believe either my brother or I purchased it in Summer 1978. Keep in mind that no one was into punk rock back then. Instead everyone was a pothead hippie, and this new punk rock music was universally reviled by such folks. I was a pothead hippie too of course, but I took to the new punk rock like a fish to water.

It was very unpopular to be a punk back then. You basically had just about no friends. Well, none of your friends agreed with your new music choice, let’s put it that way. Punks were basically reviled and  rejected by everyone, which is actually sort of the whole  idea of the movement, so in a way it was perfect! It was hard to be a punk though. I wore the buttons, cut my hair in an insane punk rock haircut with short hair but a long “tail” going down my neck. People would laugh at me and ridicule me when I went out.

Even though we bought the single a year after it came out, my brother and I were some of the only people into this new music. But we knew we had hit gold. The Sex Pistols were just rock roll, straight from Little Richard and  Chuck Berry through the Rolling Stones, the Velvet Underground and the Stooges to glam and the New York  Dolls all the way to the  logical next extension, punk rock. It was all a long, unbroken string, the same music being reincarnated and improved with each new generation.

At this time, rock had gotten away from rock music proper and was off into progressive rock like Genesis, Yes, and Emerson, Lake and Palmer (well, at least they rocked). Pretty much stoner music with lots of synthesizers. It was very nice, but rock and roll it wasn’t. Punk rock was supposed to be a rebellion against all that stuff and a straight, back to the basics approach. The Pistols had more in common with Chuck Berry than they did with Genesis.

Alt Left: The Capitalist Mindset: The Left Has No Right to Rule

Trouser Snake: So what’s the endgame? Just access to more markets to continue the capitalist Ponzi scheme?

Pretty much. Some people never learn. And the people on Earth least likely to learn are capitalists. It’s like they’re drug addicts, hooked on a crack or heroin drug called capitalism. They’re as blinded as an addict.

And they’re incapable of being peaceful. They are actually mandated to destroy any form of socialism on Earth, and as far as the social democracies, well, they’ll get to those later. They simply refuse to compromise with the Left at all, and their view in general is that the Left has no right to rule.

It is this raw, pure Latin American model of ultra-capitalism or pure neoliberalism that is presently dominant in the US in the Republican Party. As this form of capitalism leads to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer at a rapid and profound pace, it also inevitably leads to a left revolutionary reaction of some sort. This is so predictable as to almost be a law of politics along the lines of some of our physical laws like gravity.

However, this basic capitalist mindset has been subdued in most places:

  • In Europe by a social contract to ward off Communism, now fading.
  • In Canada, Australia, and New Zealand by similar social contracts, now possibly also fading.
  • In Africa by African nationalism, a local capitalism that is intertwined with such, a strong resistance to the exploitative, rape and ruin policies of colonialism, by the Marxist roots of some of the early post-colonial leaders and some independence struggles, by extreme poverty which lends itself to socialist movements, and possibly by what was probably a very collectivist tribal culture pre-colonization.
  • In the Middle East and North Africa by Islam in general, which is very hostile to extreme capitalism as anti-Islamic and an attack on the notion that all Muslims are brothers and are mandated to help each other, and also by Arab nationalism in particular, with its strong anti-colonial bent and roots in Marxism.
  • In Turkey by Islam, oddly enough. Erdogan is actually a social democrat along the lines of most Islamists (see the explanation under the Middle East and North Africa entry above).
  • In Russia and much of the former USSR by the Soviet experience which was much more popular with the people than you are told here, by and nationalism, in particular, Russian and Armenian nationalism, and by a longstanding collectivist culture with roots in a long-lasting feudalism and the underdog mindset of the masses that resulted.
  • In Japan, where corporations took over the role of the social democratic state as per Japanese ethics, nationalism, and in-group preference – our people are the best people on Earth, so we must show solidarity with each other and not let each other starve. Which model is presently falling apart. There is also a basic, possibly ancient, Asian collectivist mindset, which had been previously opposed by feudalism. However, it is easy for a collectivist culture to toss feudalism aside as feudalism is so anti-collectivist. Feudalism was a poor fit in Asia – note the experience in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos- similar to how it never worked well in the collectivist Arab world and was easily overthrown in Russia.
  • In India, where a long-standing anti-colonial ethic and independence struggle with socialist roots goes along with a long with long-standing leadership of the non-aligned countries.
  • In Central Asia, by Islam (see above) and in Iran by the Iranian revolution.

As you can see above, the capitalist morons in most of the world weren’t thinking straight, but then when are they ever? They think about as well as any addict of anything. In the Arab World, Russia, and Asia, they set up feudalism, the worst form of pre-capitalism, which generates such hatred that when it is overthrown, most former serfs go socialist or Communist.

Further, they tried to wedge feudalism into collectivist cultures, which never works, as they are the opposite of each other. This feudalism where it was longstanding led obviously to extreme forms of socialism or sometimes Communism because feudalism is so brutal and extreme that it leads, logically, to brutal and extreme counter-reactions.

This is along the lines of the theory that the more brutal and extreme the system, the more brutal and extreme the counter-reaction to that system is.

You could hardly find a country where ultra-feudalism was more ingrained in the modern era than Cambodia, along with extreme hatred between the urban and rural people. The reaction? The Khmer Rogue.

The vicious slaver regime in Haiti was overthrown by the Haitian Revolution, where all 25,000 Whites on the island were murdered in cold blood.

In the Chmielnicki Rebellion in Poland in the 1500’s, a vicious peasant rebellion took place in which not only were half the Jews killed for being allied with the feudal lords, but 1/3 of the population of the entire country was killed. Of course, all you hear about here in the West is those 25,000 Jews who were killed. I guess all those dead Gentiles didn’t count. Gee, I wonder why that is.

There were various peasant or anti-feudal serf revolts in the Inca Empire. From what little we learn of these revolts, the serfs rebelled, seized power, and killed all of the Inca feudal elite. Peasant rebellions are not only murderous, but they tend to be exterminationist.

I could go on but you get the picture.

Elsewhere, foolish capitalists imposed their capitalism via an ultra-exploitative colonial model which is guaranteed to generate extreme hatred, rebellion, and underdog views among the colonized (if not exterminationist anti-colonial rebellions – see the Haitian example above), which leads to inevitable independence struggles usually premised on underdog philosophies like socialism and Communism. By colonizing most of the world, capitalist morons insured a post-colonial world with socialist tendencies and hostility to highly exploitative neoliberalism.

Places in the World Where Extreme Capitalism (Hyper-Neoliberalism) Holds Out

Latin America is one of the few places in the world that capitalism is so extreme as to oppose even social democracy, and this is all due to the proximity and overwhelming presence of a colonial ethic under the presence of the US.

Of course, we have long had such a model here in the US, but its  savage nature has been masked by a ferocious war on Communism cleverly turned into a war on socialism, social democracy, and even petty liberalism. The great wealth of the country has also masked the brutal features of this system, as there was so much money that even the losers in the system were able to eek out a piece of the pie, although this aspect is fading  fast – look at the homeless swarming our streets.

Further, a system of social liberalism (not social democracy but headed down the road) was installed in the New Deal (as an anti-Communist social contract along the lines of the European social contracts) and further entrenched by the Great Society, here driven in part by powerful new anti-racism on the part of the state. These band-aids over the cruel neoliberal model in the US successfully kept the inevitable “peasant rebellion,” or left revolution to be more precise, postponed for a very long time.

Of course, as ultra-neoliberalism moved along its standard path of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer (greatly increased economic inequality), an inevitable left revolution started to take form. This can be seen in the Bernie Sanders insurgency in the Democratic Party, Operation Wall Street demonstrations, and even the misdirected but Communist-led BLM and anarchist-led antifa riots this summer. Once again this violence is a form of peasant rebellion and is absolutely inevitable as wealth inequality reaches a certain point.

There are a few other places outside Latin America:

  • In the Philippines, though the new president calls himself a socialist and had good relations with the Maoist NPA guerrillas.
  • In Indonesia, which however recently elected a social democrat.
  • In Thailand, where long-standing military rule tamped down class struggle, which now rages uncontrolled in a very confusing way.
  • In South Africa, where a racist White ruling class did not want to share anything with the Black underclass, and Communism, socialism, and the Left period was associated with the Black struggle for self-rule and the guerrilla war which followed. However, the ANC government is full of former Communists and people with Marxist roots.

Game/PUA: Are Asian Men Cucked? Are They Alphas or Betas?

Vicmund the Han:  Hey Rob, are Asian men cucked? Are they Alphas?

Asian men are pigs! Nah, they’re not cucked at all, and in Asia, they have set up a system where they are seen as Alphas by the women.

However, the mass Beta-ization of young Japanese men in the form of the Hikkimoris and their inevitable rejection by Japanese women seems to be grinding a hole in that model.

Here in the West, I am not sure. The older men are complete pigs and act very Alpha. The younger men still act quite Alpha if they remain deep within their traditional cultures. I went to some Asian markets in Mountain View when I was there a few years ago. These markets were filled with young Chinese men and women. The young men were very masculine, almost stoic, and the women followed suit, being very feminine and falling submissively behind their Alpha boyfriends. As the world is meant to be. But these Chinese young people were still very deep in Chinese culture, still speaking the language, possibly being immigrants, etc.

For the rest of Asian men who are more assimilated, they have an Alpha mindset due to their pig cultures, but to their women, they seem Beta physically compared to White and Black men. Many of their women are marrying out either due to seeing their men as Beta in the West or disgust over the pig nature of so many Asian men: “White men treat us better.”

I don’t think they’re cucked at all, though. Hell no. Their cultures are too piggish to get cucked, and that is something I respect about Asian men very much. For White men, cuckdom was sadly a pretty natural fit after decades of Beta-ization by White feminized and feminist culture. Black and Hispanic men will be very late to cuckdom too, if they ever go over at all.

The Asian, Black, and Hispanic men will be some of last men to be felled by feminist societal lumberjacks sawing down the titans of patriarchy to go crashing down into the woods where the former giants lie in pathetic Betatude on the floor of the world to be walked over by any and all who stroll their way.

Alt Left: How GloboHomo Fits in With Dependency Theory, the Cultural Left, the US Empire and the Needs of US Corporations

Brian: Identity politics is a bulwark against socialism, even against mild social democracy. It works by preventing an awareness of common cause among those who aren’t near the top of society. It’s used domestically, in the U.S., to stymie any sort of labor movement, and abroad it serves to keep vassal states weak and dependent.

Yeah this is perfect. Why is the US pushing gay rights all over the world, especially in Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus, places where homophobia is at a high level? Why does the US push feminism and women’s rights so strongly in Afghanistan? Why is Soros pushing radical feminism and gay rights all over Eastern Europe, Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia?

And appallingly, why does Soros refuse to fund this same radical feminism in Israel, where his primary loyalty lies? Gosh, that’s straight out the Protocols! Weaken the Gentile states but keep the Jews strong so we can continue to lord it over the Gentiles, our economic and cultural competitors.

What’s the point? It’s clear the most Afghans do not like such things. Also we push the same Cultural Liberalism or Cultural Left crap.

I call it GloboHomo because of its emphasis on a strong push for gay rights in homophobic countries and the fact that the Cultural Left is part of the US Empire and the corporate-Empire-Deep State globalization project, which benefits elites, the rich, and corporations but doesn’t benefit your average person at all. Note that an essential aspect of globalization is anti-nationalism and neoliberalism.

The US has always hated nationalism because when nationalists come to power, they get tired of being exploited, raped and ravaged US colonies who get 10 cents on every dollar US corporations take out of their nations and instead advocate for a national economy where they manufacture their own things, grow crops for food instead of export, and nationalize large US corporate interests so the nation can use it’s national resources to help its own people instead of having them stolen by US corporate carpetbaggers.

The part about growing food for consumption not export is very important because the US Empire’s (also the project of the entire West) is to stop countries from making their own stuff and growing their own food. Why? Because we wish to keep them in a colonial dependency because that way we can exploit them maximally and extract the highest profit from their countries while giving them as few of the profits as possible.

The US typically makes alliance with a comprador elite, oligarchy, or ruling class along with an upper middle class sector attached to it. This class also represents most of the business interests of the nation. The US allows this top 20% to benefit from the crops for export model by owning the lands where the crops are grown and the companies which export the crops.

This allows them to benefit from not making their own stuff or growing their own food by allowing them to run the import and distribution models that import and distribute US food and manufactured products. The top 20% usually increases their income, often by quite a bit, under this model. However the  bottom 80% usually sees their incomes drop, often by a lot.

In fact, the US pushed neoliberalism all over the world, in particular in Latin America, in the 1980’s and 1990’s. These were referred to in Latin America as The Lost Decades for the negative economic growth during those times. The so-called Pink Tide that so enraged the US and led to fascist coup after fascist coup was the logical result of the disgust Latin Americans felt for The Lost Decades foisted on them by the US.

During this period when the US pushed neoliberalism, generally only the top 20% gained income while the bottom  80% lost income while seeing the costs of necessities skyrocket and having the social sector gutted.  It is estimated that this double whammy of neoliberal globalization killed millions of people in the 3rd World, mostly via lack of medical care, which was typically gutted and privatized under this model, often by World Bank and IMF dictate.

Why do we want nations to grow for export and not for internal consumption?

Because that way we can make money off the agricultural sector by profiting from the import of these foods from the nation. We don’t want them growing their own food because then they wouldn’t grow so much profit-rich crops for export and would instead grow for consumption, which US corporations can’t make a profit off of.

Also, if people grow for consumption, they would eat their own food instead of being forced to import most of their food from US farmers and food manufacturing corporations. I would also note that the US imported US manufactured food is usually not very good for you, being high in salt, sugar, simple carbohydrates and fat and low in protein and complex carbohydrates. Canned processed food usually isn’t’ particularly good for you for a variety of reasons.

Why do we not want nations to make their own stuff?

Because then they would not need to import all of their manufactured goods from US corporations!

Thing is, when nations grow their own food and make their own manufactured products it’s very difficult for the US to go in and exploit that country and make super-profits. Sure there are still a level of profits to be made – note the trade between the US and Europe – but the profits are not nearly at such a high level.

Jimi Hendrix, “Purple Haze”

Jimi Hendrix Experience, “Purple Haze,” off their debut album, Are You Experienced? Look at him. He’s dressed like a hippie! Look at the album cover below? They’re all full-blown hippies. It was released in May 1967, only a month before the famous Summer of Love centered around the Haight-Ashbury district in San Francisco. This was peak hippie right around this time.

Album cover for Jimi Hendrix Experience, “Are You Experienced?” May 1967

I’m not quite sure what the lyrics are about, but Purple Haze was definitely a very strong brand of LSD that was going around at the time. You want  to know what “acid rock” was that all the parents back then were ranting about? Here you go. Acid rock, baby!

I believe Jimi Hendrix was a serious acidhead as were the other guys in his band. I knew a man who used to hang out with Hendrix and his entourage in the Seattle area where he came from. It was a group of about 200-300 people, mixed men and women, all full-blown hippies. Most of them were doing quite a bit of LSD too.

Black hippies were a thing back then, and Hendrix was absolutely a Black hippie. I’m sorry we hardly have any Black hippies around anymore. Either through self-selection or the general culture, Black hippies didn’t behave much worse than any other male hippies. This was the era of “Peace, Love, dope,” remember? Hippies freaked out if you even looked like you were getting angry. They tried to live their whole lives as free from “bad vibes” which included all forms of aggression and violence as possible. All of that was considered very “uncool.”

There were also some “Black hippie chicks” as we used to call them. Same thing, they acted pretty good too for whatever reason. The men and women both wore their hair in Afros. No Black women straightened their hair back then. An Afro was perfectly acceptable. The Black hippies lived hippie lifestyles, all the way down to the soft drug (pot and psychedelic) drug use.

I still have fond memories of Black hippies. This was a period when a group of both Blacks and Whites lived the same lifestyle without much bad behavior or racism. Racism was very frowned upon – keep in mind that all fellow hippies were your “brothers.” I don’t really like Black people having a separate culture. They’re not assimilating as long as they are doing that. And I would date a woman who was heavy into Black culture. All her friends and acquaintances will be Black and everywhere you go with her, it’ll be nothing but Black people and you’re the only White person around. Also I think assimilated Blacks act a lot better than the less assimilated, sort of like Jews in that regard.

I have no idea why Black people wish to have their own separate culture. I don’t get it. Isn’t ours good enough for y’all?

Lyrics:

Purple haze all in my brain
Lately things don’t seem the same
Actin’ funny, but I don’t know why
‘Scuse me while I kiss the sky

Purple haze all around
Don’t know if I’m comin’ up or down
Am I happy or in misery?
Whatever it is, that girl put a spell on me

Help me
Help me
Oh, no, no

Hammerin’
Talkin’ ’bout heart ‘n’ s-soul
I’m talkin’ about hard stuff
If everybody’s still around, fluff and ease, if
So far out my mind
Something’s happening, something’s happening

Ooo, ahhh
Ooo, ahhh
Ooo, ahhh
Ooo, ahhh, yeah!

Purple haze all in my eyes, uhh
Don’t know if it’s day or night
You got me blowin’, blowin’ my mind
Is it tomorrow or just the end of time?

Ooh
Help me
Ahh, yea-yeah, purple haze, yeah
Oh, no, oh
Oh, help me
Tell me, baby, tell me
I can’t go on like this
You’re makin’ me blow my mind, mama
N-no, nooo
No, it’s painful, baby

Repost: A Look at the Cluster B Personality Disorders: Narcissistic, Psychopathic, Borderline and Histrionic Personality Disorders

This is an old post that people are commenting on. I just reread it and it’s so good that I thought it was good for a repost. I’m actually shocked at how good it is. I’m reading it and I’m thinking, “Wait. I wrote this? No way, forget it. I’m not that good.” But maybe so, eh?

Rahul: Have you met someone with multiple Cluster B personality disorders?

Nope. I have never even met one person with a diagnosed Cluster B disorder, much less multiple ones. Each disorder is its own syndrome, and I doubt if many people get diagnosed with multiple Cluster B disorders.

But I have met people who I thought were psychopaths or had psychopathic traits or Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD).

I’ve met people with obvious Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD).

I’ve never met anyone with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), but I have met people who I believe had it, and my friends and relatives knew people who had it.

I’ve never met a Histrionic Personality Disorder (HPD) or anyone who I thought had it.

These are the “Insufferable Asshole/Total Fucking Bitch” Personality Disorders. They can also be called the “Satanic Monster Straight from Hell” Disorders. For the most part, from my vantage as an introvert, most all of these people are anywhere from lousy to out and out horrible people. All the men are assholes. And all the women are psychobitches.

The common denominator in the Cluster B disorders is drama and chaos. All of these disorders generate large amounts of both. Another common trend is profound selfishness or self-centeredness. A lot don’t care much about most other people. And even when they do, they typically don’t treat them very well.

Cluster B types are extremely crafty, and many hazy Borderline women with Borderline traits without the full disorder are able to function quite well in society, albeit their personal lives are typically mired in drama and chaos, the two hallmarks of BPD.

These women are called “High-Conflict Women,” and they are literally everywhere, walking landmines stalking our society in plunging necklines and yoga pants. They’re bait, the flashing lure of the femme fatale darting through the human current, daring you to bite.

A female psychologist runs a website warning men about these psychobitches. The page I saw ran to 500 pages. These women typically hook up with good, decent, nice men. These men are very good people. I suppose you could call them nice guys except that the term has been so abused nowadays. These bitches attach to these men like remoras and literally suck the life out of them like any parasite does.

The therapist states that there is basically no cure for High-Conflict Women, or if they do get cured, you never know when it might happen, so you should not hang around suffering for a day that may never come. Recovery, if at all, may be decades into the future.

Why they attach to these good, kind, decent men is unknown, but they probably think these guys are suckers or doormats for their abuse. Face it, very few hard masculine men are going to cotton to these harridans. These women don’t end up with typical macho men because most of these guys would probably just kill these fucking bitches.

These Cluster B types can be very crafty and are often able to control their behavior very well. They are like the boss who sucks up to her superiors and then turns around and beats up her underlings.

Many Cluster B’s are “controlled” Cluster B’s such as “controlled psychopaths,” etc. The controlled psychopath type spends their life riding on the edge of the law, sometimes barely slipping over. Yet old studies show that most psychopaths never spend a day in a jail or prison. Instead they are what I would call “legal criminals.” They’re slippery as eels and oily as kerosene.

“Legal criminals” as in, say, our President for instance, who is absolutely a case of severe NPD. In fact he has a malign variety of NPD called Malignant Narcissism, the most extreme type of NPD. This is narcissism that has gone so far off the rails that it is moving out of narcissism and heading off towards psychopathy.

One famous clinician from the psychoanalytic days described Malignant Narcissism as “pure evil.” Indeed, a few serial killers have been Malignant Narcissists. I think the best diagnosis for Ted Bundy is not psychopathy but Malignant Narcissism, and I am not alone.

So our great MAGA president has literally the exact same mental disorder as Ted Bundy has. Let that sink in. Donald Trump is Ted Bundy. Granted, Trump is a controlled variety, a “legal criminal,” and Bundy was a severely uncontrolled variety, but they both have the same disorder.

Oh one more thing. It is universally acknowledged among clinicians that if Malignant Narcissists are anything, they are dangerous. Every one of them, no exceptions. So Mr. Trump is a dangerous man, but most Americans can probably figure that out by now.

The two disorders, narcissism and psychopathy, are on a continuum, with one view having psychopathy as an extreme version of narcissism.

Histrionic PD has typically been thought of as “psychopathy in the female.” This is correct as psychopathy in women is not nearly as bad as it is in men, and it typically results in this lousy woman called “the whore.”

Indeed, 45% of all female prostitutes are diagnosed psychopaths, which should not surprise you if you know anything about these women. Most prostitutes are a step away from being out and out thieves, and quite a few of them actually are small time thieves. A thief and a whore, same thing in my book! But the thievery occurs in the context of sex and a lot of alcohol and drug abuse, and charges are rarely filed.

They’re the bitches you go out on a date with, and when it’s over, you are $50 poorer (which you had no intention to spend – she just weaseled it out of you), and you didn’t even get laid. And yes, that sentence is autobiographical.

An argument has been made recently that BPD is simply psychopathy in the female. Traditionally it was thought of as “narcissism in the female.” Men get NPD, women get BPD, but it’s the same disorder just presenting differently between the sexes. As I alluded above, HPD has often been thought of as “psychopathy in the female.” Men get psychopathy, women get HPD,  but once again it’s the same animal varying by gender. This HPD female psychopath is the femme fatale or the basic “whore” personality.

They’re bad human beings, but psychopathy in the male is so much worse because psychopathic men are so much more physically dangerous, whereas women are not particularly violent physically. Psychopathic men cause far more damage to society than psychopathic women do. Women can be verbally and spiritually violent, and they can kill a man’s soul if he doesn’t toughen up enough, but they are typically not physically violent. Women almost seem to have an inborn aversion to physical violence. They nearly recoil at the mention of it.

Whores just lighten your wallet, often unsuspectingly. Male psychopaths, at least the uncontrolled type, are often literally monsters who commit a tremendous amount of aggression; abuse other humans wantonly, callously, and habitually; and feel not one iota of guilt about any of it. A female psychopath might take your money, but a male psychopath might take your life.

Cluster B folks are extremely manipulative, so they are often able to hide their disorder while at work. Narcissists are experts at this, and psychopaths are always hiding their illness by the very nature of the condition. They don’t call it the “mask of sanity” for nothing. Poor functioning BPD’s often cannot work at all. But some very bad ones are able to control the illness the whole time they are at work, yet the minute they get home, the psychobitch comes out to play, and they abuse, manipulate, gaslight, and generally drive insane any other main person in their lives, typically a husband or boyfriend.

I had a female physician client like this. She had an extremely kind face, and she rescued stray animals, especially cats. She was a good doctor and a model of sanity at the hospital, but the minute she got home, the human black widow spider leaped out and sucked her husband into her devious crazy-making nightmare of a web.

That’s why I don’t have a lot of sympathy for these “Asshole/Bitch Disorders.” When I realized that they could control it completely for eight hours at work only to unleash their terror and entropy the moment they walk into the front door to come home, I lost sympathy for them.

I thought, “They can control it. They’re just choosing not to.” And indeed, most Cluster B’s very much enjoy being horrible. They get a kick out of it.

Narcissists love to be assholey jerks. It’s entertainment to them.

Psychopaths of course live to prey on other humans, often abusing them sadistically for sheer kicks.

BPD women can be profoundly mean, and I think they might get off on being superbitches. They also seem to actually enjoy being crazy. I had a BPD client, the most severe case of BPD I have ever seen, who honestly didn’t want to give up her disorder. I finally concluded that she actually enjoyed being nuts. Maybe it’s exciting? My sister knows BPD’s very well, as she has dealt with many of them as part of an outpatient program she goes to. She affirmed to me that BPD women very much enjoy being crazy.

Female Histrionic PD femme fatales and Mata Hari types exploit, manipulate, connive, con, and in one way or another steal from others, particularly their male partners who are driven to Hell and back. I’ve never known one, but I imagine they get a lot of kicks out of this wild, sadistic, exploitative, and at times psychotic condition. They certainly lead “wild lives.” They probably get about as much fun out of being wicked HPD’s as male psychopaths get out of being sociopathic. Apparently a sociopathic lifestyle is quite a kick.

I believe that what women want most in life is “peak emotional experiences.” So I just answered Freud’s baffled question. The emotions can be good, bad, or ugly; up, down, or all around, this way or that way; forwards, backwards, or standsill. It doesn’t particularly matter.

They’re all peak experiences, either good or bad, and this dramatic feral behavior seems to provide women with what they desire most in life.

If you think about it, women are like drug users. What are “peak emotional experiences?” They are “rushes.” So the woman lives for the rush, up or down doesn’t particularly matter, it’s all wildness and living life to the fullest as they see it.

And what happens when we take drugs? “Rushes.” They can be good, bad, or six ways from Sunday, especially when you get into the hallucinogens, but face it, it’s always a rush one way or another when you are high on dope. Without the rush, dope isn’t even dope. It’s nothing, a handful of leaves, sand, or water in your hands. Dope is literally the rush itself.

Rushes don’t have to be good. Even bad rushes can be good if you like it wild. The fear of the bad trip is part of the rush. Live dangerously. Roll your own cigarettes. Drink your scotch straight. Die with your boots on. These are the ways that men live wild lives, but women have their own version, which is more based on wild emotions themselves as described above.

Bottom line is that Cluster B people get along great in our society because they are extroverted and often successful. Many have excellent people skills. They are expert manipulators and they can get a lot done and achieve a lot of things, albeit sometimes via nefarious means. I would say that our culture itself is essentially a Sociopathic or Cluster B Culture. So America is a Cluster B country then.

Despite their success it’s obvious to me that almost all Cluster B’s are either an insufferable assholes, sheer monsters, or psychobitches from Hell at least part the time if not most of the time. They’re not very nice people, to put it mildly.

But our society likes angry, aggressive, Type A extroverted assholes. We are an “asshole society.” Look at our president. Real close. Trump is is us, me and you and him and her. He’s our reflection in the mirror. He’s all around us every day, everywhere we go. Trump is the quintessential American – the good, the bad, and the ugly, the whole nine yards.

You would think that being a total bitch or a huge raging asshole would get you fired from a few jobs here and there, and sometimes Cluster B’s do lose jobs.

Borderlines can be so disturbed that they can’t work at all.

Almost all narcissists can work and they often rise to high levels in society.

Controlled psychopaths can work and often rise to very high levels. They do tend to get fired more than average, but they usually land on their feet and bounce right back like nothing happened.

Histrionics can definitely work, albeit often at shady jobs. Many prostitutes, porn stars, cam girls, strippers, and so on have Histrionic PD. And if you study the life history of a lot of these women, many of them are lousy people.

Never get involved with a whore or a prostitute. It’s one of the worst mistakes you can make as a man. Some strippers are ok, but even those are often moody and nutty. And they tend to be huge prick teasers. A lot of HPD’s have the callous exploitative character of the prostitute.

A lot of female porn stars seem to be horrible human beings. On the other end, I’ve never known a female porn star. But reading around, many act very bad, and they are often arrested and are in and out of jail, especially after they leave the industry. Many have serious drug problems while working and afterwards. Suicides are surprisingly common. I would not get involved with a porn star if I were you.

Many prostitutes, strippers, and porn stars are low level thieves. Callous, hard, cold thieving bitches. All of these prostitute types are exploitative, mercenary women who regard men as walking ATM’s, and, like all “whore” types, are out to drain your wallet and bank account, run up all your credit cards, and then leave you high and dry, spinning in a circle, feeling like a hurricane just hit you, and thinking, “What was that?” This is exactly the experience many victims of male psychopaths also describe.

Alt Left: Joe Biden’s New National Security Picks Are Very Troubling

I was afraid of this. It’s the Obama Administration Redux. Neoliberal economics + (((neoconservative foreign policy))) + Cultural Left social views. The first two are rightwing (we have two rightwing parties in the US – take your pick) and the last is leftwing. I’ve got to hand it to the Democratic Party.

They’ve managed to do what I always thought was impossible – to combine the worst of the Right with the worst of the Left. The Republicans are at least honest. I’ll give them that. They say they are a rightwing party and they combined neoliberal economics + (((neoconservative foreign policy))) + conservative social views. As you can see, they’re rightwing on everything.

Literally the only difference between these two rightwing shit parties is on culture. On economics and foreign policy, everyone agrees! Economics for Wall Street and the 1% and (((more wars for the Jews foreign policy)))!

So you have the total freedom to choose between:

Cultural Left social views

Social Conservative social views

And in fact, they both completely blow, but in totally different ways. The first is just the social part of Globohomo (it has an economic and foreign policy part too) and the second is the Christian Taliban!

Don’t you love living in America, where you have such a wide range of politicians to choose from? I’m sure glad we don’t live in a dictatorship or anything like that, where there’s only one party to choose from and all the media is state-controlled. No wait. That’s exactly what we are living in, except it has the fake trappings of democracy, complete with the usual extreme rightwing authoritarian rigged elections and the whole nine yards.

Joe Biden’s New National Security Picks Are Very Troubling

Alt Left: Sadism and Creativity in Society Are Related to Economic and Societal Structure

Another interesting post from commenter Brian. He ties societal sadism and Social Darwinism into economic changes and ties societal creativity into societal structure, in particular its degree of flexibility.

I completely agree that there is a sadistic tendency in people that is expressed toward those deemed socially inferior. I’ve seen it and, having been in foster homes for a time growing up, experienced it.

I’ve often wondered at what seems to be a mean-spiritedness of the culture in general during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and if this mean-spirited character was linked to industrialization and to the growth of severe inequalities in society, both class and race based.

Those inequalities existed before the industrial revolution, but industrialization marked a new level of complexity in social organization, and the rise of many “new men” as elites. In the transformation of a society toward a new economic system and set of social relations, old inequalities are exacerbated, and the new elites who have risen to the top seem eager to shore up their position by waging a reactionary crackdown on dissent and calls to moderate their avarice.

The Social Darwinist, let-the-undeserving-poor-rot, bootstrap mentality of the upper class was encouraged in the general population by those who had risen to the top as a way to justify their behavior, and it had the effect of drawing out the worst tendencies in human nature in society at large. It was a bully’s ideology and encouraged ordinary people to let out their inner sadism, which ordinarily – without authoritative encouragement – would have been more repressed.

This is how you get gleeful lynchings, the hanging of elephants from a giant chain, the proliferation of freak shows where people can satisfy their inner monster by laughing at folks with severe genetic deformities.

I wonder if this witches’ brew of inhumanity cooked up by the propagandists of the new robber baron class was a factor precipitating World War I. Indeed the displacements of industrialization along with repression of the working class by disconnected and haughty elites and the whole toxic culture this gave rise to poisoned Europe just as badly as it had the United States.

The periods of the cruelest treatment of ordinary people tend to coincide with episodes of great economic expansion, the rise of new men and new families to positions nearer the top of society, and the complexification of society in general.

Another example is a century earlier in Britain, around the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. This was the very beginning of the industrial revolution – or the first industrial revolution, as opposed to the second which I was referring to above – and began with the Enclosure Acts that forced peasants off the common lands so they could become the new urban class of industrial laborers.

During this time the Bloody Code reached its bloodiest extreme and more than two hundred crimes could be punished by death, even as a number of minors were executed for rather petty crimes. These were the classic Dickensian times, and they are marked by great new opportunities for moneymaking that attracted a class of people willing to subject other humans to appalling degradations for their own profit.

When we think of the medieval period, we often think of brutal tortures. But in fact such tortures, while they occurred in the medieval period, were used far more extensively in the Renaissance and early modern times than in the medieval period as was the death penalty in general.

Once again, what we find at that time is a transformation in the socioeconomic system, specifically moving away from feudalism in Western Europe and the rise of a new middle merchant class across much of Europe, starting in Italy. Perhaps the use of such punishments is meant to break the spirits of those who suffer most during such transitional periods so they are less of a threat to the elites, especially the new and very insecure/paranoid elites.

I suspect that what we see today, with the mean-spirited attitude of the neoliberal age – the expansions of the prison system going back to the 70s and 80s (the very dawn of the neoliberal age) and the electronics and digital boom – is another such period of social complexification, economic transformation, dispossession of whole sections of society and even of regions in general like the rust belt, and the rise of many new men (and women now) into the ranks of the ruling class.

For around forty years I’ve been seeing among the upper middle classes and above is an increase in callousness, selfishness towards and even dehumanization of various groups of people, from Blacks to working class (now often poor) Whites and anyone who isn’t at least upper middle class.

To address the idea that such periods help to breed out criminal genes from a population, I do not doubt this is true. These phases of societal transformation seem to yield a more docile population on the other end of them. But I think this process will eventually eliminate the spark of genius in our population and in the West in general.

It largely has eliminated this spark already. At least in the realm of the social sciences of fundamental thought like philosophy, modern European philosophy having seen its best days some two to three centuries ago. Other fields that are downstream of basic thought have been able to flourish since then, but they will stagnate, and some are stagnating already.

Going back to civilizational and race theory, the difference between White civilization and Asian seems to be that White civilization has been far more creative for centuries now, despite Asians having higher average IQ’s. The spark of genius requires a high IQ but also creativity and originality, which mostly comes from people who are off-kilter and don’t easily fit into a very conventional, static society that looks down on new ideas or unusual behavior.

You, Robert, have mentioned before that many very intelligent and interesting people work in odd jobs and have little to show for their talents. I think such people have struggled in any society, but they struggle more as society becomes more closed-minded and starts distrusting anyone who isn’t stable, conventional, and predictable; in other words, someone who fits ready social expectations.

A lot of academics are very bright, but few have that special spark of brilliance in them, and if anything, having that is a detriment for someone in academia today.

As our society stiffens we will likely become less creative, whereas in the past few centuries, we’ve seemed to be able to accept originality even if many geniuses are not exactly paragons of stability. I am not saying that Asians are without creativity or the spark of genius, just that as their populations became more controlled and regimented, they exhibited fewer instances of real inspiration.

We are moving towards greater control and the consequent heavy formalization of life which sucks the naturalness out of life. We should probably expect relative cultural stagnation, at least compared to what we’ve been experiencing for centuries in the West.

The problem with African peoples and societies is an excess of naturalness or primal behavior, which, while it is energetic and creative, lacks the mental and social channels to develop it.

Higher intelligence on the other hand takes that same primal energy the Africans have in excess and focus that energy into socially accepted interests and goals. The problem with Asian societies is there is a serious lack of primal behavior, though I suspect some genetic potential for creativity remains in their populations and could be freed up if they loosened up a bit.

As to our current period of neoliberalism in the West, I think whatever good it did in juicing the development of the new electronic and digital economy is already finished and have been since probably 2008. At this point neoliberalism’s effects on society are very detrimental and could even touch off serious convulsions across Western society if it isn’t moderated.

Continuing on this path can only benefit a small handful of elites and only if they are able to maintain control. But they are gamblers, so they will try, and they seem unlikely to concede much to the population for the sake of reconciliation.

About That Super Nice White Neighbor of Yours…

Polar Bear: Ned Flanders is Whiteness personified. I had a neighbor just like him growing up. He was extremely grateful for any help or kindness. Being nice and neighborly is part of being White. Maybe a bit of softness “Gorsh, can I get away with that?” Overly positive, naive, and selfless. Forrest Gump is another example. Sweet as a box of chocolates.

It’s actually true. At least with the White middle class anyway. They’re actually supposed to be that way. It’s part of the culture.

I don’t know much about the White upper, lower, or working classes. The lower and working classes might not be so much like this. They’re a bit more down-to-Earth. The White upper classes might not be as nice. They treat their homes like castles that no one is allowed to enter on penalty of death. It’s almost a damned affront to even ring their doorbell. Everyone is supposed to go home, burrow into their castles immediately, and never come out. Why do you need to borrow anything from your neighbor? You’re rich, dammit!

One thing though. That super-nice White neighbor might not let you into his house. Or will he? A lot of them were extremely nice, but they wouldn’t necessarily let you in the front door. It was almost some sacred inner sanctum.

Of course there are assholes in White middle class neighborhoods. Whites are humans, right? I remember once somehow my Mom’s car took off backwards down the street. My little brother and sister were in the backstreet partying it up as the car careened down the street. I think my Mom and I ran down the street after the car, probably yelling it at to stop. Lot of good that would have done, huh?

It traveled about a football field’s length before it crashed into a curb and went over into this lady’s yard. She had some flowers out front and it crushed a lot of them. She almost never came out of her house. Only time she came out was to yell at us kids for playing in the street. God knows why? Too much noise? She was mean as a snake and ugly as a witch. The whole neighborhood hated her.

A lot of the neighbors came out when they saw the car careening down the street backwards. They all converged on the lady’s property. Everyone was looking at her smashed flowers. She wasn’t home. Everyone quietly agreed, in conspiratorial whispers and shared winks, that no one wouldn’t say one word about what happened to her stupid crushed flowers. This is how the rules are enforced in White society. You act too antisocial and the whole neighborhood gets you back.

I haven’t the faintest idea what Black or Hispanic neighbors are really like. I live with them now and they’re not friendly but maybe it’s different for a Black in a Black hood or an Hispanic on a Hispanic block.

Black neighbors probably differ between urban and rural Southern areas. Alpha could maybe tell you what it’s like to grow up in a small Southern town. She grew up in Mississippi!

Arabs, Eurasians, Latin Americans, and maybe Asians (?) make great neighbors. The listed groups are different form middle class Whites. They are more “mi casa es su casa!” They’re hospitable. The Arabs had to be that way. You’re lost in the desert, dying of thirst, and there’s that guy with his tent and his camels ahead. He damn right better be nice and open his home to you for as long as you need because next time it might be him lost in the damned desert and he would need to rely on the kindness of strangers! Arab hospitality may have been born out of necessity.

Alt Left: Childhood Never Ends: Why Large Groups of Adults Continue To Engage in Childish Games of Sadistic Dominance of Hated Inferiors

Alpha Unit: OK, Jim Crow laws were proposed as a solution to a problem: White Southerners were being ordered to treat newly freed slaves (and free Black people) as equals, when it was clear that newly freed Black people were in no position to live as their equals.

Their solution? Forget all this “equality” stuff; it’s costing us too much. Let’s bring back the old, tried-and-true way we used to do things: Blacks subordinate to Whites and kept in their place. We’ll make sure it’s “legal.”

Occam’s razor. Look for the simplest explanation. This makes the most sense to me. The whole idea that Claudius is putting forward that White folks are just too nice to do this sort of thing, well, nope. Humans have a need to dominate others. The strong dominate the weak and the weak dominate the weaker. See countless works of literature, drama, and cinema, or, Hell, just read Nietzsche if he makes sense to you.

Also there are different types of sadism.

The First Type of Sadism – the Raw Animal Lust for Cruelty and Love of Humiliating Others Seen Most Prominently in Boys

I’m thinking this type is genetic or biological. This is a pure sadism that can be seen in boys, non-human mammals, and in  adults, most especially in Black adults, especially African Blacks (US Blacks have had a lot of it enculturated out of them, but you still see it a lot).

Sure, all the other races display this raw sadism too, especially in times of war, but you see it most prominently in Blacks to the point where some feel it is an essential aspect of the Black Character, Personality, or perhaps, I would argue, Black Principle (if Black is a Principle like Masculine and Feminine are Principles).

This is extremely prominent in Black children, especially boys, and they are much more sadistic than White boys (Yes, I know all boys are sadists). It gets slowly enculturated out of Black boys as they grow up as with most of us males, but you still see it a lot in the ghetto types in young adult men and even women sometimes, where the basic Black Personality is at its rawest and least enculturated.

This is a raw delight in torture, torment, inflicting pain, violence, and even death on a suffering and tormented Other. It includes the love of observing a victim’s suffering.

Of course, you also see this same sadism in young White men (college boys in particular can be terribly cruel), but it’s just not as prominent as in Blacks.

Also, White culture profoundly dislikes displays of childish sadism in White adults. As an man, you’re supposed to have grown out that boyhood crap or had it beaten out of you if you were particularly diabolical.

In some ways, this sadism can be fun. I recall a Black man I knew named Michael. He hung out with this other Black artist, William, who was very introverted and odd. He couldn’t get laid with God’s help. His name was Charles and he had a university degree in art.

The cool guy’s name was Michael and he was a White-acting Black artist with a university degree in art. I was over at a mutual friend’s house and our friend commented that William had a date.

William was a very shy guy with low-self esteem and a hurt and somewhat confused expression on his face. I believe also had a strange high-pitched voice. He was extremely weird but completely harmless, and once you figured out how harmless he was, you mostly just wanted to laugh at him because he was such a nerd that he was a laughingstock, a comical figure.

He also couldn’t get laid with God’s help, even though he was quite straight. I’d never known him to have a girlfriend or even a date. At age 29, he was not only undoubtedly a virgin, but he’d probably never even been kissed.

I was absolutely dumbfounded.

“What?!” I nearly shouted across the room. “No way does William have a date! No way! That’s not even possible! Tell me you’re joking!”

This was a pretty mean thing for me to say, but I can be a dick. The Black guy, Micheal, roared with laughter so hard he nearly rolled on the floor for ten minutes. As you can see, he was laughing his ass off at the cruelty of my comment.

So Blacks can be a lot of fun if you want to get down with some mean, no-holds-barred humor. A lot of humor is cruel – face it – but Whites’ distaste for sadism limits their potential for humor a lot. We see this especially in the dour, party-pooper, no-fun SJW crowd, where every other joke is an evil bigoted crime that someone needs to get fired over.

In many ways, Idi Amin was the ultimate primal Black man. He displayed most of the raw material of the Black personality to an exaggerated degree. Not all of it is bad. He was wildly extroverted, always smiling and happy, had a nearly inborn sense of humor to the point of being a natural humorist, loved to party and have fun, and had a tremendous love of promiscuous sex. Idi Amin was a good time! As long as you were on his good side, that is.

And then there was his bad side, also in spades.

Whites and most other races probably used to be like this too, but centuries of civilization may have bred it out of us culturally and genetically. We can surely see a lot of examples of horrific sadism in Whites and Asians only centuries ago. One argument is that for a thousand years of civilization, most White criminals were quickly killed, often by public hanging. The idea is that this bred a lot of the criminal genes out of us.

Blacks from Africa, never having good through this process of weeding out criminal genes by execution, didn’t experience such a cleansing. On the other hand, perhaps White and Asian cultures have also accelerated so much in civilizational terms that this behavior is enculturated out of us.

That this love of sadism and cruelty appears so normally and freely in boys of all races suggests that it’s still part of the raw human personality. Although the dramatic morally superiority of US Blacks as opposed to African Blacks suggests that 300 years of exposure to White Christian civilization has had a calming, civilizing, and perhaps eugenically intelligence-increasing effect on US Blacks, which argues for the effects a more advanced civilizing culture can have on a population of a less civilized race.

The Second Type of Sadism – The Dominant Lording It Over Their Brutalized Inferior Victims

I’ve thought about this a lot, and there is another sort of sadism, that of the dominant inflicting their sadistic lordly violence against those they see as inferior.

Look at the delighted faces of those German policemen tormenting Jews in the street. You can say it’s revenge, but isn’t it more than that?

Look very closely at the faces of those Whites at those lynchings – boys, girls, men, women. There’s that same look as you saw in those Nazis above: the wicked gleeful look of the dominant bully inflicting torture and/or death at a contemptuously hated inferior. This poor Black sod’s hanging from a tree with his neck broken in a sickening way, and these Whites who look like your nice White relatives at Thanksgiving are having the Goddamned party of their lives.

What was all that habit of calling Black men boys and Black women girls about?

Why were Black children forced to apologize to White children they bumped into by addressing the White children as Mr. or Mrs. as if the White kids were adults and the Black child was still a child?

Why were the schoolbooks given to Black schools the refuse of the White schools – ripped, torn up, wrecked, and coming with a sticker on them saying that they were too destroyed to be of use to White kids, so they were only worthwhile for Black kids?

What was up with the torching of the Black business district in Tulsa?

Why were Black men lynched and murdered for the crime of standing up to White men and fighting back against them, even if the Whites were trying to kill them? In this case, the message was that of the bully: We will attack you in any way we choose, and if you dare to fight back and hurt one of us, you will die.

Why did White children torment their Black “friends” by forcing them, like slaves, to carry the White kids’ books to and from school for them?

Why did White boys manipulate and laugh behind the backs at their Black male friends and encourage them to commit crimes, so if anyone was caught, the Black would take the blame?

Why were Blacks waited on last in stores, and, even after waiting an hour, passed over again if a White person walked in?

Why did Whites whose land had been sold to Blacks long ago return to their land 50 years later and demand that Blacks hand over the sold land to its original owners, or else?

Why did even White women tell Black men who talked back to them, “I could have you hung from a tree just like that.”? See Of Mice and Men – and this was California in the 30s!

This is all nothing but raw, naked cruelty, and furthermore, there’s a brutal logic behind it: the societal enforcement of White dominance and superiority over Black submission and inferiority. That’s all it is. No need to conjure up fancy theories. Back to Occam’s again.

They did all of this abject and unnecessary cruel stuff because otherwise Blacks would commit a lot of crime? Get out. If anything, such treatments are designed to push people to their limits. Look at how Gypsies are (deservedly) treated in Europe? Does it stop them from committing crimes?

No, all of these punishments were done to enforce the sort of gleeful domination you see on the faces of the schoolyard bullies in 8th grade as they torment their designated victims.

And no, adults are not too mature to regress to childish games of sadistic dominance. I’ve seen so many cases of adults the world over delighting in the sadistic dominance of a hated inferior Other to believe otherwise.

They’re not doing it to stop crime. They’re doing it to get off. To get a rush. To get that glorious sadistic delight in tormenting an innocent victim you remember from boyhood. Remember how fun that was? Remember how tall it made you feel?

Well, those adults are doing the exact same shit for the exact same reasons.

Another Republican Lie: The War on Poverty Failed, Made Blacks Poorer, and Much Worse Behaved

Doug: Jason, the compassion comes after we see facts clearly. I’ve mentioned countless times that we need vocation schools at the high school level to train those kids that are not college-bound in some kind of useful profession.

The Left will never allow it because those schools would be about 1/2 Brown/Black and 1/2 White kids…in other words, too much for them to admit. Instead we keep denying the obvious. Teacher’s unions, a pillar of the Left, would also not allow it either. They literally don’t want any choice for kids–from charter schools to vocational schools.

Another rich example of compassion would be to admit that Johnson’s $21 trillion “War on Poverty” has not only failed but it’s INCREASED poverty amongst Black persons. At least 30% of this $21 Trillion, or $7 trillion was spent on the Black population in a very real attempt at “reparations.” It was also the beginning of “free stuff” for Blacks to keep them voting for Democrats.

There’s TANF, Section 8 housing, Food stamps, Medicaid, AFDC, Head Start, hiring quotas, set-asides, and sharply lowered standards in police and fire departments and colleges and grad schools. “Free money” student loans that will never be repaid. We have free breakfasts for Black children and even free lunches.

Taken together, US Blacks live in a state of “custodial care” by Whites because they can’t take care of themselves.

Nothing has worked. Nothing ever will. This money is paid to the most unworthy people in the world by the most worthy people in the world. Until people take responsibility for themselves, families, and communities, nothing will ever work.

All this because our society cannot admit that Black intelligence is too low, they have a bad attitude, and have too little logic. Black criminality is far too high to support any higher level of civilization.

But what’s worse is that all this money and it’s perverse incentives (to break up marriages) has worsened Black life in America since 1964 and we can’t admit that either!

Since the start of the War on Poverty, black kids are not doing better in school, housing projects built for ghetto blacks are all slums (a complete lack of personal responsibility), drugs, gun violence, incarcerations, STD infections, and abortions remain at epidemic levels. Black high school completion rates are about the same as ever, ie., <50%.

Black culture is actually much worse now. Black culture is in virtual collapse with 72% of Black babies born without a father in the house. Compare this to only 25% when the “war on poverty” was started. I can’t think of a single more devastating statistic to describe a cultural collapse than the 72% figure indicating that the institution of marriage has collapsed. Single parent families are nearly all in a state of poverty. That’s where we are after 56 years of “reparations.”

“Reparations” has help cause a complete and utter Black cultural collapse.

The result of the cultural collapse is evident from appalling crime statistics, 70% of new AIDS cases being Black, gonorrhea infection rates 13-18 times the White average, and black men committing 56% of homicides even though they are 6.5% of the population. Blacks commit crime at 6-7 times the rate of Whites (higher in urban areas) and are incarcerated in that same proportion. Now we have “flash mob robberies” and “knockout assaults” that are overwhelmingly Black crimes.

You can throw all the money in the world at social programs, but laziness, addiction, bad attitudes and decisions, low intelligence, little impulse control, and high levels of violence, they will override any and all social programs. Of course the Left never wants to hear about personal responsibility when they are the most irresponsible. They want to blame our economic system and take more and more of your tax dollars and piss that money away on programs that aren’t working.

Black kids will never be hired when they often can’t speak or dress right and have no self-respect, no discipline and no education. This is the problem today, and it was the problem yesterday and 50 years ago. No amount of money or bureaucracy can fix this. Why don’t we admit that we’ve failed?

Instead, you get 100% denial, 100% of the time, and a punch in the face. A little humility would go a long way with me.

First, the parts where I agree with you.

hiring quotas, set-asides, sharply lowered standards in police and fire departments. Sharply lowered standards for college and grad school admissions. “Free money” student loans that will never be repaid. We have free breakfasts for black children and even free lunches.

There aren’t any hiring quotas or set-asides. They’re mostly illegal. I know Affirmative Action is banned for the federal government. I also know it is banned here in California, the most liberal state in the country. Some private businesses and corporations have their own goals or whatever, but no one is forcing them, and all evidence indicates that this has not caused a lot of problems for US businesses. If it did they would stop doing it.

Standards have not been lowered for much of anything, although they are still being lowered for Blacks and Browns to get into elite universities. Standards have been lowered for the Bar Exam in California, but that applies to everyone. Most tests to get a police or fireman job are still pretty hard.

But I absolutely oppose all mandated affirmative action by the state and and all lowering of standards on testing to let more non-Whites in. I’ve had to take tests all my life. Had to take an SAT test. Had to take tests to graduate college with a BA. Had to take tests to get into grad school. Had to take more tests to get into education grad school. Then I had to take more tests to get a teaching job. Then I went back to grad school. I had take tests to even get through the program. Then I had to take a truly murderous test to get my Master’s Degree.

I don’t think people realize how significant those tests are. I had to pass them. If I didn’t pass them, I flunked. I wasn’t admitted to the program. I didn’t get the degree. There was no coddling, no, oh Bob is disadvanted and part of some dumb race of people so we have to lower standards for him. Hell no. I don’t pass and I’m gone. It’s do or die. Pass or fail. And I passed, without anybody lowering one damned standard to let me through. If I had to go through all that crap, the rest of  you have to go through the exact same thing. I never got a break or a lower barrier to jump over.

Why the Hell should you? Because you’re dumb? Bad answer. Because you’re part of a dumb race of humans? Bad answer. You’re not all dumb. I see smart Blacks, Black attorneys, physicians, Blacks doing every high level job Whites do, every time I turn on my TV. In my recent courtroom adventures, I saw four Black attorneys, two male and two female. They graduated law school. And they passed the damn bar. If they can do it, maybe you can do it. If you don’t do it, don’t cop out and blame racism. Go into some field where you can do well. It’s not that hard.

I’ve mentioned countless times that we need vocation schools at the high school level to train those kids that are not college-bound toward some kind of useful profession.

The Left will never allow it because those schools would be about 1/2 brown/ black and 1/2 white kids…in other words, too much for them to admit.

I definitely agree with you here, but I have no solution to this whatsoever.

Teacher’s unions, a pillar of the Left, would also not allow it either. They literally don’t want any choice for kids–from charter schools to vocational schools.

Charter schools don’t work. That’s now conclusively proven. The idea is that with charter schools, we get rid of the teacher’s unions, and then the kids will perform so much better. In other words, somehow teacher’s unions cause kids to fail in school!

It didn’t work because getting rid of teachers’ unions and presumably cutting their pay and benefits doesn’t make teachers work harder (Shocking!), and getting rid of teachers’ unions doesn’t make students perform better (Duh!). Teachers’ unions could care less about vocational classes. I taught school for many years. I met many vocational teachers. No one cares about them and their classes. Nobody wants to get rid of them.

Since the start of the war on poverty, black kids are not doing better in school…

A lot of falsehoods here. Black achievement has skyrocketed since the War on Poverty. Blacks have closed 1/3 of the achievement gap. Black Computer Science students saw their scores improve every year through the 2010’s. Black IQ’s skyrocketed since the War on Poverty. Their IQ’s are now 16.5 points higher than they were in 1965. Incredible!

Now we have “flash mob robberies” and “knockout assaults” that are overwhelmingly black crimes.

Anti-White flash mobs and the knockout game are not going on much anymore that I know of. That seems to have been a few years ago.

There are two groups of Blacks. One is ghetto culture, maybe 1/2 of Blacks. Obviously this culture is failed in all sorts of ways, but I can’t see any way to improve things. Surely cutting off all their money and making them vastly poorer won’t help a thing.

The other group is middle class Blacks, which may be up to 50%. This group, well in evidence on this site, doesn’t act a whole lot different from White people. And this group exploded since 1965. Before there was the Talented Tenth. Now 50% of Blacks function at a decent enough level. The number of Blacks who function at a pretty good level has risen by 5X or 400% since 1965.

Black culture is actually much worse now. Black culture is in virtual collapse, with 72% of black babies born without a father in the house. Compare this to only 25% when the “War on Poverty” was started. I can’t think of a single more devastating statistic to describe a cultural collapse than the 72% figure; indicating that the institution of marriage has collapsed. Single parent families are nearly all in a state of poverty. That’s where we are after 56 years of “reparations.”

Why did the single parenthood rate skyrocket? Because this is how Black people act in a free society. You want them to act better? Ok, put them in chains again like under Jim Crow. That’s literally how you do it. The single parenthood rate supposedly rocketed up due to “welfare,” but Blacks already had welfare since 1935. The Great Society didn’t increase welfare payments one nickel.

There were food stamps, Section 8, and Medicaid in the Great Society. So Black parenthood collapsed because now Black mothers could afford enough food to eat, to rent an apartment and to go to the doctor? Well, that’s just terrible! How dare they get all those things necessary for them to survive!

Black crime has collapsed. Sex crimes are 63% down from even the early 90’s. Everyone else’s crime rates have collapsed too. Crime in general and violent crime in particular were far higher among Blacks in the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s to my knowledge. If anyone has better data, let’s see it.

Section 8 housing

Section 8 rentals are not slums. They’re tearing down the housing projects. Now Section 8 is just a voucher that you take around to any renter who will take it. In this complex, a certain number of apartments are Section 8. I don’t know which they are or who rents them, but there are not many Blacks in this complex (thank God). It’s mostly Hispanics, a very few Whites, and yes, there are a few Blacks here and there and they’re at least a bit Ghetto too.

This is a beautiful complex, looks brand new, very well kept up. And there are Section 8 people here. The landlord does not tolerate any crap from anyone, and any tenants who act bad are quickly tossed.

The result of the cultural collapse is evident from appalling crime statistics, the fact that 70% of new AIDS cases are Black, gonorrhea infection rates are 13-18 times the white average,

AIDS cases are mostly Black? Well, those are mostly Black gay men I assume. Please tell me how the War on Poverty made Black gay men catch way more AIDS than non-Black men. By letting them survive? So if you let Black homosexuals survive, then they turn suicidal, go get fucked up the ass by a hundred guys, and get AIDS. Right? Just checking on your logic here.

STD rates are high among Blacks everywhere on Earth. A lot of Black people screw anything that moves, and they probably don’t take many precautions to keep from getting an STD. They also don’t go to the doctor like they ought to. This behavior is typical amongst the Ghetto Blacks. I’m not sure middle class Blacks are sexually any different from the rest of we White sluts and manwhores.

STD rates are extremely high in the Caribbean. They’re off the charts in Africa, where no Black gets a dime of social spending.

Fine. Take all the money away from social programs for Blacks and yell at them to take responsibility for themselves. Like millions of Bill Cosby’s like me haven’t been yelling at Black people every day for years to get their shit together? Is it working? I don’t think so. So your project to pull all that evil survival money away from Blacks so they have no money, no food, no place to live, and no way to go to the doctor.

And this will make them act better.

Yeah right.

And then you will holler at them, “We took all your free money away, now you’re on your own, and you have to get your shit together!” And Black people are suddenly going to act way better and get their shit together.

This is the Republican fantasy about Blacks, and it’s about as insane as the Left’s fantasies about Blacks seen via Critical Race Theory.

The Great Society was never intended to turn Black people into White people. All it was intended to do was to allow people of all races to survive at a basic subsistence level. Do you know what it is like to live on one of those programs? Or even be to poor enough to qualify for them. You never have any money. Life blows, every day, forever. You are living in a world of shit in a sense. Why the most pathetic people on Earth are the subject of all this vitriol is something I will never understand.

Head Start

Head Start is preschool. That’s all it is. It’s preschool for poor people. I know a guy who drove a bus in Eastern Pennsylvania. Part of his route was taking the kids to and from Head Start. 100% of the kids he was transporting were White. Although a conservative, he was dead set against getting rid of Head Start. What’s wrong with giving poor people preschool? You got a problem with that? Or you got a problem with niggers getting preschool? Preschool is only for Whites. Niggers just don’t deserve it. Well, I don’t agree.

Also, if Head Start doesn’t work (false), then preschool doesn’t work. Then why on Earth are all these White parents so insistent on preschool for their kids? Are they are all stupid? What about all the studies showing how preschool benefits kids? They’re bad science? If preschool doesn’t work, a lot of Whites are wasting their money.

And it’s not true that Head Start doesn’t work. The intention was never to turn Black people into Norwegians and Japanese. That’s not going to happen (though my co-blogger is about as deferential and polite as a Japanese woman). You can’t turn Blacks into Whites, not with our present tools. The only thing we can do is try to turn Black people into the best versions of themselves that we can.

Let’s try another one. Head Start works great for White people, but it doesn’t work for niggers for “whatever X reasons.” Why doesn’t it work for them? And they are different species? Are they all born with an anti-preschool gene? Come on. What works for Whites works for Blacks too because Blacks are humans. What works for one group of humans works for another group of humans.

Head start works. Not only that but it’s cost effective. Blacks who go through Head Start are less likely to drop out of high school, be incarcerated, go on welfare, or have an IQ below 70 (so it even lifts IQ’s at the low end). It seems like what Head Start does is lift up the group of Blacks that fall on the tail end intellectually and behaviorally. It lifts up the bottom. And as I said, it even pays for itself.

TANF

Welfare (TANF) pays $300/month. You trying to tell me that women actually don’t keep men around because it’s so easy to live on $300/month? You’re crazy. Tell you what. You Republicans say it’s easy to live on $300/month. Cool. So you do it. Live on $300/month for a while and then get back to us and let us know how it went, ok?

A lot of White people use all these programs. The lie is that this is White people’s tax money going to a bunch of no-good niggers and beaners. However, lots of Whites are on all of these programs. 39% of the women on straight up welfare are White! I live in a poor city, and there are many Whites around here who use Medicaid and food stamps. I see them all the time. It’s sort of normal around here to be on Medicaid or food stamps, and there’s no shame at all in doing so. No one is going to look at you like you’re a derelict leech for doing so. There are too many people doing it, so it became normalized.

The biggest lie of all is that the War on Poverty failed. I’m sure people on food stamps are eating a lot better than they were. I am sure that people on Medicaid are getting more and better medical care than they were. I am sure that people on Section 8 are happy to be able to rent a place rather than being homeless. I am sure that women’s little kids on WIC are eating a lot better than they would.

None of these programs were intended to solve any basic problem with Black people or with any race of people. We weren’t throwing money at any problem. The programs were intended to give some very poor people a basic, very low, no-fun level of existence so they could survive.

There were some problems that got solved.

Food stamps was because a lot of people didn’t have enough money for food. Now they do. Problem solved.

Section 8 was for people too poor to even rent an apartment. Now they have a roof over their heads. Problem solved.

Welfare (which was started in 1935, not by the Great Society but anyway) was based on the idea that all children must be supported. By taking welfare away you are saying that kids have no right to be supported and they should just die if their mother is poor. It’s not about the mother at all. It’s all about the kids. Problem solved, basically.

Welfare didn’t cause single parenthood. We’ve had welfare since 1935 and there were no problems. It’s not some new thing that the Great Society started.

Medicaid was for people who could not afford to go to the doctor at all. Now they can. Problem solved.

WIC was initiated because a lot of women were so poor that their kids were not eating right. So it enabled them to buy food to feed their little kids. Problem solved.

All you people who object to WIC, I’ve got a question for you. You got a problem with little kids getting enough food to eat?

Not one nickel has been thrown at the education system to try to lift up Blacks and turn them into White people. All schools get the same amount of federal dollars. They are funded by local property taxes. If any money was spent it was simply to support schools in Black and Brown areas at a level similar to that of White areas , in other words, to provide Blacks and Browns with a basic low level education. What’s wrong with that?

“Welfare” hasn’t caused any of those problems you described. Let’s look at welfare, now TANF. We got rid of it. Yay! That was cool, man! Why didn’t I think of that! The idea was just like above, take the free money away from those damned niggers and yell at them that now they’re on their own and they have to get their shit together or else. That’ll show em! That’ll make em get their shit together!

Guess what? It didn’t work. At all.

It didn’t improve any social pathology factors, not even one. There were no societal benefits at all. The only thing that happened was that those women (and their kids!) got even more poor. A lot of them went homeless along with their kids. It was a huge failure.

Tell you what. Let’s try an experiment! Let’s look at places like the Caribbean and Africa where there are none of these evil social programs at all. There’s nothing, no social programs, zero. No money, you don’t eat, and then you die.

Ok, Blacks should be free of pathology right? Nope! They act way worse! The fewer social programs they get, the worse they act.

Let’s look at Blacks in Brazil. Few social programs. They act far worse than they do here.

Let’s look at Blacks in Europe. Especially those from Africa act at least as bad as our Blacks and probably even worse.

Fact: Black people have these pathologies you describe everywhere they exist on this planet.

Now why that is is up for grabs. Maybe it’s genes, maybe it’s environment, maybe it’s something in the air. I don’t know. That’s for the social scientists, if there are any honest ones left, to untangle. Not my job.

I figure these social programs are sort of “buy off” programs to buy off Black people who would ordinarily act pretty bad. The more we support them at basic levels, the less poor they are, and they happier they are. If you take away these programs, they would probably act far, far worse and they might even riot so much that they wreck the country. We are buying them off, giving them money with the caveat that they need to act better now, and it seems to work.

Alt Left: A Reasonable Project for “Soft” Taiwanese Independence to Assuage PRC Fears

Vicmund the Han: What do you think of Taiwanese based on your observations?

You’re going to hate me for saying this, but I think they should go independent. But I would like a peace treaty with China beforehand, an economic agreement, CCP military bases in Taiwan dual staffed, Taiwanese military bases in China dual-staffed, perhaps some sort of integration military or econonomic-wise like the CIS or better yet, Belarus. Transform it into a deep alliance and work together. The radical independencists will have to be sidelined.

The main thing is to make it so an independent Taiwan is not a military threat to China. No US military bases in Taiwan, integration of both nations’ policies towards the US and maybe on a lot of other things. Brotherly countries with a strong alliance who agree to disagree on certain things, but when they do, they are “brotherly opposition.”

There is only one China. There are two countries, Taiwan and China. Taiwan is not China. It’s Taiwan. The only China is the People’s Republic. Two Chinas policy was insane, but one China policy is crazy too as it says that Taiwan doesn’t even exist!

The problem is that most  Chinese, including the CCP, are stark raving nuts about this question, so I am really worried that they will not want to put this project into effect. China sees Taiwan as a rebellious province of China. Well, it’s a part of China that fought a war and  achieved their independence from China via military might. So it’s not a rebellious province anymore. It’s like Eritrea split off from Ethiopia. It’s a new country.

Chinese nationalism is ok in a sense, but it’s also ethnic nationalism in a sense and it’s definitely ultranationalism in a revanchist way. You can’t go back and retake land you lost in wars. That’s what those world wars were all about. Irredentism and revanchism have got to go. Chinese nationalism suffers from a lot of the insanities, toxicities, and mental disorders of any nationalism. It is fascist in a sense that all extreme nationalisms or patriotardisms are, though only in a very broad sense of wanting a restoration of a Chinese empire.

It’s nation-state nationalism or patriotardism like exists in many countries, including the US.  It differs from almost all fascisms in not being ethnic-based and in not being part of a nation-building project where all non-Chinese Han/non-Mandarin speakers have to turn into Chinese Mandarin-speaking Hans. They all have to get rid of their languages, ethnic identities, and religions and cultures and become Hans in a sense. Chinese nationalism doesn’t work like that.

It’s inclusive rather than exclusive, offers autonomy instead of forced assimilation, and retains in a sense the notion of self-determination of nations in that nations in  China are free to  speak their languages, practice  their cultures and religions, etc. Pretty typical of the national policies of many Communist countries, though certainly not all of them! It’s more like Soviet nationalism. The Soviets went after breakaway provinces too you know.

Eastern Europe was quite hostile to minority languages, ethnicities, and cultures. Polish and Yugoslavian nationalisms were nation-building projects. I’m not sure how minorities were treated in Slovakia (Hungarians), Romania (Germans), etc. There was much persecution of the Rusyns in Poland, ethnic Germans everywhere, and Italians and Chakavian-speaking Istrians on the islands in Croatia after World War 2 of course. They were accused of siding with the enemy.

Alt Left: A Chinese View of Time

Rambo said: Deng Xiao Peng said he could see democracy happening in China in a relatively short period of time. He was asked, ” what do you think, another 25 or 50 years maybe?” To which he replied, ” I could see it happening in maybe a thousand years.” To the Chinese, 1,000 years is looked upon as a short time. You’re talking about a nearly 5,000 year old country that has never known freedom and democracy. That’s why when countries like the U.S. negotiate with them, that has to be kept in mind.

Nixon asked Chou En-Lai in 1971 what he thought about the French Revolution in 1790. His reply?

It’s too soon to tell.

Which is pretty similar to what Deng said. The Chinese always take the long view, unlike us dumb Americans. And that’s smart of them and dumb of us.

This is literally how the Chinese think. All stages of the past are completely blurred together, and all are together with the present. I’m not aware they talk much about the future. I know this because I did a lot of research on their forums. Absolutely fascinating people. People would be talking about their family lineage, as their ancestors are very important to them. In fact, their basic religion is probably some form of ancestor worship.

They would be talking about their family lineages and drift back and forth between the present day, the 20th Century and then back to the 16th-19th Centuries, making historical references all along the way. And of course there were all sorts of references to the old dynasties like the Shang Dynasty (probably the very first Chinese dynasty) and many others. And now we are going all the way back to Old Chinese thousands of years ago.

I don’t understand Chinese history so I can’t make sense of these dynasties, but the Chinese’ view of time was fascinating. The year 400 was yesterday, today is 1600, and tomorrow is the 19th Century. It’s as if the past, present, and future were all happening at the same time, which is actually an interesting philosophical way to look at time. This is in fact how I view Time.

 

Chinese Long Term Thinking Versus American Short Term Thinking

The Chinese always take the long view, while here in the US we are addicted to the crack of short-term thinking in terms of immediate profits and getting off now, the Hell with the long term view of the economy or our bodies or really anything at all, dammit. Now get off my lawn! NIMBY! Here comes Karen!

And what of the future, oh American sensei?

We’ll deal with that when the time comes. Why bring down the party when it’s ripping along? What are you, some Debbie Downer?

Nope, I’m a guy who doesn’t want to set a time bomb today that will blow up five years from now because I may well be around then, and even if I’m am not, I’m not so sociopathic as to be that callous to my fellow humans who follow in my footsteps.

I am them. They are me. That’s the only and best way to look at your fellow man, hard as it is to make our egos believe that.

Do that line of coke now! Drink a six pack, fuck three whores in a row, get three hours of sleep, and then do it again! And don’t forget another line!

What are you, some party pooper? You’re the guy who always has to throw a turd in the punchbowl, right?

Nope, I’m just some guy who, every decade, decides he’d actually like to spend another decade on this 3rd Clown Rock from the Sun.

Fatalism and Lack of Agency in Spanish Language and Culture

As I mentioned in another post, we Americans act like tomorrow is a sure thing. It’s almost as real as the present and for those of us who use like me who the defense of fantasy, it’s probably even more real. But of course the future doesn’t even exist. We are treating something as real that’s not even there.

Other cultures like the Arabs or the Spanish-speaking countries engage in regular use of a phrase called ojala que.. which means “God willing that…” they put this phrase in front of all sorts of discussions about the future. I mentioned the Arabs and this was actually, as one might guess, a borrowing from Arabic and possibly from Arabic culture too. The Arabs after all do tell to leave it all up to God.

There’s something to be said for that. We even have a phrase in English for when someone is stuck in an impossible mind-rut, “Let go and let God…(take over and do it himself).” This is also similar to the Spanish language fatalistic denial of agency that I will get to in a bit.

Ojala que manana seria un mejor dia means “God willing, tomorrow will be a better day.”

The future is completely uncertain and not only that, for a lot of us, it won’t even exist at all even when it happens because we’ll be dead by then, so for us it never happened. The world could blow up tomorrow. Then what of the future, Mr. Can-do American Boosterist? It won’t exist for any of us because we will all be dead.

I’m still not sure how the constant use of the subjective in the Spanish language plays into this, but I suspect it’s part of this fatalistic worldview. Yes the French language uses the subjunctive too, and I don’t know if they are as fatalistic as the French or even if any language that uses a subjunctive a lot develops fatalism as a result or if a fatalistic culture gives way to frequent use of the subjunctive. But I’m getting all Sapir-Whorfian here, excuse me.

We actually have a subjuctive in English in the form of the verb to be: were.

As it were, the Queen ended up ruling all of her Kingdom

If I were king, I would clone 10 copies of Selena Gomez to be my concubines, and I would live happily ever after or until my Viagra supply ran out, whichever came first.

As you can see, we barely use it as we are anything but a fatalistic culture and in fact we have contempt for such cultures and refer to them as lazy and irresponsible. We are a “Carpe diem!” society after all.  You don’t sit around and wait for God or the government to get around to doing something, you get off your lazy ass and do it yourself, slacker!

But enough about us. Back to our relaxed cousins to the south. Spanish tends to use the subjunctive far more than it ought to. They literally sprinkle it all over the place. The subjunctive in any language means “maybe, hypothetically, possibly, etc.” and the excessive use of it in Spanish implies to me that something like Ojala que is going on. Spanish speaking Catholic cultures do tend to be pretty fatalistic, and Catholicism, perhaps the ultimate fatalistic religion, surely plays no small part in that.

In another possible element of fatalism or “leaving things up to God,” the Spanish language offers speakers a way out of a lot of mistakes by saying the person who failed in whatever they failed in lacked agency at the time, hence their failure was an act of God and therefore not their fault.

I don’t “fall down,” in Spanish, instead Se me cayo or “It fell down itself to me.” I don’t know about you, but I’d rather have God fall my sorry ass down than be on the hook for doing it to my own self.

I don’t forget anything of course, instead Se me olvido or “It forgot itself to me.”

I didn’t do it, the falling and forgetting did it to me, dammit! It’s not my fault! I was just an innocent victim! Quit picking on me!

I suppose you could say this makes Spanish speakers irresponsible, but it doesn’t seem to have that effect. Instead it seems to have a “don’t sweat the small stuff” effect, and indeed they do seem to take it pretty easy, maybe even too easy with all those siestas and always showing up an hour late to anything.

Another Way of Looking at Time

A book by Guy Murchie called The Music of the Spheres was published in 1961. It’s recommended in one of Kurt Vonnegut’s books. I forget which one now. And yes, I think Vonnegut

It’s little known nowadays and that’s too bad. It’s not that it’s an unambitious endeavor!

From the publisher’s blurb about it:

The first half of the book–Moons of Rock and Suns of Fire–deals with major astronomical phenomena viewed poetically from an imaginary earth satellite. In the second part the realms in which physics holds sway pass in review; the forms and nature of matter, the atom, waves and music, light and color, space and time.

I don’t know about you but I like the second part. Now focus on the last word in that blurb, “time.”

In that book, Murchie posits a fascinating notion. Instead of the past, present, and future all being separate and discreet things not a whole lot related to each other, Murchie says that in terms of physics, the past, the present, and the future are all simultaneously occurring right now as I write this. I know what you’re thinking. There goes Bob with another of his nutty ideas. But hold your horses a second, Hoss, and listen up for a bit.

I think there may actually be something to this and what follows is my version of Murchie’s theory:

The past has the seeds of our present and future within it already, so the present and future are contained in the past. We can say that the past contains the dual tails of the present and future in it. Of course when the past was happening, it had its own past and future embedded in it.

The present was brought here by the past and the future will contain the seeds of the present, so the present contains both the head of the past and the tail of the future in itself.

The future obviously doesn’t even exist. Think about that a bit as most folks don’t realize that. We Americans treat the future as if it’s a sure thing and often as if it will be better than the present. But we are thinking about something that doesn’t even exist yet. But even if it did exist, the future would be literally an outgrowth of the present, which, like it or not, is literally an outgrowth of the past, so the future would contain the heads of the present and future in it. The future of course contains the growth from the seeds of the past and the present, otherwise it wouldn’t even be there.

Your move, commenters.