What Are the Causes of Antisemitism?

Jews Out-compete Gentiles, Probably Due to Superior Genetics

I do think that Jews outcompete non-Jews, mostly due to intelligence, and this contributes to antisemitism. And they do tend to hire and promote their own, while exempting themselves from anti-discrimination statutes. I think the Jews are simply superior intellectually, and this allows them to out-compete non-Jews, get more and better jobs, gain wealth, control and monopolize industries, etc.

I will say that Jews act a lot better nowadays. I’ve read how US Jews behaved 100 years ago, and US Gentiles had no choice but to counter Jewish ethnic warfare with anti-Semitism. This is unfortunate and sad. But Jews don’t seem to be doing this so much anymore these days. Control over newspaper media and Hollywood was in fact a Jewish conspiracy, but it was not done to be evil or control the world. Instead it was simply done out of paranoia, the ever-present Jewish mindset.

Jews Took Over the Media and Hollywood Out of Paranoia, Not Evil and a Desire for Money and Power

In the late 1800’s, many US papers were openly racist and White Supremacist. They didn’t say much about Jews, but Jews don’t like it when White Gentiles get racist because that tends to circle back on the Jews at some point. So some very wealthy Jews got together and bought up some big papers to take them out of the hands of the racists. The Ochs and Sulzerberger takeover of The Times worked this way.

Jewish ownership of the media used to be a lot worse. Now it’s just conglomerates and billionaires buying up papers. Yet the media still engages in the same behavior that anti-Semites condemned when the “Jewish media” did it. This suggests that the problem is not a Jewish media but more of a general attitude that US media have in common regardless of ethnicity.

Same thing in movies. In the early days of the movies, Birth of the Nation and other movies came out that glorified White Supremacism, in the case of BOTN, the KKK. The Jews were alarmed and figured it would circle back on them some day. Four Jews who came from an area within a 100 mile radius in Galicia got together and pretty much bought up Hollywood, once again to keep it out of the hands of the racists.

It stayed this way for a long time. This is changing now, though some aspects are still quite Jewish, such as TV. However, the movies are diverse. In particular, some Italian directors have now set up huge studios, and they don’t typically hire vast numbers of Jews for their movies. A stroll through the credits will show you that.

Sure, there are still plenty of Jews in Hollywood at all levels, but they don’t exactly run the place anymore. Once again, the movie people engage in behavior via their movies that is exactly the same as the messages antisemites accused “Jewish Hollywood” of pushing, hence the problem again seems to be not so much with “Jewish Hollywood” as with a “general Hollywood way of looking at the world.”

How Stupid Does a Gentile Country Have to Be to Let a Tiny Pissant Tribe of Jews Take Over Their Country?

Lastly, antisemites complain about Jews taking over a few Gentile countries in some way. Note that this takeover has mostly been in order to get the government to support Israel because that’s the only common cause they have. Otherwise, Jews hardly concur on anything. Two Jews, three opinions.

Be that as it may, but how stupid do Gentiles have to be to let 2% of the population, a minority not including them, take over the country? If they had any sense, they wouldn’t allow it. I have no sympathy for Gentiles who let some tiny pissant tribe of humans take over their country. They’re fools and they got what they deserved. They handed the Jews the keys to the castle, and the Jews said thanks and walked right in. What did anyone expect them to do? If it was a hostile takeover, it was a consensual one.

The Main Reason for Antisemitism: The Jews Created and Maintain the Left

The antisemite line is that liberalism, the Left, socialism, and Communism are all Jewish plots. In that case, I say let’s hear it for the Jews!

No matter the negative aspects of Jews, we on the Left owe a tremendous debt to the Jews, for the Jewish virtually birthed and raised the Modern Left to maturity, and they continue to support it to this day, although the growth far Right Jewish Fascism in Israel and to some extent in the US has somewhat put a damper on that. True, the liberal Jews in the US supported the Jewish fascists in Israel, but they oppose fascism everywhere else, including here. Jews are some of the leaders in the pro-democracy and anti-fascism movements in the US today. I don’t know what we would do without them.

Jews, Especially Jewish Males, Are Highly Aggressive, Even Thuggish People

I do think a valid critique of Jews is that many are very aggressive people, especially the males. They have a reputation for rudeness, obnoxiousness, ruthlessness, zero-sum games, playing hardball, fighting dirty, throwing out all the rules, and an Old Testament eye for an eye mindset in contradiction to Mercy ideally inherent, though often not present, in Christian societies.

Many of the big Jews in academia and business have a thuggish character. I’ve been told by Jews themselves that this is all down to a culture that demands absolute success or else with no room left for not succeeding. This ends up creating a very aggressive person determined to succeed at all costs with a concomitant terror of failure.

Perhaps aggressive folks are well-liked in our hyper-capitalist society where such belligerent and Machiavellian folks prosper to the heights, but I’m an introvert, and they rub me the wrong way. But that’s no reason to hate or discriminate against anyone. I don’t hate aggressive people. I simply choose not to be around them. Them over there, me here. A divorce.

No ethnic group is perfect and for all of the flaws of the Jews, I think they have tremendous good qualities (see the Jews and the Left above) which may or may not outweigh the bad depending on your views. There are some ethnic groups out there who have what I call “all of the bad qualities of Jews and none of the good ones.” They are truly insufferable.

A Race Realist View of India

Main issue I have with this theory is that the Indian IQ would not have dropped so fast in just 70 years with the end of famines and the reduction of diseases. A disproportionate number of lower classes would have had to have survived for centuries for it to have an effect on IQ. Is that really what happened? Weren’t they dying in droves back then? Keep in mind that the higher IQ Brahmins are only 5% of the population. A good 95% of the population is lower, maybe down ~81 IQ. The less intelligent have been vastly outnumbering the intelligent forever down there.

I agree that Hinduism is indeed a severe regression, degradation, and I would argue vandalization of Santam Dharma.

Tamberlane: The shittiest, weakest, dumbest, and most cowardly Indians bred the most prolifically due to the wide availability of food year-round in combination with the lack of devastating plagues and diseases. The vast majority of Indians have low-tier genetics due to the Indian trash component of their population having 4-5 kids, while the best Indians only had only 1-2 kids.

This in turn creates a toxic, overcrowded, deracinated environment and culture. Let’s not even get started with the malnutrition, lack of infrastructure, toxic air quality, etc. Therefore you get a sandbox in which the vast majority of Indians are sexually frustrated Beta males with an inferiority complex wanting to one up each other for a mere rupee.

Hinduism is a severe regression and degradation of Sanatan Dharma, arguably one of the most beautiful and complete spiritual philosophies in the world. Modern-day Hinduism is just the dog-turd on top of the shit sundae that is India.

Although I will admit, Indians have a lot of untapped potential and are becoming a better and better version of themselves every year. 2000’s India was exponentially better than 1990’s India. 2010’s India was exponentially better than 2000’s India. And 2020’s India is exponentially better than 2010’s India.

Letter from India

Absolutely superb comment from a Hindu Brahmin on a very old post of mine. India and sadly Hinduism is simply antithetical to all Left and progressive values. I suppose Republicans would like them. After all, Republicans believe in rule by aristocracy.

I have long said that there are two philosophies, conservatism and liberalism, or the Right and the Left.

Conservatism or the Right believes in aristocratic rule. Worse – that aristocrats must rule, and there can be no exceptions to this clause. It’s the Divine Right of Kings all over again. Or, the Ancien Regime. Same thing. This thinking didn’t start with Hobbes’ Leviathan and its first opposition was not Locke. The contradiction between rulers and ruled, oppressors and oppressed, exploiters and exploited, rich and poor is as old as civilization itself. Conservatism believes that the Left has no right to rule. None, zero. Why do you think they steal elections and have coups every time the people take power and rule over the rich?

The opposite of conservatism is liberalism or the Left. Although it differs, liberalism believes in democratic rule, rule by the people, not the aristocrats. This is true all the way from US social liberalism to Communism.

India has conservatism and aristocratic rule baked right into its veins. It can literally never be a progressive country until they have a complete Cultural Revolution. And they may need to get rid of Hinduism, as it seems to be beyond reform.

Me being a Hindu Brahmin following extreme Orthodox beliefs, I can answer your question honestly. You may dislike Brahmins, seems we deserve this for the decadent beliefs we have produced in the Subcontinent which has destroyed the entire fabric of the region. Not all Brahmins practice priesthood; only a subsection of them do it.

I can tell you the reason that the Indian is such a hideous creature – Indian society itself operates in a hideous manner, and it’s the root of all filth that exists in India from corruption to hypocritical behavior. Indian culture boils down to religion. I perceive of religion and culture as different things, but most Indians have never had any cultural lineage. Nor do most Indians have any knowledge of any of their religious books. Almost every one of them was bought up watching religious movies portraying religious deities as pious and most godly.

That’s where most Indians get their religious education from. I can guarantee you pretty much 95 percent of them have never read even one Upanishads or Veda in their life. The reason is simple – education is limited to certain classes, and other classes were not simply allowed into Gurukuls.

After independence, the Hindu majority became bed partners with the British and formed their mythical nation of India. This needs to be emphasized: THERE WAS NO INDIA BEFORE 1947. It was a bunch of princely states always at war with each other. India is a British creation. It never existed prior to that. Never in the subcontinent’s history had Hindus had such power; they never controlled such a vast proportion of land that they control today. But they had a problem – most backward castes in India were simply illiterate and were separated by tribe and language – they even had their own tribal Gods.

Since 1947, Hinduism for the first time became the doctrine of the state – previously only Brahmins, Kshatriyas, and Vyshas were considered Hindu. Brahmins secretly believed that they were the only followers of Hinduism and had authority to enforce their dogma onto the other two varnas. But after Independence, they realized that the vast majority of Dalits and backward castes were simply too isolated from their dogma, and in a nation with many tribes, castes, tribal gods, and languages, it became impossible for Hindus to unite all of them under one umbrella.

Thus Hinduism was used as a state doctrine, and the state used its propaganda techniques to brainwash the nation with the Hindu Doctrine. After Independence most Indians were illiterate and had never seen the world outside. Hinduism was never a conquering force; it has always operated in treacherous ways since the Gupta period.

Whenever Hindus stretched themselves, their neighbors disliked them and resisted their ways of governance, so basically Hinduism and Hindus have brainwashed other castes with bullshit such as…“Crossing a river is a deadly sin as per the Upanishads,” which means moving to other lands is a sin, and every religious Hindu and caste must not cross the river and explore the world – most Indians were in a cocoon for almost 2,500 years.
None of them explored other nations, trade was minimal, and India was colonized repeatedly by other conquering forces since ancient Hellenic times.

Even after independence, for 40 years India was a backwards agrarian society mostly following a culture of “honor.” But in early 1990’s, something remarkable happened to India. For the first time the average Indian moved out of his filthy nation and saw the glory of other civilizations. But Indians are living in a paradox; they can’t understand why they are being taught that their culture is supreme since childhood and yet they are such a backward dirty nation. Having seen other great civilizations and their societies, most if not all of them have realized one fundamental thing – that they are the most degenerate people of all.

Now even the state and religious classes have apprehended the reality that other cultures and civilizations have created more productive societies than they have. The ruling class is aware that they have destroyed the nation; they are fully aware that they have fiddled for the past 50 years for some frivolous pride. But they have realized that it’s easy to keep all these different tribes under their control as long as they remain in impoverished and  ignorant. Few may make their way out, but for our caste-based society which has lived for past 1,500 years feeding on others like a parasite, it’s hard to swallow the new liberation that young Indians are experiencing.

The Brahmin does not want the Dalit to read. The Brahmin does not want the Shudra to prosper. And this has become encoded in the genetics of the masses here. So it’s essential to create a sense of pride again, pride that must not be oriented towards social ethics but instead must be channeled into useless things which have no logical or rational nature. Like most Indians are proud to be Indians, but no one can even answer in few words what exactly they take “pride” in. Most are proud to be Hindus; they created one shallow story after another to rationalize their pride.
Most Indian schools are distributing Mein Kampf for college kids to create pride.

There is a reason for all these things, and there is a rationale behind the hideousness of the Hindutvas who spout their nonsense across Internet forums. The reasons are inherent insecurity, lack of creative ability, and most importantly, fear. Exactly, fear of colonization. It has happened repeatedly for past 1,500 years. That’s the reason why India is the largest importer of weapons. It will not even hesitate to use weapons on its own people, such the “Tribal adivasis” who are resisting the mining of their lands. India wants to show to the world that they are not insecure, at least outwardly. There must be a bandwagon of pride and chest thumping among Indians.

Most Indians are like beaten-down losers who have lost every game that they played but never learned to do better or tried to practice more. But we have learnt how to corrupt and progress. Now the only thing that matters to most of Hindutva Indians (most of whom are not Brahmins but call center operators who just copy/paste useless Hindu propaganda) is to show to this world that they are something or at least stand that they stand for something. It’s a pride stemming from insecurity, suspicion, a deep-seated inferiority complex, and ignorance. A kind of pride generated by continuous propaganda from movies, books, school curricula, and most importantly, the economic progress that occurred in the last 12-15 years.

This gave us a chance to migrate and look at industrious civilizations in West and apprehend their great cultures and values. But it also exposed Indians’ own filthy morality and hypocrisy. What to do? More propaganda. The recipe? Add Hindu mythology + economic progress + everyday propaganda in movies and soap operas + hatred towards neighboring countries and peoples (Pakistan, China, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Muslims in general) + superpower myth articles in every tabloid. This has created the myopic view that most Indians have today.

Most of them don’t know anything they speak about. The clowns on Quora and YouTube are sending low IQ missiles stemming from an ill-seated inferiority complex and a desire to be involved on the world stage which never happens. We expats are fortunate in that we can still send money home to India while residing as long as possible in the progressive West, all the while continuously ridiculing Western women and their degenerate values while secretly fantasizing about the same Western women. This our new way of life. Call it parasitism or degeneracy but most of us have never had any culture, nor most of us have ever dreamt that there exists any place on Earth with equitable social values.

We have lived for the past 1,500 years by backstabbing and cheating each other. We preached hypocrisy and superstition and practiced the same. Our society only cared about personal glory – the more glorious you were, the more Godly you become in our eyes. And the only possible attribute  that glorious person could have was the wealth he has amassed, and whether it came via business or cricket games matters not.

Wealth is all it counts in our society. It’s been this way for a very long time, but we don’t say it openly. For many centuries we have preached and practiced duplicity in life, family, relations, business, and love. And the result is before your eyes – a hypocritical duplicitous society which prides itself on morality, virtue, spirituality, and sympathy. But underneath the rug, we all know that we stink, are duplicitous and treacherous, and sometimes excel at nothing other than stabbing each other in the back.

Alt Left: Shut Up, Virginia Giuffre

Serial liar, faker, and professional victim Virginia Giuffre has filed a fake lawsuit against Prince Andrew, lying like a bitch that Andrew raped and sexually abused her repeatedly when she was underage at 17 years old.

Problem? Nobody raped anyone and Virginia (The Liar) Giuffre never got raped one time.

I suppose you could argue that Andrew may have committed statutory rape, but that’s not rape at all. Instead it’s simply illegal intercourse.

Second problem? Virginia Giuffre is a whore. A lowdown, lying, scamming prostitute of the lowest variety, lower even than most disgusting whores, and that’s pretty low.

What happened?

Giuffre decided at age 17 that her goal in life was to be a whore! That’s right, a prostitute. Such a noble calling. She somehow got in with Epstein and Maxwell’s blackmail ring and she was basically offered a job working as a little teenie whore for Epstein’s Mossad spying blackmail ring. Of course, since her life dream was to be a lowly prostitute, she jumped at the chance.

Epstein et al were soon pimping her out to famous people, except it’s hard to call it pimping because they let her keep all the money.

The one famous incident with Prince Andrew occurred in the Virgin Islands. Giuffre was paid a measly $15,000 to have sex (excuse me, to get raaaaaaped) by Andrew. She reportedly had lots of fun screwing the guy, since by all accounts she was a little teen nympho slut.

Problem? 17 year old Virginia was not underage! She was legal in the Virgin Islands, perfectly legal fresh teen pussy.

Now we move on to the other fake charges.

Turns out she had sex with Andrew several more times in New York, Florida, New Mexico and the UK.

Problem? 17 year old Virginia was perfectly legal teen snatch in New York, New Mexico and the UK. No rape. No statutory rape. No any kind of rape, except in her ditzy teen whore brain.

Now, moving on to Florida, we do have another matter. If she had sex with Andrew in Florida, she would have been underage, because the Age of Consent there is 18. But notice she was legal and of age in four different states or countries and illegal and underage in only one state? Big deal! That’s barely even a crime.

Statutory rape of a 17 year old girl is a garbage crime anyway. 17 year old girls are perfectly legal to fuck by any adult, even a 90 year old man, in most of the world. They’re only illegal in a few backwards places like Florida.

It’s perfectly reasonable to set an AOC at 16 or 17. Most of the world has it at ~16. Most of Europe has it at 15! There have been absolutely zero problems reported in any of these places by setting the AOC at 15-17.

Now setting an AOC at 15 is sketchy in the US because we are too backwards, puritanical, and weird to handle that low of an AOC. Europeans, being civilized, can cope with it but Americans are uncivilized backwards boors and sex-hating super-prudes, so we can’t deal.

However, there is an argument for making a Romeo and Juliet clause for 15 year old girls. In many states they are legal for men up to 18 or 19. Colorado is particularly reasonable in this regard, as 15 year old girls are legal for men up to age 24. I dated a lot of 15 year old girls as a boy and for few years into adulthood. They’re horny as Hell and from the point of view of a young man 18-21, they seem quite mature, about as mature as you are.

Now the problem is that wherever you put that AOC, men are going to start fucking those girls. Put it at 17? Men will fuck 17 year old girls. Put it at 16? Men will screw 16 year old girls. Put it at 15? Men will gleefully bonk 15 year old girls.

And if you put it at 13 or 14, men will jump on 13 and 14 year old girls. I’m not entirely comfortable with that, though sex with 14 year old girls and 18-21 year old men doesn’t bother me. The thing about this sort of sex is it seems a lot more ok when the man is very young because after all, college boys and young men have been screwing high school girls forever. It’s so natural it’s almost set in stone. But as the man gets older than, say, 25, a lot of people start getting a lot less comfortable with it for all sorts of reasons. And as he gets older and older, it gets less and less ok. This is fine with me and I understand people’s distaste for this sort of thing.

I’d like to keep the 13 and 14 year old girls illegal for most adults, though we definitely need a Romeo and Juliet clause for both of them. I’m not sure where to put the limits though.

I met some 14 year old girls at the store a while back. They were fooling around like teenagers. I looked at them real close and I thought, “You know what? These girls need to be protected from us men. And even more so, we men need to be protected from those girls!” We both need to be protected from each other. A good way to do that is with an AOC law because most men beyond age ~21 will start to seriously think twice about underage girls and men significantly older than that will avoid them as if they’re radioactive. Which they are, in a sense. Teenage girls are dangerous!

I think 13-15 year old girls ought to be legal for boys 13-17 though at the very least. We really need to stop putting kids in jail and on sex offender lists for having sex with each other. Guess what? Teenagers have a sex drive, often a raging one. And many, many of them engage in sexual behaviors and even have intercourse before age 18. It’s as common as dirt.

Now we do run into problems with Andrew and Giuffre due to the fact that Giuffre was more than just a teen slut. In fact, she was an out an out real thing teenage prostitute! What a noble, morally elevated female!

Now the problem is that in most of the US at least, it was perfectly legal to screw Giuffre for free, but automagically, one you pay her for screwing you, you’ve committed a crime. You can screw them all you want, but you just can’t pay them for it! I sort of like this law. We should extend to all women, not just the teenies. It sure would save us men an awful lot of money!

Now, buying a teenage prostitute under age 18 is illegal in the US. It doesn’t strike me as much of a crime because there are many enthusiastic schoolgirl prostitutes. But I don’t see how you make it legal either. Make it a misdemeanor. Instead, it’s a serious crime and worse that, it’s somehow or other sex trafficking!

Now sex trafficking is a completely abused term once the US Justice Department got a hold of it after Congress made a retarded law in the midst of a Sex Panic. Sex trafficking used to be pretty serious. It meant more or less sex slaves. These women are out and out sex slaves, being imprisoned or locked into service by evil pimps, mostly men. A lot are literally locked in and can’t escape while they are ordered to have sex with man after man.

It’s really gross and it’s a very serious crime. And the truth is that most pimping probably is trafficking. If the prostitutes are free to leave the pimp, it’s not, but when are they ever free to leave? Not real often. Pimps threaten to harm, hurt, or kill any prostitute who leaves their harem, so most prostitutes with pimps feel locked into them. Obviously, pimps are one of the dirtiest aspects of this dirty business.

However! The Justice Department decided to somehow include all underage teen prostitutes under the rubric of “trafficking,” which is quite dubious. I don’t mind a crime called Prostituting a Minor, but it sure as hell isn’t “trafficking.” Even worse, any man who patronizes an underage teen prostitute is himself somehow guilty of trafficking! You paid this 17 year old whore for sex, did the deed, and walked out. Turns out you just committed an act of sex trafficking! That’s absolutely ridiculous, but that’s the crazy new law.

As expected, the feminists took the ball, ran away with it, and were never seen again. The feminists have somehow decided that not only are sex slaves and teeny prostitutes being “trafficked,” but in fact, every single woman who is engaged in prostitution is engaged in sex trafficking! More properly, since feminists insist that women have agency, they are “being trafficked (by others, basically men).”

Notice how when feminists talk, women never have any agency? That means that they’re basically children and not responsible for any of their actions. Women never do anything. Everything that happens to a woman is not because she did it because I guess she can’t do anything, but instead it got done to her by someone else (typically an evil man).

I would say that according to this silly logic, prostitutes in business for themselves, which is lots of them, are apparently trafficking themselves! But feminists logically say this is not possible, and I agree. Instead they are argue that prostitutes in business for themselves are being trafficked by the male customers who purchase their services! So every time a man buys a whore, he’s “trafficking” her. Ridiculous, huh?

So it appears that the morally upright Ms. Giuffre, now older, wiser, and probably a lot less horny, was never raped even one time, ever. Statutory rape doesn’t count. It’s a bit hard to argue that she was being trafficked, but Maxwell and Epstein caught her trying to leave them a couple of times and brought her back and threatened her. Ok, now they’re trafficking her, so she was trafficked some of the time.

Giuffre was working very profitably for as a prostitute for the rich and famous from ages 17-23. So for most of her career, from ages 18-23, she was an adult, a grown woman. Giuffre claims that during this entire time, she was being “sexually abused” or “abused.” She never had real sex the whole time. Instead she had some weird abuse masquerading as sex. Are you sure you didn’t like it, Ms. Giuffre? A lot of women like that sort of thing, you know.

“Sexual abuse” is a term that has been tortured, raped, and murdered by sex-panicked morons for a very long time now. It used to refer to child molestation, which involves adults and children under 13. From 13-17, depending on the laws, there is no sexual abuse. There’s just statutory rape or illegal intercourse. It’s not possibly to sexually abuse a teenage girl and you certainly cannot abuse a grown woman because no matter how infantile her silly little brain is, she’s still an adult, at least chronologically. Sexual abuse literally means child molestation and I don’t mind referring to child molestation and sexual abuse. It’s a logical way to see it.

Somehow now teenage girls with ravenous, nymphomaniacal sex drives get “sexually abused” a good part of the time when they have sex, even when it’s consensual. In other words, the term for child molesting got inflated by dumbshits all the way to teenage girls and from there all the way to so-called adult women, assuming there even are in an emotional sense.

It’s bullshit. It’s nonsense.

Poor Virginia suffered through the horrific ordeal of getting paid $15,000 to fuck a hot, sexy older man. It boggles the mind. No doubt this indignity was inflicted on the poor virginal Virginia endless times. How did she ever recover from getting paid $15K to get laid by some hot dude? Obviously, she’s a survivor. How she survived such a horror is simply beyond me.

Poor girl! Girls are crying! Poor Virginia! Virginia is crying! Poor women! Women are crying!

She never got sexually abused even one time except in her tiny little pea brain. And of course she never got raped even one time except her the fever dreams of her mind. Now she may well have been trafficked.

Virginia, I will take time out for abusing your sorry ass here to tell you that I am very sorry that these low lifes basically imprisoned you as a sex slave. I really am truly sorry.

And I hope whatever damage this may have caused you – and it may well have done so – you are able to get over it and move it. I’m sorry you got taken back and threatened when you tried to run away. At that point, Epstein and Maxwell were trafficking you. That’s a serious crime, and I hope you can make peace with it, and I mean that with all my heart, dear.

Now that I am done addressing Ms. Giuffre, back to the story.

95% of Virginian Giuffre’s story is a pathetic joke. It’s not even true. She’s just another silly bitch trying to milk us men for everything we’ve got like so many of her sisters. I hope she decides to do something more productive and dignified with her life than act like a baby, be a permanent victim, and make a living scamming men.

Lie Down with Dogs, Get up with Fleas

In response to the Bold Shooter post, I would like to add a couple of things.

I thought the shooter was White, but it looks like she’s Black also. Perhaps simply of the more light-skinned variety with died blond hair. By her clothing and jewelry belt, we can see that she’s pretty ghetto. The victim absolutely did not deserve to die, but looking at her photos, she was rather ghetto herself, albeit of the higher class sort that likes to appear classy and moneyed. I’m not trying to say she was a bad person because I have no idea how she behaved in her life. Thing is you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. Be careful who you befriend and hang out with!

The point is if you are involved in that ghetto culture at all as a Black person, you’re already in danger, and you might be a menace yourself. It’s not just that that culture is full of lousy and dangerous people. It’s more that even the better ones as perhaps this victim was are also in danger merely by being part of that culture. It puts you at risk just being in proximity to those people.

I have heard LE people say that many homicide victims were not particularly bad people themselves, but they were often hanging out in some pretty shady and dangerous places. In other words, a lot of victims do sort of bring it on themselves a bit by going out of their way to put themselves in harm’s way.

Of course I’ve done this myself hanging out in punk rock clubs and living a drug dealing criminal* for 14 years. But the White soft drug dealing culture I was part of was hardly violent at all, although once I bought thousands of dollars worth of pot in a garage from some ~18 year old Hispanic kids.

The pot had reportedly come from the Eme or the Mexican Mafia. It was quite scary but it was also an incredible danger rush of the kind that only committing crimes gives you. I also learned in living like that what an incredible rush committing crimes and being a criminal is. The danger and exhilaration rush, a mix of terror and excitement) is hard to match. I understand why men do it just for the testosterone rush and the bad boy credentials you get. I don’t know what to say except be careful and try not to victimize innocent people.

The thing is you start getting above street level dealing into say, selling pounds, and you are running with the big boys now, and things start to get shadier. Also these people often live restricted “Don’t want to meet any new people” lifestyles, and generally you hear about them all the time because you get your pot from them in a roundabout way, but then you almost never see them, and no way can you go over to their house and meet them. But generally the White pot-dealing culture wasn’t very dangerous even as you got into the higher levels. Whites just aren’t that violent. Even White criminals are not that violent.

Want to See the Future of America? Look at Latin America

White nationalists are constantly fearmongering that the future of the US is South Africa.

Let’s look at some statistics:

Percentage          Whites   Blacks  Other

US                      62         13       25

South Africa        9           88       3

Tell you what. When the Black population of the US nears 88%, come talk to me about how we are turning into South Africa. Until then, it’s just more White nationalist lunacy and idiocy and even, I might add, mental disorder (paranoia).

Instead, look south. Yes, yes, yes look to Latin America. A 100X yes! However, I cannot find a Latin American country which will resemble the US in the future. Look at California. Our state is probably the future of the country. Liberal Democrats, basically, and trending left. We’re almost going social democrat here; we’re hardly even liberals anymore!

Other than that, a number of our cities have degraded somewhat because as a city goes from White to Hispanic, there is a decline, though not a great one. It becomes a fairly upgraded version of Mexico. But crime is pretty low and behavior is pretty civilized. Be careful who you make friends with because a lot of Hispanics are not ok. They don’t bother strangers. The gang feuds are often not major problems, and they leave Whites out of it, as we are not in their wars.

Most Hispanics IMHO consider themselves honorary Whites or almost Whites. They don’t look at us as aliens. They all came from countries were Whites are just another meaningless ethnic group. Most don’t hate Whites at all.

Where a city goes full Mexican, it essentially collapses and turns into Mexico. As long as there is a base of at least 10% Whites to keep the lights on, collapse is averted. Hispanics need Whites. They can’t really cut it without us.

Other than that, there is a sense of alienation in Hispanic cities as if one is living in a foreign country in your own land, along with foreign mariachi music and a fairly foreign and quite socially conservative culture. The men are very macho so if you act masculine, you’re one of them. It’s a patriarchal society, so if you’re a man, you’re now part of the ruling group.

Spanish is spoken everywhere, so you might want to learn a phrase or two. You speak two sentences of their language, and they treat you like family and almost try to hug you. I speak Spanish fairly well so they love me.

Plus I don’t hate Hispanics. I’ve almost become an honorary Mexican myself. Mexican after all is not a racial group. Most of them are pretty nice people, especially the recent immigrants who hardly speak a word of English. I speak Spanish to them so they treat me like a hero.

There’s little feminism because most Hispanics hate feminism (social conservatives). Gays are very toned town too if they exist at all because the culture doesn’t like it. Young Hispanic gays in cities like mine usually just take off for some gay Mecca. Homosexual behavior in straight men, common among Whites if not hip, is extremely frowned upon. You call a man a fag here, and you will get hit! However, among 2nd and especially 3rd generation young Hispanics, all of this is changing, and there is a lot of SJWism, BLM support, and acceptance of sexual weirdness.

Overall, Hispanics are not the greatest thing since sliced bread, but you can live with them, or at least I can. I will not live with Blacks, that is, cities with large Black populations. Get out of here with that noise.

What the Democratic Party Is Really Like, From an Insider

I’m very hip to Democratic Party internals, as I hang out on a site that is basically the site of the DNC itself or the Democratic Party base. Actually it is both. The site is run by a left DNC guy, and most on the site are the hardcore base on the Democratic Party. That means the left wing of the DNC, which isn’t really Left at all to real Lefties as people like me say AOC and Bernie are too rightwing! I kid you not and most Lefties agree with me. The left wing of the Democratic Party or DNC are now calling themselves “progressives” instead of “liberals,” but we on the real Left still don’t really like them. Progressive and liberals are quite different. Liberal Democrats can be shockingly rightwing. My Dad was a liberal Democrat his whole life and he was terribly rightwing on some things.

The only ones I really like are Ilhan Omar and Cori Bush. The base is a lot more leftwing than the elected officials are. The liberals, progressives, and Lefties in the party are all in on the SJW Cultural Left madness – there’s no compromise there and if you disagree you are a Nazi who needs a punch in the face. In a sense, the normal Democratic Party now is the same as antifa and BLM on cultural issues. Cultural issues are a lost cause. The Left won the culture war. The “conservative Democrats” formerly prominent before the election of JFK, are pretty much history. The modern example of one is Biden!

Same with Republicans. The base is a lot more rightwing than the elected officials, though this changed with Trump, as he was the candidate of the base of the Republican Party. That base is so rightwing that having its candidate President and seeing it up-close terrified quite a few liberal and moderate Republicans (especially Jewish Republicans) so much that they left the party or voted Democrat.

Quite a few Republicans left the party under Trump, and few new ones came in. People think they all went to the Democratic Party, but most went Independent because most Republicans, even Never Trumpers, have a low opinion of the Democrats and an “over my dead body” attitude towards joining the party but not towards voting for them in extreme situations, and Trump was an extreme situation to them.

Very few Democrats supported Trump. 5-10%. Most of the remaining Republicans voted Trump (90%) because everyone who hated him took off. The Independents were the true wild card recently and in recent elections, they trended moderate to conservative Democrat in voting, mostly due to an influx of former Republicans now voting Democrat.

The sad truth to Lefties like me is that most US Presidents end up being somewhere in the liberal Republican to conservative Democrat Center. Both of those categories are extinct – liberal Republicans are nearly extinct (but look at the governors of Vermont, Massachusetts, and Maryland) and conservative Democrats are a memory.

As I have an up front view of the base of the party and the DNC, I can tell you flat out that the left and right wings of the party completely hate each other. The DNC guys had to actually wade in and ban fights between the Bernie Crowd and the Hillary supporters on the site I’m on because they both basically wanted to murder each other. There was a lot more unity during Trump because most wings hated him so much and allied on that basis.

Now there is some rallying around Biden as a “Let’s all put our differences aside and rally round Biden” thing. Also, he is being pulled left by the direction of his own party now, so he’s not so bad as the left wing thought he was. Still, Biden was probably the most rightwing Democrat running in the primary last year. Yeah. This is how conservative Democrats now. You think that’s bad, you should see the liberal and progressive Democrats!

The leftwing base of the party and the DNC itself moved quite a bit left under Trump. Meanwhile the base and RNC moved very much to the right under Trump. So the Democrats are moving left, and the Republicans are moving right. It’s as if you have a rope that is being pulled by strong forces of men at each side in a tug of war. Sooner or later, it splits in the middle, and the people on each side fall down.

Alt Left: Francis Miville on the Need for a Do-over of the American System

He is commenting on my post here. Full Democracy in the US Will Be a Boon for Democrats and a Catastrophe for Republicans.

What I meant is an Alt Left notion of “The system is too far gone for reform. Let’s tear it all down and start over again from scratch,” which is exactly how I feel about my country.

However, I meant just the basic political system and culture. However, that would indeed take a “Cultural Revolution” if you will. And many countries had them. We had a huge cultural revolution in the 1960’s. It’s not all about Red Guards.

The sickness is baked far too deeply into the system. The State Department, the Executive and Legislature Branches themselves, the legalization of mass bribery and corruption via money-based elections, the Pentagon, the CIA, and even the FBI – they all need a wipe it out and start over again cleansing.

Look at how hard it will be to dismantle even US imperialism. Imperialism is baked into US society from top to bottom. 500 military bases overseas? Sanctions? Embargoes? Economic warfare? US control of the world monetary system via the dollar as fiat currency? The sickness of the weapons for oil deal with the Gulf Arabs, the alliance with fascist Turkey, NATO its very self (which is controlled by the US), on and on.

For instance, few know this, but the CIA is baked into all of US society at the levels of the elite class and the corporations. The elite class (the rich), the corporations, the powerful lobbies, ethnic and commodity-based, the Pentagon, the Treasury Department, the Commerce Department are all baked in with the national security state and its vast intelligence arm consisting of 17 different out of control agencies with a $30 billion budgets for scullduggery, lying, cheating, thieving, murder, and overthrowing other countries via coups of all sorts, including the fake color revolutions.

These are the people who killed Kennedy.

These are the people who run this country. The oil barons in Texas, the Silicon Valley uber-rich, the capitalist bastards on Wall Street and at the Wall Street Journal, the sick and twisted FIRE sector, the last of which basically a parasitic and non-prodcutive form of wealth creation via speculation or as I call it “a giant casino in the sky.”

That’s the US economy now – a giant casino in the sky for rich people. All the rest of us? We can go pound sand. That or get rich, which is usually accomplished by mass lying, cheating, and thieving on an individual level. We are now virtually governed by corporations and billionaires. We have billionaires taking over NASA for their own sleazy ends. We’ve outsourced everything to the billionaires and the corporations.

When you study the Kennedy Assassination, you realize that there was a vast group of people either in on it or supportive of it, and many of them have talked. A friend had lunch with LBJ’s attorney, who said Kennedy was killed by “the foreign policy establishment of the United States.” And that right there is the Deep State, and not only that, but the Deep State also encompasses all of the above via the support of the rich and the corporations for US foreign policy.

The Pentagon and the CIA work for Exxon and Elon Musk, not you and me. We overthrow foreign governments for the Richard Bransons and the Chevrons, not for you and me. How does it feel to join the US Army and become the personal army of and risk your life for Monsanto and Rex Tillerson? You died in a US war? Sucker! You died for Jeff Bezos and the Blackrock Group! You proud of yourself now, wherever you are, chump?

Because the rot and evil is so “baked in” to the system, it is going to be very hard to change. Look what happens in Latin America where they try to do similar cleansings of the oligarchies and diseased societies they created. You get coups, economic warfare, sanctions, embargoes, propaganda wars, assassination attempts, lockout strikes, color revolutions, stolen elections, lawfare, guarimbas, contra armies engaging on counterrevolution, on and on.

I am absolutely certain that at least some of those will happen if we try to do a do-over on America. The big guns are just not going to like it, and they will do everything in their power to stop it.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I am especially irked when I hear so many ne’erdowells whining about their beloved Trump having been defrauded of his sure win election by the evil globalists and America’s now being in great danger to suffer a Mao-style Cultural Revolution at the hands of the “ultra-Left”.

Such a degree of abuse of words might terminate faster than we think, as English as an international communication tool fit for intelligent exchange of ideas. First of all, how come the Republican Party is “red” and any state refusing it “blue”: that seems to go together well with the US being the only country refusing to go metric.

Had America been endowed even with a tolerably good semblance of democratic system as used to be usual in Europe and still is here and there, Trump would have had no chance to be anything more than a backwater talk show animator and maybe the governor of Missouri or Louisiana turning that state into a laughingstock for the nation and triggering that state to go full radical Socialist Left the election after. Trump was imposed onto America thanks to its stochastic electoral system.

The system looks like that of the old Republic of Venice (which was more or less a kind of rigged from behind roulette-like game of chance, with the difference they claimed of chance and not of the people’s will) against a definite majority’s will by both the financial forces revolving around the Goldman Sachs bank and Netanyahu.

Netanyahu is Trump’s alter ego in the Old World (Russia playing a subsidiary role in that enterprise). He was actually a kind of Israeli governor directly imposed at international level against America’s own Zionist, but still to intelligent oligarchy just as a reminder to the nation that they are no longer sovereign and are to be treated like any African dependency where no intelligent people need apply from now on.

Alt-Right fell for that trap, bar very few thinking people. In a certain sense, Trump has been America’s first real “black” president.

They fear for a Mao-style Cultural Revolution to happen by the American ultra-Leftist forces. For the time being I see nobody on the American horizon still trying and succeeding in part to impose the cult of his personality as a kind of savior or Emperor Cyrus rather than Orange-Hue-Tan.

He is in the real position (though not in mental capacity, and probably not in mental disposition neither, as he doesn’t give a damn for his adoring crowd) to head a Cultural Counterrevolution to be followed by a Great Leap Backwards leading to the transformation of the US into the Neo-Medieval Republic of Gilead as described by Margaret Atwood in Handmaid’s Tale.

Actually I have also come on my own to your own conclusion: The US is indeed in great need of some Mao-like Old Far Left Cultural Revolution that should do away with all “olderies” and force all conservatives to acknowledge at last, through violent behavioral psychiatric techniques if need be, that there is absolutely nothing worth conserving in the US and that all has to be rebuilt from zero, and preferably from Ground Zero.

There is no single historical non-fake monument worth preserving except North Harlem’s Cloisters: the few other ones of decent colonial style have been all demolished to make room for cheaper and cheaper built and dearer and dearer sold condos, except a few that were built by slavers still having descendants caring for their property, but that kind of historical monument is rather to be classified with Holocaust Museums in my opinion.

The general infrastructure is in such a state of disrepair that bombing it all first would probably come out cheaper than getting back a working one. Most cities of the Rust Belt are already kind of bombed, so why not finish the job? There is nothing worth fireworks in the background; instead, there is everything worth fireworks in the structure.

As it is a Cultural Revolution we are talking about here, my opinion is that at the present moment no university is worth preserving. That is an euphemism: There is rather an emergency case for burning them all down, while what needs to be taught could be taught for free on the internet, preferably from as far overseas as possible. The diplomas emitted by them should be all declared void as has been done with Trump University sheepskins. Showing one in order to get any job should be an offense.

Among the olderies to be done away with first are the American religions: they are 100% crap. Their buildings should have one use – lodging and feeding the homeless. If they are no good for that purpose, they should be used as quarries for construction material by the homeless. As a general rule a new Homestead Act should apply: the first who sees a university building or a religious building that doesn’t serve the poor, let him take the ground and material for his own physical needs as if it were a vacant lot in conquered territory.

By what kind of economic miracle has America, which used to be the chief manufactured goods exporter of the world and won two world wars as such, turned into a chief exporter of only religion and mega-churches only (if we except the military sector from our equation, which is concentrated in the former Slaving South)? Has America so many saints, sages, and masterworks of timeless wisdom to be exported to the planet?

There should be only one single tax: Henry George ** 2. His equation was by the square of the value of real estate owned per owner or co-owner, which would make collectivization the only survivable solution while preserving personal liberty.

Activities not resulting in the production of physical goods, including religion, law, education, and medicine, should be declared out of reach of any lucrative enterprise and the attempt to make them lucrative classified together with prostitution. That is, either they are practiced for free as leisure, or they are charities (for real needy ones), or they are public services.

Alt Left: Russian Thinking on Black-White Versus Grey Areas

Commenter Siberiancat, who is a Russian, left this comment a while back:

Russians are pretty good with gray areas.

An illustration:

A Russian emigrant mathematician and psychologist Vladimir Lefevre was an adviser to Reagan on how to conduct negotiations with Gorbachev. He had a theory that Western and Eastern European (in this case, Soviet) ethics were completely different.

In Western thinking, there is a clear difference between Good and Evil. One should confront evil, yet compromise with an enemy is a good thing

In the Eastern approach, there is no Good and Evil. Everything is gray. The ends justify the means, and one should not compromise with an enemy.

The advice was to conduct negotiations in such a way that the Soviets would not look like compromising to the domestic constituency. Make negotiations mostly informal. Avoid formal deals that might be seen as defeats by the ordinary Russians.

I would not say that Russians are Easterners, having nothing in common with the Chinese or Indians, yet the ethical systems between them and the West are obviously different.

Oh, and Lefevre was the guy who coined the term Evil Empire.

I find it interesting that he ties Eastern European (as in Slavic?) thinking with Russian thinking. What about in the Baltic states? They’re so Westernized. And the Czechs are so Western they are barely even Slavs. And what do we do with the Romanians? The culture and religion of the East, yet the language of the West? I suspect they are more Eastern than we think. The Balkans, Greece, …Hell, even Bulgaria, are more Southern European or better yet, Southeastern European.

I know everyone over there hates the Turks and I don’t blame them, but I’m afraid that they’re more Turkified than they think, especially the Greeks. Or perhaps the entire region is Southeast Europanified, Southeast European being different from both Eastern and Southern Europe. The Turks like to delude themselves that they are part of general Southeastern Europe, but that is just more Muslim arrogance. They’re so much closer to the Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians, and Kurds that they hate so much than they will ever admit. Religion isn’t as big a part of human culture as everyone thinks. In a lot of areas, it’s almost a cultural “add-on.”

I do like this part though:

In the Eastern approach, there is no Good and Evil. Everything is gray.

Reminds me of the great line from Rumi:

Over there
In that field
Beyond good and evil
I will meet you there

– Rumi

That is just so perfect, I am sorry. And it’s so…Eastern…Hell, it’s almost downright Chinese for Chrissake. Rumi was an Iranian Shia Sufi poet. I wonder to what extent Iranian thinking is “Eastern?” I hate to say like Chinese, but I sense a deep vibe of Chinese philosophy in that bit of terse poetry.

Alt Left: A Black Person Wrote This

Growing up, I lived through true systemic racism. Trust me when I tell you it is real. The problem is, it is not coming from White people. Systemic racism in the US is Black racism against Whites! American Black culture was born out of rebellion and resistance towards an unfair system at that time. Yet it has failed to change with the times in society.

Black African Culture is not one that can mix with other cultures because it is by design rebellious and resistant. Everything from language to appearance is almost the direct opposite of “White culture,” for lack of a better term. Asking White people to accept or adapt to the Black culture that has formed in America is not practical or even possible because it is in direct conflict with and geared to rebel against White people and to destroy all of White civilization, replacing it with the violent, primitive anti-civilization which characterizes nearly all of Africa.

This really isn’t hard to understand. In American Black culture, all White people are “the enemy” from the start. Whites built the civilization that Blacks aspire to but which they aren’t capable of creating among or by themselves. The core mentality – that White people and what White people have created are “the enemy” which must be destroyed – has to change before anything else can.

Black American culture, which is inherently rebellious and based on resentment or hatred of others, is not sustainable, even for it’s own people. Once the rest of society distances itself from that culture, the same rebellious, resentful mentality will cause the people to turn inward against each other because that is all those people know. We see it in every place Blacks live: murder, rape, and other violent crime spirals out of control among Blacks.

They are right about systemic race problems, but they are looking to make changes in all the wrong places.

Everyone’s going to scream that this is racism or even ultra-racism. The automatic assumption is he’s a White nationalist, except he’s just some Black guy who got to know his people a little too well.

The truly disturbing thing about this post is: Just how much of it is really true?

For starters, I don’t think Blacks are out to destroy White civilization. The ones here seem like they are, but they’re just idiots. Blacks in general in most of the world do not have destruction of White civilization on their agenda. Further, Blacks are only 13% of the population. 13% of the people will never destroy the civilization of the majority. They just can’t, and most of them don’t even think about it anyway. They’re too busy fucking, getting high, and Holocausting each other to think about us very much, if you ask me.

I agree that Black culture doesn’t mix well with other cultures, but Arab and Islamic societies seem to have figured out a way to work them in. In Latin America, everyone is so mixed that there is no Black culture, for all intents and purposes.

It is basically rebellious and resentful here in the West, but is that true in the Caribbean? Dubious. In Africa? Not really. Only in South Africa.

I agree that here in the US, the rebellion and resentfulness have turned inward onto themselves. That’s clear to me.

I agree that Whites are the enemy, yet nevertheless, many Blacks (a majority?) all want the society that the White Man Built. Except left to their own devices with such a society handed to them on a silver platter, indeed they cannot maintain it. Look at any majority Black large city.

Black people need to live with others. Gathering together masses of Black people unmixed with others just doesn’t seem to work out well.

In a lot of ways, Black Culture is the polar opposite of White Culture, but when you get towards more middle class and/or educated Blacks, the differences between them and us are not severe. Sure, there are differences all right, and I don’t necessarily want a Black girlfriend who hangs mostly with Blacks unless they act pretty White. I’m just not into that culture of theirs, not that it’s terrible in modified form, but it’s just not my culture, and it’s not for me. They can have it.

It is true that asking Whites to adopt Black culture will never work, though many wiggers are trying their darndest. Still, most Whites find this culture abhorrent and want nothing to do with it. It’s like a negation or a polar opposite of everything we believe and value. In addition, this culture is opposed to us, so why would we join a culture that hates us?

to destroy all of White civilization, replacing it with the violent, primitive anti-civilization which characterizes nearly all of Africa.

Well, yeah, but in North Africa and the Sahel, the Islamic Black Culture is not really so bad. Sub-Saharan Africa has been the Dark Continent forever, probably from the start and certainly before Livingston. This only happens in a place like South Africa, where Whites are 9%, and non-Whites, most of whom are Black, are 91%. Also those Blacks are very unintelligent. US Blacks are much more intelligent than South African Blacks, with an IQ that is ~20 points higher. That’s almost 1.5 standard deviations and this explains much of why US Blacks act so much better in so many ways than African Blacks.

And no, White nationalists, the future of the US is not South Africa! The future of the US is a 91% Black America? Get real.

We see it in every place Blacks live: murder, rape, and other violent crime spirals out of control among Blacks.

I agree that we see it in every case where large numbers of Blacks are crowded together, such as in larger cities, typically where they form a majority.

He’s also probably right that there is far more systemic or institutional racism among Blacks towards Whites than the other way around. I’m not really buying the systemic or institutional racism thing. I think it’s mostly a bunch of crap.

Alt Left: Christianity Is Anti-Capitalist?

Christianity Is Anti-Capitalist?

James Schipper: Still, theologically, Christianity is not a capitalism-friendly religion. There is nothing in the NT which encourages wealth accumulation or expresses admiration for the rich. In earlier times, there were very rich monasteries but also monastic orders which are committed to poverty, such as the Franciscans. These monasteries were rich for the same reason that Harvard and Yale are very rich. They became rich through donations and bequests.

Sure, theologically it may be so, but in practice, capitalism, extreme inequality, and class hatred have been accommodated in Christian countries quite easily.

You can say that Christianity is against capitalism all you want, but it hasn’t worked out that way in the West.

Social democracy was an easy sell in Europe, but the US is worse classwise than any European country. In the US we almost have a celebration of inequality and that’s somehow been accommodated with the Christianity, which seems weird. The Gospel of Wealth the Evangelicals practice here strikes me as downright heretical though. If Jesus was around, he’d reject it.

Feudalism lasted a long time in Europe, and early capitalism in England was horrible from the 1300’s-1800’s. England is terribly classist even today, but there’s a huge backlash. Thatcher was burned in effigy all over the UK when she died. Can you imagine that happening with Reagan in the US? The class hatred in the UK is pretty raw.

Classism in France was awful, but they killed their rich, and now it’s socialist.

Germany never had a vicious capitalist class. The Kaiser put in the first social democracy in the late 1800’s. It went over easily.

Italy’s never been all that classist, nor has Greece. After World War 2 in Italy, Communists were set to win local elections all over Italy but the US CIA got involved and there was massive election fraud that cheated them out of a victory. But Eurocommunists have been running states in Italy for decades, especially in the North. They’ve had a heavy emphasis on small business at the expense of big business and it’s worked great. I had a commenter on here who owned a small factory in a northern state and he loved the local Communist government. And he was a capitalist! In Greece, the Communists almost won a revolution.

I don’t think Eastern Europe has been classist. Communism went over easily there.

Communism went over easily in Yugoslavia too, though it was a modified form. It was also very popular. I know people who lived there, and they loved it. They almost won in Turkey too.

The Baltics are not classist and neither is Scandinavia. That area is all based on egalitarianism.

Spain and Portugal were classist, but there was a civil war in Spain, and it’s a pretty socialist country right now.

There was a Leftist Carnation Revolution in 1974 that overthrew Salazar’s fascism and a Leftist regime was nearly installed. It was very popular.

Alt Left: Francis Melville on the the Two Principal US Political Parties Views on Sexual Purity and Moral Sanctimoniousness

Absolutely superb comment from Francis Melville on this post.

Well, the Democrats used to be the Victorian prudish ones during the whole Nineteenth Century and through Wilson, and remained so wherever their voting base was Catholic up to 1965 when the Vatican II Council turned the Catholic Church into a liberal thing on most issues that had to ally with liberal forces to get heard in the political arena.

After all, the moral base of the Democratic Party was established under Jackson, and it formed under the influence of the most Calvinistic and sectarian part of the American public opinion.

Up through Wilson, the Democratic Party was more clearly rightwing than the Republican on most issues, while the Republicans took pride in being centre of the road. Even when they came to be the party of Big Business, their principle was clear: separation between church and state and even more between bedroom and state.

They believed you were entitled to a religious life, however wacko, provided you kept it for yourself and never planned to use government to promote it, and you were therefore entitled to any kind of sex life, however un-American, provided you did not involve the Party institutions nor aggressed any non-consenting victim.

Sexual virtue signalling was a Democratic thing as everything populist in general has always been. The alignment changed during the 20th century with Prohibition and consequently progressive thinkers of European origin aligning themselves systematically with the Democratic Party, in particular when the main presenters of these progressive currents happened to be Jews.

But even during the 1950’s as the Catholic church had remained the last bulwark of anti-sexual moralism on the backdrop of a Protestant world which had then succumbed to Utilitarianism, most regressive laws passed by the state in sexual affairs were passed under a Democratic banner. Worse, the Catholic world, like also the Muslim and Hindu world of that time, having little to do with higher morality, was more open to homosexuality and pederasty than to any heterosexual romance, as the latter was deemed a far greater danger to family life.

The McCarthy Era was driven by Irish Catholicism, and Irish Catholics loved to present themselves as the only true representatives and saviors of American values.

Meanwhile, the Republicans were gradually morphing into the party of absolute egoism and negation of public good. Swingers as had been produced by the Sexual Revolution of late Sixties and early Seventies proved to be egoists to a supreme degree and chose to be Republicans Ayn Rand style, most contrary to the hope entertained by Marcuse and others that Sexual Liberation would be the first stepping stone out of capitalistic Puritanism into the Long March towards a more just society.

In general, sexually speaking, dominant males’ dream is not sexual free choice for all but for themselves only as a tiny group on the backdrop of a puritanical society guaranteeing them an endless supply of innocent female prey that will make an exception to the Puritanism only under economic duress and due to the prohibition of them being pursued by impoverished males.

Reagan Republicans’ alliance with Moral Majority is to be seen in that perspective, both inside the non-believing wing of the Republican Party and inside the Evangelist sects also, where the main preachers always copy the great polygamous Biblical patriarchs, while imposing Puritanism on the masses of their attendants that haven’t studied the Bible deeply enough to know and realize the game.

The fake Protestant Republicans made their show in pure contradiction with what the Republicans, even the very right-wing ones, had been through. Eisenhower embraced religion in pure contradiction with that party’s stance of refusal of any reference to religion in the political sphere.

Meanwhile, the Democrats were quietly reverting, under corporate donor pressure and especially under Zionist Jewish pressure, to what they had been in Dixie times – there is no need to look further. The Democratic Party never stopped being multicultural, and that included necessarily that religious identities of all sorts had never ceased to be the party of confusion between the political and the religious spheres.

Traditionally, it was the Catholic Church as a provider of militants from Irish and Latino backgrounds, but now that since Vatican II the Roman Church no longer wanted to play the same role as it used to, a Virtual Catholic Church has formed.

It is made up of an alliance of Whites claiming progressivism but practicing astrology and other occult sciences as to cater for their own spiritual needs and more colored people practicing non-Christian ultra-conservative religions such as Islam and Hinduism, and calling for the unification of the world under this undefined-but-more-totalitarian-than-ever faith.

Celts who leave Catholicism and revert back to some sort Druidism are always puritanical to the highest degree, as they equate sexual energy with ultimate financial capital and as always being against of any form of social justice scheme, since they believe in karma, not divine grace.

It must be first well-understood that contrary to what a superficial cultural cliché teaches about Germanic conqueror tribes enslaving peaceful Celtic ones, Germanic cultures have always fallen for hippie (long hair, self-indulgence, social redistribution in favor of workers and artists) values when left alone to themselves in small nations, and Celtic cultures for skinhead or Hell’s Angels values (shaven heads, androgynous look, food fascism under various pretexts, indifference to misery).

Alt Left: The Idiocy and Uselessness of Modern Anti-racism

The Nigger Word

I refuse to call it the n-word as I’m not a hypersensitive homosexual. I’m a real man, so I can handle real words, even not-nice words. I’m tough enough. I can deal. Throw it at me. All you got. I’ll sit here and take it like a man.

A 15 year old girl calls her White friends niggers on a video because that is what she and her friends call each other and her life is wrecked by the Fuddy Duddy Antiracist Left. You know, like Black people do?

A country singer calls his friend a nigger as they are going home on a weekend and his career is almost wrecked. He and his friends call each other niggers. You know, like Black people do?

A professor of Chinese discusses a phrase called nee gah in Chinese, which means something or other. Anyway it’s frequently used, whatever the Hell it means. Some sissy Black guys heard that word and wet the bed that night because they hallucinated that the professor he said “nigger.”What a bunch of homos.

A law professor puts a question on a test about discrimination law. It describes an incident where a White woman calls a Black women a nigger, among other things. Some Black girlyman sees it and says he almost had a heart attack. If he’s that much of a sissy, I’m sorry he didn’t have a heart attack! Last thing we need is more pussy men.

Various people have been fired from high-paying jobs and got their careers wrecked for having discussions along the lines of, “Hey, if Black people can say nigger, why can’t we Whites say it?” There is a reasonable answer to this from Black people – that it means one thing when Blacks say it and another when Whites do – but that’s not always the case and anyway, it’s a reasonable area of discussion.

We can’t even say the word or write it out because too many Black manginas might wet their pants. Oh poor babies!

Black Men Have Turned into a Bunch of Crybaby Sissies

Hey stupid Black people! We aren’t talking about you, you wet blanket, no fun, party pooper, crybaby sissies! I thought you Black men were tough. All I see is a bunch of crybabies anymore.

What the Hell, men? Black men act like girls now. Someone says one word and they piss their pants and say they’re having a heart attack. You all are acting like a bunch of faggots, man.

Knock it off and man up. That was one thing we White people liked about  Black men. At least you’re masculine! You’re masculine as Hell! Too masculine really. Well, that’s all gone now. You say one word to a Black guy and he says you broke his eardrum and he will need two months of therapy. Nothing but a bunch of girlymen. Pathetic!

Some guy says uses the term Black hole when discussing matters relating to a mostly Black city council and the NAACP, now an utterly worthless organization of morons and dipshits, has a shit-fit. These dumbass Blacks thought he was calling Black people “Black holes” when really he was using the term astronomically in some sense.

All of this shows useless, pointless, and ultimately insane modern anti-racism is.

Martin had a point. So did Malcolm. So did the Panthers. They were at least talking about some real shit. Now it’s nothing but a bunch of queers and screaming vixen who get offended and wet their pants 500 times a day. Oh poor babies! Need to go to your safe space now so you can cry?

The Problem of Hate Facts

James Watson the discover of the double helix DNA structure, tells the truth, that Black people simply are not as smart as White people, and his career is wrecked. Because everyone said he told a racist lie. But what he said is straight up pure scientific fact. No one who studies these matters regards this as a controversial statement anymore. The debate ended decades ago. But the word never filtered down to popular culture, which is still pushing the belief, moronic on its face, that the human races are basically equal. They evolved differently in different places, so why on Earth would anyone expect them to be equal.

Even the expectation is idiotic. It’s barely even a hypothesis worth testing as it’s so stupid that it almost blows it at the hypothesis level. Yet this retarded belief in the equality of the races in all things is the current view of mainstream US society. Deviate from it and tell the scientific truth at your own risk. If you tell the truth, you lose your job and your career. The only way to stay afloat in this dumb society is mouth a bunch of stupid lies that anyone with half a brain knows is wrong. It’s almost like Idiocracy has already arrived.

Alt Left: The Standard View of Psychiatry on Statutory Rape (Sex between Adults and 13-17 Year Old Girls)

It’s not pathological for a man of any age to have sex with a teenage girl of any age. That’s clear from the debates around DSM-5 Hebephilia which wished to pathologize men who have a preference for girls under 15 over mature females. The criteria would probably have been been severe and persistent fantasies of pubertal girls, so that would rule out most men. However, fully 21% of all men are more attracted to girls under 13 than they are to mature females!

I realize that figure is shocking, but bear with me. It’s been born out by study after study.

I did some research on the local Yokuts Indians from a site in the 1600’s-1700’s. They had a series of skeletons of young women who had all died. They were between ages of 27-35. The assumption was that this was a woman’s lifespan among this primitive tribe. She was dead by age 31! If a woman is going to be dead by age 31, she’d best start having kids at age 16 or maybe even younger. If she starts breeding at age 16, her children will be 15 when she dies. Starting at 15, her kids would be 16 when she died. Starting at 14, her kids would be 17 when she died.

In Mexico, they marry their women and start breeding them at age 14, and it is usually an adult man who marries her. In most primitive tribes, there is a coming of age ceremony around age 15. Even today among most primitive tribes, girls and boys are both considered full adults at age 15. According to modern, advanced American thinking, 100% of the people in primitive tribes today are child molesters and pedophiles! See how stupid that sounds? 95% of the American population actually thinks like this.

You might think it’s terrible for a teen’s mother to die when the teen is 15-17 years old, but back then, that was just normal. The kids would not be left adrift anyway as by that age, they were all no longer boys and girls but full-fledged men and women.

Furthermore, sad events that are normalized in your society may not be very traumatizing. Much of the trauma occurs because people are told that something horrible has happened to them. Before they get told that, they were often not sure of how to process the event. If instead we told that that what happened was wrong or bad but it was no big deal and they would get over it, you would see the trauma rates collapse.

Tell someone they’ve been traumatized and guess how they act? They act traumatized! In our society, we’ve decided that 50% of life is traumatizing, especially with the snowflakes and their safe spaces and microaggressions. No wonder so much young people seem so nuts these days. We’ve been yelling at them that they’re being traumatized all the time all through childhood and teen years and it doesn’t even get better when they grow up. So they act, duh. Traumatized! Of course once you have a Traumatizing Society, you need to set up a huge Trauma Industry dedicated to making mountains out of molehills and ensuring that grown adults remain pussified babies long into adulthood.

The modern notion that people are all little tiny children until the day they hate 18 is insane. It’s backed up by notions that the brain is not fully matured by 17. Well, it’s not fully matured by age 24-26 either, so let’s put the age of consent for sex and the majority at age 25! After all, you’re only an adult when your brain is mature, right?

Truth is that people mature at different ages. In early times in the West, children were considered “little adults” and were often treated as such. It’s not known if they matured earlier then but maybe they did. Treat someone like a kid, they act like a kid. Treat someone like an adult, they act like an adult.

Although this sounds very groovy and compassionate to our postmodern, late capitalist, metrosexual, 3rd Wave feminist ears, the truth is that for 200,000 years of our evolution, no human gave two shits that the brain didn’t fully mature until age 25, although they probably had some notion of the idea. They simply didn’t feel it was worth thinking about because frankly it isn’t. Our present culture infantalizes teenagers and young adults to an extreme degree. Infantalizing humans doesn’t seem to be a good idea to me, but maybe “modern people” have other ideas. After all, treat someone like a baby and they act like one, right?

Further, most primitive tribes allow both boys and girls to start having sex at puberty, around age 13. The girls often have sex with boys, but sometimes they have sex with men. For instance, the typical marriage among the Blackfoot Indians was between a man aged 35 and a 15 year old girl. Our “modern, scientific, compassionate” society would state unequivocally that all Blackfoot men were pedophiles or child molesters for the thousands of years that the tribe was in existence.

Isn’t that a stupid way to think? Look how stupid we are! We’re surrounded by all these damned gadgets, we are so technologically advanced that we’re about to become literal aliens, we can cure or help most diseases, we understand most of the most important questions, including the biggies or we’re on our way to figuring them out. Unified Theory, here we come!

But some goddamned primitive Indian with a digging stick and a rock to grind acorns in who doesn’t know the first thing about technology, science, or medicine has more wisdom we “advanced” clowns do. For Chrissake, we may be advancing technologically, but we’re going backwards in terms of wisdom. How pathetic is it that Silicon Valley ultra-technologists have less wisdom that some primitive tribe eking out an existence in the jungle? Are we too civilized for our own damn good? It’s possible to get so “civilized,” protective, pampering, and fussy that you’re not even rational anymore. That my modern colleagues have less wisdom than some spearchucker in the jungle is a pretty sad statement!

From age 13-15, most girls are not very fertile, so it’s hard to get pregnant.

The debate around Hebephilia ended up concluding that even having a strong preference for pubertal children as sex partners was not mentally disordered. Further, it wasn’t even abnormal! Having been in chatrooms full of these guys, I’m not so sure about that, but it’s best to keep as much sex crap out of the DSM as we can.

It was even decided that having sex with 13-15 year old girls if one had a preference for them was not mentally disordered either because most crimes are not mental disorders and most criminals aren’t nuts. Instead, the argument was that these men weren’t nuts – instead they were just criminals, with being criminal and being nuts as two different things!

Of course most crooks aren’t nuts. They’re just bad. Are there disorders called Murder Disorder, Mugging Disorder, Fraudster Disorder, Batterer Disorder, Attempted Murder Disorder, Burglar Disorder, Robber Disorder, Forger Disorder, etc.? Well, of course not.

In mental health all we care about is if something is nuts or not. Hence we don’t care much about criminal behavior because most crooks aren’t nuts. We leave that to the judicial system to deal with and moral philosophers to decide what to allow and forbid. If people are disordered, we say they are abnormal. If people are not disordered, we say they are normal. Obviously a lot of real bad people are not disordered. So we are forced to call a lot of criminal behavior and most criminals normal because neither one is generally crazy. So a lot of very bad behavior and people are “normal” in the sense that they’re not nuts.

So a man of any age having sex with a teenage girl of any age does not make him sexually abnormal, as it’s completely “normal” behavior, as in, it’s not nuts, and even, looking at human history and other cultures, in most places and times, it was more or less normal.

But normal behavior doesn’t necessarily mean ok behavior. It just means that the behavior is not crazy.

The statutory rape matter is a moral and legal problem, not a psychological one.

We in mental health do not like to pathologize crimes and morally unethical behavior as psychological disorder. This is outside of what we care about and off into the lands of moral philosophers, religious thinkers, and legal theorists. It is in the area of right and wrong, good and bad, and good and evil. Most criminal behavior is not driven by psychological disorder. It’s driven by a defective moral conscience.

So whether it should be legal for a man of whatever age to have sex with a teenage girl or whatever age is a moral matter, a moral question. Perhaps you feel it is the worst behavior on Earth. Perhaps you think it’s completely ok and should be legal. Probably you are somewhere between those views. All of those views about this behavior are valid, as everyone and hence society itself is entitled to reasonable moral values of right and wrong.

Why was there an attempt to shove Hebephilia into the DMSO category in the first place. Because it was a game. A game called “Call Em Crazy, Lock Em up as Dangerous Forever, and Throw Away the Key.” Otherwise known as preventive detention. Or putting people in prison for life for the crime of “dangerousness.”

The game here is make a lot of the sexual behavior we dislike into “mental illnesses.” Because the only way we can lock someone up forever on the bullshit charge of “dangerousness” (there’s no such crime) is if they’re nuts. Yep. You can be dangerous as Hell, and as long as you’re not officially crazy and you’re just a mean SOB, it’s all kosher.

Obviously most sex offenders are not the slightest bit nuts, so a scam was made up to call them crazy so we could lock them up forever in preventive detention (which is probably illegal) for the rest of their lives because we think maybe they might sort of kind of a little bit possibly theoretically plausibly do something, we don’t know what, to someone, we don’t who, somewhere, we don’t know where, somehow, we don’t know how.

That’s unconstitutional on its face.

The only people you can lock up like are the dangerously mentally ill, and you are supposed to release them when they get better, except we never do because no matter how much better they get, we always say they’re not better enough. So we wanted to lock all these poor sops away forever, but we couldn’t because they weren’t nuts, they were just bad people, you know, like most criminals? So a scam was created to make up a bunch of “mental disorders” out of what are mostly just kinks and sexual perversions, when it’s doubtful whether any kinky or perverted people are actually nuts.

Generally they’re not nuts. They’re just perverts. Perverts aren’t nuts. They’re perverted. Two different things.

So they made up a fake mental disorder called Pedophilia to lock up all the child molesters forever, although most men in preventive detention are nonpedophilic molesters. Also they never let them out even when they get better because no matter how much better they get, the cops still say they’re not better enough yet. When will they be better enough? When they’re dead! It’s right out of Kafka. They just sit and rot forever. All because, you know, think of the children! And the usual pearl clutching we Americans so excel at.

So we decided all the chomos and short eyes had a “mental disease” called “Pedophilia” that made them “insane” or if you prefer “crazy.” Well, it doesn’t make you insane and it doesn’t even make you crazy. It might make you do bad things, but it doesn’t make you nuts. And since we decided on no rational basis whatsoever that all of these people were permanently dangerous, we have locked them all away forever on the basis that they are “dangerously mentally ill.” It’s all a big joke.

Dangerously mentally ill is supposed to be for the paranoid schizophrenic who grabs a gun and climbs a tower. It’s not for run of the mill criminals. Merely being dangerous as opposed to being nuts and dangerous is not granted the penalty of preventive detention because it’s decided that as long as you’re not nuts, you have at least some ability to control your dangerous behavior because obviously if you’re nuts, you lose that ability.

How about all the other paraphilias? Why don’t we decide they’re all dangerously mentally ill too? There’s nothing preventing it. The peeping toms? The flashers? The fetishists? The masochists? The sexual sadists? The first two are low level criminals so no one cares, the third are harmless except to women’s panties, shoes, and pocketbooks, the fourth only hurt themselves so no one cares, but the fourth? The sexual sadists? One might make the case that some convicted sexual sadists are dangerously mentally ill, but they never go down on this stuff. Only the Chesters. Because, you know, everyone hates Touchers. Think of the children!

One might think that as Antisocial Personality Disorder is in the DSM, a lot of these guys could go down on dangerously mentally ill, but there’s a serious argument whether any personality disordered person is mentally ill per se as opposed to be what I would call sick, character disordered, twisted, etc. Axis 2 people are what I call “soul-sick.” They’re permanently disordered, but the issue is at the core of their selves so they’re not really mentally ill. Instead, they are “sick.”

But nope, no PD’s go down on dangerously mentally ill. We save that for the sex criminals! Because, you know, the sex criminals are really so much worse than your ordinary variety criminals who burgle, rob, thieve, defraud, beat, maim, mug, shoot, stab, torture, and kill people because as long as they’re not fucking anyone while they’re doing it, it’s never quite so bad, you see? Because Puritanism. Obviously it’s so much worse to do bad things when you are fucking someone as opposed to just, you know, doing bad things when you don’t happen to be fucking anyone. Because whether you’re fucking someone or not when you commit your crime makes such a difference!

There has been a very devious attempt lately to sneak another mentally disordered sex offender (MDSO) into the mix.

But first notice that they singled out the sex criminals for permanent preventive detention as opposed to, you know, your garden variety maniacs. But why? Why do only sex criminals deserve preventive detention as opposed to regular murderers, muggers, and robbers? Because moral panic. That’s why.

They went after the rapists. Because of course everyone hates rapists. Except we live in a rape culture that says it’s ok to rape and encourages all men to go rape all they want. But at the same time everyone hates rapists. Makes sense, huh? They tried to sneak in a Rape Paraphilic Disorder in order to round up all the rapists just like they rounded up all the Chesters.

Problem? The vast majority of rapists do not have any sort of a paraphilia about rape. They do it for all sorts of reasons. Some like to hurt people (sadistic rapists), some are angry at or hate women (anger rapists) and two different types do it for different power trips – the Power Reassurance Rapist and another that slips my mind. One of these types is the “gentleman rapist” who actually feels bad about raping you! So there are different kinds, and almost all rapists won’t kill you, except the Sadists (5%) are very dangerous, and the Anger Rapists (30%?) may well hurt you but generally won’t kill you unless you fight them, in which case they might.

But men who have a specific paraphilia about rape? That is, they get aroused more by the idea of raping women than by anything else, possibly to the point that unless they rape or pretend to rape, it just doesn’t move the meter? It’s either very uncommon or nonexistent, depending on who you listen to. But of course, once they sneak in Rape Paraphilic Disorder, they’re going to label all the rapists mentally ill with this fake illness, and lock them all away as MDSO’s! Neat trick, huh? Thankfully the DSM-5 committees stopped that one coming and dodged the bullet.

DSM-5 Hebephilia was shot down on similar grounds, that this was an attempt to round up men who committed statutory rape with young teens (13-15 year old girls) and missed the deadline for going down on Child Molestation (usually under 13). So this way we get to lock up countless men who bang hot to trot little jailbaits forever as dangerously mentally ill.

Two Kinds of People in the World – Morons and Psychopaths

Problem is most people with genius IQ’s s (1% of the population) pretty quickly figure out that the world is populated by morons and psychopaths. They’re not really morons except that at stratospheric IQ’s, even average IQ people almost seem retarded.

The psychopaths of course run the show and get all the money, stuff, and chicks. Hence why women flock to psychopaths. Psychopaths lie constantly and these lies become known as “culture,” especially as they own the (((media))) and (Hollywood))). Don’t mean to single out any particular ethnic group here but the (((ones))) who run Hollywood and the media are as psychopathic as any Gentile running society.

The morons are too dumb to figure out they’re being lied to, so they go along with the lies. Hence why the psychopaths always try to grab the media, first thing they do. Because most of the morons are so dumb that they actually believe the media, even when it’s lying most of the time.

Genius IQ is hardly a brag. 1 out of every 100 Americans has one. Genius IQ’s are as common as weeds. If you ever went to university, you probably met them teaching your classes and probably sitting next to you.

A famous article called The Outsiders was written a while back. The writer sought out people with IQ’s over 160. Yes, I’ve met one. I also met a 156 IQ woman. She was literally the fastest woman I’ve ever met in my life. Her life was like a rocket to the moon, it was that fast. Most of them were men and most were failures, of course. Most were living at or near the poverty level. If they worked at all it was in basic jobs like at the post office. Most were not married and recent celibacy rates were very high. Most of them were not dating at all. Some were very handsome, too.

Women don’t exactly seek out geniuses you know. They were almost all excruciatingly shy and introverted. There wasn’t any mention of Aspergers Syndrome, though I doubt most had it. Most lived alone in small apartments. As you can see it is actually possible to be so damned smart that you are doomed to fail in society. And almost to a one, they were misanthropes and absolutely hated people. Why? Every single one of them hated people because they said they were idiots.

Well, I concur. Actually, every day I stick around this Clown Rock Flying Through Space, I start to hate people just a little bit more. And I hate them because, yes, they’re stupid. Now, stupid people are just fine. Hey, most humans are idiots, face it. Just because you’re dumb doesn’t mean you’re bad as long as you’re nice. Problem is people can’t settle for being merely stupid. They have been dangerous too! So my opinion is that I hate people more and more every day because they are dangerous idiots. As in so damned stupid that they are a threat to my sanity and maybe even my freedom.

People are dangerously stupid because they can’t think for themselves. They’re all just terrified sheep. They go along with whatever Lies du Jour are being pushed because if you don’t, you get ostracized like me. Of course if enough of them called the liars on their lies, they’d have to give them up and at least go make up some new ones.

Also, people are faddists. They are prone to mass hysterias and moral panics.

To give you an example of how asinine moral panics are, things that were completely normal in the 1970’s (statutory rape) are now regarded as the most evil things on Earth, deserving of life in prison or the death penalty! Dumb or what? Why? Because we’re in the midst of an idiot moral panic about this stuff.

And stuff that was regarded as the most evil behavior on Earth (smoking pot, taking psychedelics, and “drugs” in general) is now shockingly normal, and smoking pot is practically legal. I can’t tell you how many sanctimonious fucks I dealt with back in the day because I smoked pot, dropped acid now and again and like a line of coke at time. And I was never more than a casual user of most of that stuff.

See? The moral panics aren’t even rational! One decade something is just fine. Ten years later you need to get lynched on the spot for it. One decade something is Satan’s work itself. Come ten years and it’s so normal it’s almost laughable.

People who get involved in moral panics are basically sanctimonious shits. I’ve been dealing with hysterical, panicked sanctimonious shits my whole life and I’m really tired of them. I’m tired of being told I’m a bad person. I’m not anyway.

I’m actually starting to look forward to death, and that’s sorry.

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.