Alt Left: Straight Men and Their Relationship to the Idea of Male Homosexuality: An Examination

Like the guest writer, I also have a very strong, mostly unconscious, dislike, and disgust for any male homosexual behavior. It’s very common among straight men. I doubt if there is anything we like less than that.

A recent study found that straight men were more disgusted by gay pornography than by literal trays full of live maggots! Gay sex is worse than maggots! That’s pretty bad. One can argue where this revulsion comes from, whether it is genetic or cultural. It’s certainly cultural and whether it it inborn is up for dispute. At any rate, it exists. Gay men usually refuse to believe that this revulsion even exists at all. We also very much do not like people thinking we are gay, especially if they think that way because they think we act gay.

There’s probably no worse insult to a straight man than saying he acts like a homosexual, and straight women hate it just as much as straight men, if not more. That said, straight men are terribly ignorant about male homosexuality to the point of utter absurdity. They are always accusing other straight men of being gay. In fact, I think more straight men are gay-bashed that gay men.

Despite our disgust for male homosexuality, a lot of us hate homophobes even worse. I used to be mistaken for being gay a lot when I was younger and it’s still said from time to time, though now it’s not as much of an insult because it is “I’m a straight man who acts gay” which is not nearly as insulting to me as saying that I am gay! At least they acknowledge that I am straight!

This shows that it is not so much the accusation that we act like homosexuals that bother us but that that observation leads to the accusation that we are gay. So what we really do not like to be accused of is being gay, not so much acting gay. If all people ever said to be was that I was a straight guy who acted gay, I would not be so angry.

This is especially true because you do not have to be effeminate to be accused of acting gay. I don’t think I’m an effeminate man, and I’ve never seen myself that way. I really dislike that behavior and I think it’s contemptible. So saying I act that way is a particular insult.

I’m just a soft guy. On the other hand, most soft men I’ve known got called gay constantly. They were also often very handsome in a female or pretty sense – they were pretty boys. That seems to add to the gay accusation, though I’m not sure if looks alone is enough to get you accused of that though that’s happened a few times in our lives.

It is interesting, once again, that the insult that we are gay is what really bothers us, not so much that we act gay. That implies that this is the true insult – that one’s heterosexuality is not acknowledged. However, this much isn’t really the whole of it either because many people, especially women, thought I was bisexual because any women who can’t figure out a man likes women is too stupid to live. But this was almost as insulting. Just recognizing that I liked women was not enough, and in some ways it was almost worse because it was half of an apology, which is almost worse than no apology.

So looking at this anew, I think what makes us mad is not the suggestion that we don’t like women because that’s not often heard. It’s more the very suggestion that we have sex with men. That right there is the supreme insult – that we would dare to do these things at least on a regular basis.

However, there were quite a few times when even women accused me of being gay in the sense of not wanting to being attracted to women at all. This was particularly insulting.

So the insult is threefold.

  1. That we are effeminate. Not so much that we “act gay” because no one knows what that means. But saying we act like a stereotypical homosexual man is very harmful and hurts us a lot. It’s a horrendous insult.
  2. That we are not attracted to women and therefore have no interest in having sex with them. This almost worse than saying we are effeminate. There is something horrendously insulting to a straight man about someone saying that to him. We want our heterosexual component or our attraction to women acknowledged. You are taking a huge aspect of our lives and saying it doesn’t exist and then hating us on that basis.
  3. That we have sex with men. Of course this is insulting but what is more insulting is other straight men acting uncomfortable around us because they think we screw guys. The idea that this guy won’t talk to me because he thinks I want to fuck him is unbelievably insulting. Furthermore, it’s completely untrue. It’s like being falsely accused of a crime. There is also a huge sense of disappointment there. In the neighborhood I live in, those are fighting words. You say that to a man around here and you are likely to get hit. You will first be asked to take it back and then if you don’t, you are probably going to get hit, at least once, in the face. And you will deserve it. 90% of the men around here will say you deserved it and no one will call the cops. It’s even worse than that. You can be killed for saying that to a man around here. I have wondered why these are fighting words around here and the conclusion I arrived at is that those are fighting words not because you say he acts gay or because you say he has no interest in women but because you are implying he has sex with men. It is for that reason that you might get hit or even killed. That’s the ultimate insult right there.

All three of these are extremely insulting and it’s hard to say that one is worse than the other. I’ve had people who thought I was gay change their minds and say I was bisexual and like me 10X more on that basis, and it didn’t feel 1% better. It almost made me even more mad.

I guess what it boils down to is people really do not want to be misjudged on the essential basis of what they are.

I’m not sure if I care if someone thinks I had sex with guys a few times experimentally. Not that I would ever say such a thing. Such behavior is epidemic among straight men. I’ve known 5-10 men who told me they had sex with men a few times experimentally but then they decided they didn’t like it and never did it again. And the number of women who say this about sex with women is epidemic too. I keep running into women my age who told me they had sex with a woman once or twice (usually once), apparently experimentally.

A number of times they concluded that they didn’t really like it and they were basically straight, so it was a sort of testing the waters sort of thing. Interestingly, all of the men who admitted this to me were outrageous playboys. I think every one of them had a 3-figure laycount. This implies that this sort of behavior is simply a byproduct of an extremely high sex drive. These men are “sex maniacs.” A former female commenter on this site said that a lot of such men were bisexual or had had sex with men before. A very high sex drive may include a tendency towards experimentation.

Many people used to think I was gay, but it was never everyone. Especially most people who grew up with me somehow knew it could not possibly be true. It was always the new people thinking that.

As such, I’ve been on the receiving end of a lot of homophobia. I must tell you that homophobia feels pretty terrible. There is something awful about it, and it is some sort of hate on one level or another. And you get it from women as much as from men. I’m not sure if it is worse to be accused of being gay if you are straight because you are being misunderstood on an essential level than it is if you are actually, gay and they are telling the truth about you.

But there is something awful about being misunderstood on a basic level like that.

When you meet a new person, you assume that they figure out certain things about you – your age, your dress style, your level of politeness, perhaps your intelligence or education, perhaps your moral level, whether you are white or blue collar, your level of masculinity or femininity, your ethnicity or race, obviously your sex or gender (same thing), your level of attractiveness, whether you are a pleasant or unpleasant person, your cultural level, your subculture (often based on hairstyle or clothing), your income, your hygiene and general level of cleanliness, your income (often based on your clothing), your relationship status (as in if you are married or if you have a SO), and last but not least, your sexual orientation!

So when I meet a new person, especially a man, I assume that he thinks I am a straight man. If he doesn’t think that, it’s a rude shock, and it seems like there’s no way I can talk to him. By the way, men make this assumption about other men all the time – we always try to guess the sexual orientation of every man we meet. Usually it just defaults to “this guy is (more or less but please don’t tell me the details) straight,” but in a few cases, it doesn’t.

The only distinction is something like “Basically Straight and I don’t want to hear anymore details about that please” versus “Gay and that means gay with a capital G.” We don’t try to negotiate the ins and outs of all the men who fall along the bisexual continuum or have sex with men at least sometimes but are not gay. It’s a black and white thing. Any man who tries to break it down past that very basic assumption is paranoid about male homosexuality – but the percentage of straight men who are absurdly paranoid about male homosexuality is extremely high.

There is even a certain way of conversing – I call it “straight man to straight man.” It’s a real style and almost all straight men will mimic this towards you. One thing about it is there an utter and absolute absence of any sense of sexual attraction about these interactions. Further, there is no mention of male homosexuality in any way. Or even sex if the friendship is new. Talking about sex too soon is seen as gay.

I remember my mother and her relatives though my cousin’s new husband was gay due to his behavior. But I never thought he acted gay. I told my Mom there was no way he was gay because when I talked to him for 15 minutes, there was a straight guy to straight guy vibe about it, a holistic one that cannot be put into words. Based on that, I told her there is no way he was gay.

The thing is that most gay men, even deeply closeted ones, cannot do this “straight guy to straight guy” vibe thing. They might be able to do it for a few minutes, but if you are one on one with them, their homosexuality almost always reveals itself. They just can’t keep it out of their presentation.

This is also interesting because it implies that in any significant interaction between men, men are not able to keep from revealing their sexual orientation. Our sexuality is such a huge part of us that it seeps into every interaction we have – even a basic conversation about the weather.

This is a strong argument against the Sex-Hating Left as seen in #metoo bullshit, which seems to want to ban any expression of sexuality, at least by men, overt or convert, from all public space (apparently sexual expression by women is fine and dandy).

We just can’t do that, or at least we men can’t. Our sex drive is so strong that it’s seeping out of all our pores all the time. Asking us to shut down such an overwhelming drive is not only ridiculous but unhuman and even downright anti-human. That’s why feminism is not only deeply man-hating but it is also at its core anti-human by seeking to suppress the very essential human aspects of males. The feminists are literally asking us to stop being ourselves. Not only is such a folly impossible but there is something terribly cruel about such a demand.

Also, gay men can’t help but reveal their homosexuality to you in any extended conversation. They usually act like they are attracted to you. Also, it is very hard to get close to these men.

One part of this straight man to straight man vibe is an extreme casualness and very much a lack of intimacy. Say we are hanging out for an evening. This right there raises a strong question of homosexuality – you are alone together, no one else around, other people will often see this behavior as homosexual, there is a possibility of some vague homosexual feelings leaking out, etc. Hence there is a strong need to defend against not these feelings but more their very potential. This what I could call the “gay tension” in these encounters. It’s not a resistance against something that is there but more against something that might be there. It’s a huge wall against a very possibility.

There is a distance or a lack of intimacy there expressed by an extreme “I don’t care” attitude and a lot of joking. Perhaps seriousness seems gay on some level. We also don’t even look at each other all that much. You aren’t supposed to. If you do, it’s seen as gay. You don’t talk about deep things. That might be seen as gay. You are supposed to talk about women at some point or another. If you don’t, it is suspicious. It also relieves a lot of the gay tension. This is sort of a test to make sure the other guy is not gay, but it’s also just a way of being straight.

I often feel that a lot of straight male intimacy or closeness is constructed around a lot of barriers against homosexuality. That’s why we do a lot of the things we do above – why we don’t look at each other all that much, why we joke and act frivolous, why we avoid deep discussions, especially about feelings. Perhaps this is all a defense against having any homosexual expression. We don’t feel this way anyway, but we still need to defend against the possibility that we might. Once again, it’s hard to explain.

We do feel very close to each to other. I have even been “in love” with some of my straight male friends before, but I would never do anything sexual with them. If you want to call me gay for making that statement, go right ahead. I’m not worried.

It was more of the platonic love one feels between oneself and a parent, sibling, or relative, something like that.

I once thought, “You know, if I was gay, I would fuck this guy.”

Once again, if you feel that makes me gay, go right ahead. I’m not worried. That’s how much I loved him. But since I wasn’t gay, I wouldn’t dare even touch him. I often feel that the platonic love between two straight male friends is one of the deepest relationships a straight man can feel. I often wonder if we feel deeper love towards our straight male friends than towards our girlfriends or wives. It’s hard to explain how deeply we feel for each other. Yet this love has an utter prohibition on any physical sexual expression similar to your love for your father or brother does.

PUA/Game: If You Want to Know What Men Are Like, Ask a Woman – If You Want to Know What Women Are Like, Ask a Man

Women simply don’t understand what it’s like to be a man. They’re too wrapped up in being an utterly solipsistic woman to be any good at that. It’s not that women don’t care about men. It’s more that their solipsism prevents them from understanding us. They’re so busy thinking about themselves all the time (and women are the vainest creatures on God’s green earth) that they simply don’t have time to think about us!

After age 35 or especially 40, most women have come to figure us out pretty well, and the ones who still date us have made some sort of peace with us, usually along the lines of:

“Yes, men are dogs, but I kind of like dogs. In fact, it’s nice because when I get a boyfriend or a husband, I also get a pet dog at the same time! I don’t even have to go to the pet store! And he’s housebroken to boot. Two for one deal!”

I have women aged 35-50 tell me:

“Men will fuck anything.”

A 50 year old woman I dated said afterwards:

“Men will fuck anything. Sad but true.”

A 43 year old woman I dated said women don’t dress up for men.

“There’s no need to dress up for men. Men will screw anything.”

They dress up to impress other women! Basically we men don’t care what clothes women wear, and most of us would probably prefer that a lot of them don’t wear any at all.

A 35 year old woman I dated and who was unfortunately a girlfriend for a time told me matter of factly,

“Men will screw anything.”

As she’d probably screwed half the men in LA, I’d consider her a reliable source.

These women make this comment above matter of factly as if you were talking about the nature of atoms and molecules: that’s just the way it goes.

Of course this is true and it’s only mostly men who have argued with me about this, but I think they doth protest a bit too much.

A man will fuck a woman, a teenage girl, an old lady, a little girl, a man, an animal – Hell, a man will probably fuck a hole in the wall if you grease it up enough.

This is how a nonpedophilic man can have sex with a little girl, or an 18 year old man can rape a 70 year old woman, or a pedophile can brutally rape an 80 year old woman. This is how a straight man can have sex with a man, and trust me, quite a few of them do. When it comes to sex, men are simply downright animalistic.

Sex is utilitarian for men. It’s like stuffing your face when you’re famished. A pole wants a hole. It’s pretty simple.

By age ~50, a lot of women have more or less started to figure us out, which is often a case of discovering a lot of rather unpleasant truths.

If you want to understand men, ask an older woman. Ask an old lady. Hell, if you want to know the truth about anything, ask an old lady! They’ve got a lifetime of wisdom and nothing to defend anymore, so they won’t have defenses getting in the way of brutal truths.

If you want to understand women, ask a man, especially a player or a womanizer. The men in my life who understood women best of all were all players and womanizers.

Neither sex can be objective about the other. Women can’t analyze women because they refuse to believe there is anything wrong with women, and boy is there! This is the essential flaw of feminism and it is why feminists, who claim to be the world’s leading experts on women, paradoxically often don’t seem to know shit about them.

I will give feminists credit though. A lot of them, especially radical feminists, have the bad side of men down. I’ve never seen better analyses of the bad side of men than from radfems. Of course they think we are all bad side and 0% good side, so they’re only half right.

Men can’t understand men because we won’t say there’s anything wrong with men, although we may be a bit more hardheaded than women in this way.

Want to know who really understands men? Believe it or not, gay men! They literally spend their whole lives studying us under delighted microscopic vision. They get us. They also love us too, which is nice, as it implies that once people truly figure out men, they are still capable of loving us anyway, which I always regarded as dubious.

Sometimes it’s better to be ignorant. There’s a problem called “knowing someone too well.” I love women, but I often feel that I “know them too well,” if you catch my drift.

And a lot of women know men “too well.” Most prostitutes are probably experts on men. Have you noticed how many of them hate men? Well, they hate us because they know us too well. They’ve really and truly figured us out and learned what psychopathic shits we really are. They’ve seen our bad side in Technicolor way too many times.

A female friend once shocked me when she said that players and womanizers hate women. Well, some do and some don’t. Most are cynical about women.

She said:

“The reason players hate women is because they’ve figured out what women are really like.”

Well, maybe so. Like I said, sometimes ignorance is bliss, and familiarity breeds contempt. It may be better to stay in dark about a lot of other people and groups of people.

Young women in their 20’s are often outraged about and in total war against male nature, which they think is outrageous, gross, and disgusting. It is indeed all of those things of course, and I would be the first to admit  it. This is one of the main things that make young women such silly creatures – getting all upset about things that cannot be changed.

After age 30, most women have settled down and decided that men are just the way they, are and there’s nothing to be done about that, so you might as well accept it as long as you’re not a Lesbian Separatist.

The ones who still can’t accept our basic porcine and canine nature remain riled up and ranting and raving about men into their 30’s, 40’s, 50’s, and beyond. We call these pathetic creatures “feminists.” They are railing against the basic nature of men, which is like screaming that rocks act like rocks. It’s totally pointless.

You either make some peace with us (and most women do), or you turn into a celibate feminist cat lady, or you can always go lez, and a lot of women after age 40 do just that. I dated a 50 year old woman once, and she told me 20% of the single women her age were lesbians. I said, “Huh?” and then I asked if she meant that they had been straight but had a ton of bad experiences with men, so they went over to the other team. She shrugged and said this was the case.

Feminists are basically tilting at windmills their whole lives and screaming at us men to change. It makes about as much sense as screaming at your dog to quit acting like a dog.

We’re not changing, ladies, and you won’t like us if we do anyway.

Alt Left: I’ve Been Thinking This a Long Time Now

I’ve been thinking for a while now that the Republican Party is the party of fun and getting laid while the Democratic Party are the nuns who say flirting is sexual harassment, dating is sexual assault, and sex is rape.

It’s the Drag Left, the No Fun Left, the Party Pooper Left, the Turd in the Punchbowl Left, the Taliban Left, the Victorian Left, the Comstock Left, the Sex-Hating Left, The What about the Children Left, the Pearl Clutching Left, etc.

And all this shit has come straight out of feminism, every single bit of it.

Not that the antiracist fucktards are a barrel of laughs either.

Alt Left: Why Everything Feminists Say Is a Lie

Part of the essential Female Character is an insane level of Puritanism. Of course it’s combined with a Nymphomaniacal Sexuality. To observers, this makes no sense as it’s a contradiction, but you will never understand women until you figure out that both of these things running at the same time are an essential part of the Female Character.

Feminism is a problem because it took Female Thinking, which is part functional and adaptive and part retarded and dysfunctional (like Male Thinking), and institutionalized, weaponized and finally coded into law this screwed up thinking.

Furthermore, feminism as a science and a way of perceiving reality if forever fucked because it says that the Ultimate Truth about Reality lies in the female view of the world and the Female Character. Well, no it doesn’t. The Female Character, like so many things (or everything?), is half good and half bad. Half of the stuff women believe makes sense, and the other half is a bunch of stupid crap best ignored by any man. Anyone claiming that a philosophy that is 50% stupid bullshit is a proper tool for the analysis of reality is out of their head.

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.

Alt Left: A Response to a Recent Gay Commenter

Ah, you’re gay. Trust me that whatever you read on here, I love you, my brother, just as much as I love any of my straight friends. Don’t take the “homophobic” stuff on here seriously. We mostly aren’t’ talking about you anyway.

If you occasionally see homophobic stuff on here, it’s mostly directed at straight men. I don’t know if you gays know this, but for a lot of men, we use homophobic slurs mostly at our straight brothers and not so much at you guys, as with us liberals, we are not supposed to talk like that about you guys anymore. It’s bigotry. Not that I care about being accused of a bigot but the accusation of me hating gay men is not one I like because I do not wish to feel that way about them or be accused as such.

Fag is used to an insult for other straight men in the same family as pussy, girl, faggot, little bitch, girlyman, puss, wuss, wimp, sissy, soyboy, mangina, etc. It means exactly the same thing – that you are too feminine or effeminate to be a real man. That’s a supreme insult, but with fag there is the extreme added insult that this straight man really has gay sex on the side, which is about the worst thing on Earth you can say about a straight man. We know that all these guys are really straight, so we are lying when we call them gay. We are just doing it to set them off and hit them in their worst Achilles Heels.

We or mostly I also use it for straight men who are siding with the feminists and the women in the war against heterosexual male sexuality – that is, metoo and all of the rest of the garbage. We see this as a conspiracy by women to try to stop us from getting laid. They’re always conspiring to do that anyway or at least they have since I was a teenager, so it’s really no big, but now it has been weaponized with the added punishments of loss of job, income, career. and even arrest for the crime of getting laid or even pathetically trying to.

This is a war on straight men. These bitches are trying to destroy us for the crime of trying to get laid or getting laid, and they will pay for this shit. Well, they probably won’t, but we always say that anyway because they deserve to get threatened by us.

We are not talking about you guys because you are fellow male degenerates who are way sicker sexually than even we are, so the last thing you guys try to do is try to stop us from getting laid. So we are not talking about you!

Some gay men are with the feminists and those men are faggots, sorry. Faggots faggots faggots faggots. They’ve joined the enemies of the men. We request that gay men line up with their straight brothers in the war on feminism and the enemies of the men. Trust us that these man-haters hate you as much as they hate us. You’re evil because you’re men. They don’t care if you are straight or gay. Anyway, we welcome all gay men into the Brotherhood of the Men at least as partners in the War on Men.

But for a very long time, fag was simply a descriptive word for a male homosexual. It was often neutral or said with an eye-roll or a shrug of accepting dismissal, like, “What are you going to do?” Thing is we hate gay sex and male homosexuality in general, as that is part of the masculinization process all straight men go through as boys.

But then we have to like or love you guys because we have now learned that you can’t help it. So we can’t hate you for being gay. We have to love you just as much as anybody else. So this is the dilemma liberal straight men go through.

Any straight man who tells you he is not homophobic is a liar. If he says that, ask him to stick a dick in his mouth and see what he says. See? He will say that guys don’t turn him on, but that never stopped any man from Ancient Greece and Sparta to current Afghanistan, with some similar dynamics in both cases where male homosexual behavior for those playing the male role is associated with some of the most extreme masculinity on Earth. The reason, I guarantee, is that he thinks that is the worst thing on Earth. Worse than cancer or even death. It’s a living death, and that’s worse than being actually dead. They way we were brought up was, “That’s the one thing you never do.”

On the other hand, friendships between straight and gay men don’t work very well for all sorts of reasons, mostly that they either won’t stop trying to fuck us or won’t shut up about how hot we are and how much they want to fuck us, both of which are most unwelcome. Also a lot do not respect us for being straight and insist we are really gay or try to brainwash us into thinking we are a gay. I’m thinking gay men could do a lot more on their end if they really want to have friendships with us.

But why do they want to anyway? We straight men are assholes. We barely like each other, and women’s feelings towards us are notorious. I think gay men should stick with straight women for friends and gay/bi men for everything else. You have more than 50% of society liking you, which is way more than we straight men have. Don’t bother trying to befriend lesbians. We know they hate you too and everyone knows they hate us.

A lot of straight men have some extremely serious hangups about male homosexuality, so understand that that probably drives a lot of homophobia. A lot of us have been called or suspected of being gay ourselves by other straight men or women and we have a lot of issues about that, especially as that is about the worst insult you could say about us, those insults coming from the latter being almost homicide-inducing on their end. Want to get hit or even killed? Call us gay. Try it. I dare you. We straight hit and even kill over this stuff.

Try to have some sympathy. Those homophobic remarks are coming from places of fear, deep insecurity, and pain. It’s not about you. It’s about screwed up stuff inside of us. You’re just a punching bag.

It’s not that we are gay ourselves in most cases, but it is more than we have a lot of weird unresolved fears about this stuff, which we find mostly nauseating and terrifying. For instance, a recent lab study found that straight men were more disgusted by gay porn than they were by live maggots! Yes. Live maggots! So that gives you some idea of the revulsion.

Alt Left: Why Male Rule Works and Female Rule Always Fails

Hi, I updated this somewhat. From three weeks ago and made some changes. Hope you enjoy.

Under Female Rule, women are always putting in these utopian feminist policies because, well, women are utopians. Whereas we men know the world is shit and we’re just trying to make it half-tolerable before we take off. The whole idea of utopia causes men to cough out cynical laughs. “It would be nice,” they all agree. “Except it doesn’t work, humans being humans and all that.”

For an example, idiotic #metoo nuttiness that made flirting, dating, and sex all potential career-killers for men has had the logical (Duh!) effect of college-aged men avoiding women like that plague so as not to jeopardize their future careers. All men know that women are dangerous, but they’ve never been dangerous like this.

Give a woman some power and watch her abuse it. Give a woman a punishing tool and watch her abuse it. It’s what the weak do. The weak abuse their power. They abuse their tools. In order to respect and not abuse power and dangerous tools, you have to be strong enough to not have to abuse them in the first place. And women are weak, and like all weak people and groups, they will always fight dirty and abuse power because that’s the only way they have a chance.

So now men are mass-ignoring women, an effect that any moron could have seen would result in women taking #metoo in the usual overboard direction they take everything. What did they think was going to happen? Hey women! Men aren’t like you. Men are rational. If they see flirting, dating, and sex as possible career wreckers, every one of you is going to be seen as a Goddamned black widow spider and avoided at all costs.

So, as request:

“Hey women, how bout going back and fixing the dumbass rules you thought up that are now making you so miserable?”

Ha ha. That question makes me laugh right there, but it’s so typical of female behavior that any male knows exactly what it means.

Of course they never do. Admitting they were wrong would cause them to lose too much face, and women are human after all. Nobody wants to admit they screwed up.

So when women make a mass retarded decision (something they do all the time), they sometimes start screaming about the logical result of their decision, and then they refuse to fix it because they’re too prideful. This is what happens when you let women run society and make the laws and rules. Sheer chaos.

Female Rule fails everywhere it’s been tried.

So women create things with good intentions that end up being complete clusterfucks, and then they often never fix them because they would have to admit they were wrong. On the other hand,men or society at large create things with good intentions that end up being complete clusterfucks, and then they the men will at least to fix the mess because men can admit they are wrong and are at least capable of fixing their fuckups.

It is actually the weak who cannot admit they are wrong. Women never admit they are wrong because they are weak. Same with children. Men who seem powerful and confident and never admit they are wrong are actually insecure. Insecure people are not strong. They may seem strong but they are not because they are too weak to admit that they are wrong. Curiously, it takes a strong person to admit they wrong. The stronger you are, the more you can do it, and the weaker you are, the less you can do it. It’s a paradoxical thing. So men, being powerful, are at least capable en masse of admitting they screwed up.

Men don’t like chaos or idiocy, especially combined as women’s projects tend to result in, and pretty soon men start yelling that somebody screwed up. Who’s fault is it? “Who knows? Who cares!” The men yell. Bottom line is this utopian proposal is not working.

So men dive in with their hands and try to fix it, all the while admitting that someone (maybe them) screwed up when they did it before. Men will take responsibility. “We messed up. We thought  this was a good fix but all it did was create new worse problems. Fine, people make mistakes, no problem. Let’s move on, fix them, and do it right!

Because men hate things that don’t work. There’s nothing a man hates more than a nonfunctional object or policy. And they hate things that don’t worse than they hate admitting they are wrong (men hate that too), so if they have to choose between the two, they will admit they were wrong to stop the chaos that they hate more. It’s not a matter of liking something more than something else. People think decisions are based on the concept of liking, but rather they are based on the concept of hating. It’s a matter of hating one thing less than something else, as most decisions in life are.

Men and women both break stuff, but at least men admit they blew it and dive in to fix it, meanwhile women are too ashamed and proud so they do nothing.

Instead, they bitch and live in the chaos, which causes them to bitch more, but understand that women like and need to bitch, so this is really more of a wash than anything else.

We are both breakers. Men break stuff and women break stuff. There’s not a lot of difference there.

The difference is in what you do afterwards.

We’re fixers. Women aren’t fixers.

So Male Rule works but is often unjust while Female Rule fails but is often more just.

Life is about “justice.” If justice doesn’t work then fuck it. Let’s go back to injustice because a lot of time injustice at least works while justice doesn’t work at all.

You have a choice:

Injustice and function.

Justice and chaos.

Pick one.

Alt Left: Feminist Theory in One Hand, Rabbit in the Other: What’s a Girl to Do?

I was on Twitter and had a conversation with SJW’s. The men were all cucks and fags, and the women were all dumbass feminists. On the other hand, they were human after all, so there were occasional flashes of sanity.

Unfortunately I was in a debate with a bunch of SJW’s, mostly “men,” which means fags, queers, girlymen, wusses, girls, cucks, queens, and sissies. Literally all leftwing men nowadays are faggots. No man on the Left could possibly be straight or a real man anymore. All you can be is a dick-sucking faggot. All leftwing men subscribe to radical SJWism. SJWism is nothing but feminism and faggotry. All male feminists are fags. You can’t possibly be a real man and a feminist at the same time. You have to be a homo taking cock up the ass or a cuck who locks up his dick and lets his wife get fucked by bulls.

There were usual liberal idiot women on there who have the distinction of being even more idiotic than your average woman. Liberal women don’t get more rational or grown up with age like most women.

They were feminist fools trying to figure out what’s more important, the bullshit feminist nonsense theory swirling around their prefrontal cortexes or that throbbing clit between their legs. It’s the dilemma of all heterosexual feminist women.

Feminism teaches women to hate men, and a lot of women eat it up because face it, we men don’t treat women very well. At the same time, if they are straight, you know how it is, especially nowadays. As a woman I knew recently told me, “A girl’s got to get laid.” Right, ladies?

Which is why feminist women who are still having regular sex with men are limited in how much they can hate men. In order to truly hate men, you have to get away from them and become celibate or a political lesbian, who are mostly celibate anyway because these are just straight women who hate men so much they refuse to have sex with them. But, being straight, most aren’t much into women. So they become the caricature of the raging, aging, celibate feminist cat lady with a vibrator for a live-in lover. A rather pathetic creature.

Some liberal cuck posted about how he can’t figure out when it’s ok to flirt with women and when it’s not. I should be nice to this poor guy. He’s trying to suck up to silly women, which is the worst thing any man can do. Much of the time, women are simply best ignored. Smile, nod your head, say, “Yes…mm hmmm, ahhh, ohhh, uh huh,” while they are going on, but otherwise don’t listen to a word they say. I’ve been doing this my whole life, and all I ever hear from women is gushing compliments about what a great listener I am. Ha ha. If they only knew!

Obviously #metoo idiocy has muddied the waters, as #metoo says all flirting is potentially harassment, all dating is potentially sexual assault, and all sex is potentially rape.

This has had the logical result of many young men avoiding women altogether and sitting at home with beer, videogames, bros, porn, and their dicks in their hands. And now (especially young) women are yelling that men won’t talk to them anymore and avoid them like they’re lepers. They’re furious.

Take the lead and get aggressive with men? Women refuse to do that. They’re genetically programmed to be chased, not chasers.

Hence, many young men, quite logically enough, are going MGTOW. Who could blame them? Modern feminism almost demands that men go MGTOW. In fact, going MGTOW is probably the only rational way to respond to modern feminism. On the down side, you pretty much never get laid.

But you’ve got your bros! So what?

A lot of us are pussy addicts, and we can’t go long without our fix, no matter how frustrated we get with women.

Thing is though is a lot of women feel like they are in the same boat in the opposite direction. We drive them crazy and often treat them terribly. Who could blame them for hating us? On the other hand, there’s that growing puddle between her legs. Which is screaming, “Fulfill me, dammit!” And trust me, after a while, wands, vibes, and rabbits just don’t cut it for most women. They want the real thing. So they hate us but they need us and love to fuck us.

What’s a girl to do?

Alt Left: Do Most Men Hate Women As Feminists Insist?

Nope. But admitting that would vitiate almost all feminist theory and feminist theory is always right and when it doesn’t line up with reality, that means reality itself is wrong and reality isn’t reality. So we venture into the darkened woods of alternate facts, etc.

Sure there are men who hate women, but most us don’t. You aren’t really supposed to. It’s seen as almost gay. You hate women? What are you, a fag?

So do we love women. We do and we don’t. Women are like your favorite drug. You love it even when it’s wrecking your life. You need to quit because you just can’t because you love it too much. Sure, it’s blowing up your life but life without it, while more pleasant, would be so boring as to be barely worth it. So you get onboard the drug train. Or the woman train, such as it were.

Woman is a drug.

But just as men don’t completely love women, most don’t hate women no matter what feminist retards say. They have mixed feelings towards women. Men can feel wild love for women and sheer ugly hate, both at the same time.

And of course everything in between. A man who likes women is simply one who likes them more than he dislikes them. A man who loves women is simply a man who loves women more than he hates them. And vice versa. Note that a man can like or love women at the same time he dislikes or hates them.

It’s sort of like your Mom.

Alt Left: The Great Logical Disconnect at the Core of SJWism: People Are Basically Shitty, Amoral, Predatory Mammals

The problem with SJWism is it says Reality isn’t reality. What’s real for SJW’s is this fake Utopian SJW world they believe in.

Except the real world doesn’t work like that. In the real world, we are cavemen and cavewomen, and he world runs on hate, jealousy, envy, lust, greed, lying, manipulation, sociopathy, Machiavellianism, and other awful things, and as far as sex goes, being mammals, we like to rut in the mud like pigs in a pen. And when it comes to sex, SJWism is off on some other planet.

So SJW’s are constantly running up against a world that doesn’t work the way their utopia says it’s supposed to work. Instead of saying their utopia is crap because humans are predatory mammals barely a step above grizzly bears when the real world doesn’t match up with SJW Utopia, to SJW’s that means the real world (reality) is wrong because the SJW Utopia (the fake world) is always right.

Except it’s never been tried except on paper. And what little evidence of it we do have in practice shows that it causes nothing but chaos and dysfunction, just like Female Rule. Which makes sense because feminism is at the core of SJWism, and as feminism (Female Rule) doesn’t work, neither does SJWism.

It would be all very nice if humans were as groovy and kind and nice and utopian and pretty and empathic and free of evilheartedness as the SJW Utopia demands, but alas, people are people, and humans are massively flawed in the Goodness Quotient because our mammal brains keep ordering us to act bad, wherein “acting bad” just means “acting how a typical amoral, surivival-oriented mammal always acts.”

Because the Real World runs screaming headfirst into the fake SJW Utopian World, smashing it all to bits, this logically infuriates SJW’s, who say the Real World is wrong. Not just wrong but Evil. Hence all the wild efforts of Cancel Culture to “cancel” people for acting like people instead of programmed utopian robots.

The Real World is fake! The true real world is our fake Utopian SJW World!

You can’t fool all the people all the time, thank God, and obviously illogical-on-their-face arguments like the bolded above are eventually going to run up against the Logic crowd who are going to figure out, brainwashed though they may be, that’s it’s the Real World, flawed and shitty as it is, that is the real thing, and the Utopian World, full of goodness and light and everything nice, that doesn’t even exist except in people’s heads. Sooner or later people open their eyes and figure out the SJW Emperor hasn’t any clothes after all. Let the rest of the Woke scream about his great outfit. We, the rational, can see that he’s naked as a jaybird.

Game/PUA: About That “Consent” Issue Again

I was on Twitter debating SJW’s – obviosuly a waste of time, or worse, actually dangerous to your health – and this dumbass yet earnest and naive feminist chick actually tweeted that if you want to flirt, you should just ask permission. The usual “Mother may I?” ask first gayness feminism has been demanding of us men. That’s the stupidest thing I ever heard. Remember how feminist idiots have been demanding that we ask permission to do anything with a woman like faggy little boys? It doesn’t work.

The Net is full of feminists saying that when some man asked permission to do something sexual, it turned her off and she left. She wanted him to just jump her bones, dammit.

“Can I flirt with you? Mother may I?” God that’s stupid! How dumb do women think we are? See above. Even women themselves hate it when we act like this, the very way that they demand that we act. So women don’t make sense. But they’re not really supposed to. They’re supposed to bear and raise children and keep the peace and keep us male motherfuckers in line by setting some damned limits on us. What happens when women don’t place any limits on us depraved men. Take a look at gay male society, if you can stomach it. That’s how men act when women stop being basic goalkeepers of male behavior. Women need to be protected from us men. And we men need to be protected from our own Goddamned selves.

I never really ask permission to do anything with women.

Basically, my attitude towards this “Consent” Psychosis that’s hit the US in the wake of the #metoo sewer overflow is:

I’m a man, dammit. If I want something I take it!

You don’t ask permission to do anything sexual with a woman, at least not the real vanilla stuff.

Want to hold her hand? Take her hand in yours.

Want to put your arm around her? Put your Goddamned arm around her.

Want to kiss her? Think about it very well at first. Then just fucking do it.

If you are unsure, put your chin in your hand and go in real slow. You can say in a barely audible tone, “Okay?” But saying with the most extreme confidence. Put this idea in your head when you do it.

“I’m irresistible to women. No woman on Earth can possibly resist me when I kiss them. I’m sexier to women than any guy on Earth.”

They’re all lies of course, in escalating absurdity, but it doesn’t matter.  You put those lies in your head and you believe in them and trust them like your car’s brakes. Don’t doubt them for one bit or they may not work as well. Life is about convincing yourself that the most ridiculous lies in the world are 100% true and infallible, and then convincing yourself of that with as little doubt as possible. It doesn’t particularly matter if what you believe is true or not. If it’s true but believing in it screws you up, what good is it? If it’s a lie but it brings you success to believe this lie, go ahead and believe it.

She’s in your car? Put your hand on her leg. Do it in a very casual way as if you are rolling down the window. If you’re not sure if she will like it or not, you can always look at her with this, “Ok?” look on your face. At the same time think, “Woman, if don’t think this is ok, you are the stupidest fool on Earth. So I know you’re going to say it’s ok.” I’m not sure if people can mindread, but when I think “brainwash” things like this, for some reason, they usually seem to work. Or at least they did when I was young and beautiful. Now I’m old and headed towards ugly fast, and all that stuff that worked great when young and fair is falling on its face now that I’m old and splotched.

On the other hand, the feminists are right in a sense when it comes to this consent thing. You do need consent from a woman to do sexual things with her.

But you don’t ask first, you just do it. Then she either likes it or not.

If she likes it, cool.

If she doesn’t like it, she’ll let you know.

If she’s not into it but she likes you, she will say something along the lines of, “Not now, let’s wait a bit, ok?…Not so fast, ok. I just walked in the door,” etc.

If she doesn’t like you, she will bat you away, push you away, etc. And she won’t be very nice about it. That means not only are you not getting laid tonight. You’re also not getting laid by this chick ever. When this stuff starts out bad, it never turns around. Good turns bad in life but bad almost never turns good. Women are not like Coke machines that you can punch and hit until a can comes out. More like you’ll “punch and hit” all night and she’ll just get more and more angry. And you? Well, you’re being rapey. Which is, in my humble opinion, a dick move.

As with so many female societal proposals, they’ve got the music written perfectly, but they never know the words.

Alt Left: An Explanation for the Use of Anti-Gay Slurs on This Site: We’re Not Using Them to Refer to Gay Men

Imagine being this obsessed with faggots lmao are you trying to tell us something Lindsay?

Hope this helps: https://lgbt.foundation/comingout

I don’t appreciate the standard SJW and Gay Politics trope that homophobes are all homosexuals. I’ve met many homophobes in my life, and it was correlated with extreme expressions of masculinity as in hypermasculinity or toxic masculinity, if you will. It’s also associated with straight men who are successful with women. In other words, it’s associated with hypermasculinity, including being a player, etc. It’s just reinforcing the fact that they are hypermasculine by attacking gay men to show how masculine they are.

I’ve never met a homophobe in my life who was actually gay. I’ve been unfortunate enough to know many closeted gay men in my life, and while most of them are unbelievably fucked in the head, I’ve never met one who was a homophobe.

The most viciously homophobic societies on Earth such as Jamaica where up 90% of the population think gay men should be killed actually have very low rates of male homosexuality, whereas according to this theory, 90% of men in Jamaica should be a gay. It’s not true. My father was a homophobe. According to this theory, he was a screaming queen. Going back even to the 19th Century and long before, the vast majority of men were extremely homophobic. Sodomy was often punished by prison or execution. Oscar Wilde went to prison. Alan Turing got castrated. According this theory, men from 19th Century to far back in time were a homosexuals. It’s ridiculous.

All men who are biologically gay or bisexual should be respected in that because they were probably born or at least got wired up that way, so it’s not their fault. You going to beat up people with cystic fibrosis? How about dwarves? No one is responsible for any biological condition they are born with and can’t be changed. On that basis, gay men must be accepted and even loved and supported in the sense that we want the best lives for them just as we want for everyone else.

On this site, we don’t like men who are voluntarily engaging in gay sex just to be groovy or perverted or whatever. And yeah, I might call them anti-gay slurs. Why are they doing this?  They don’t have to. Nothing is forcing them to be this way. They’re just choosing to engage in this behavior that we think is disgusting. They could stop anytime they want.  On the other hand, I don’t want to attack these guys too much because society is full of stupid straight men having gay sex for all sorts of weird and ridiculous reasons. They’re everywhere. I’ve even had some friends  who took that idiotic route.

On here, we use faggots to mean straight men “who are not men.” They’re with the feminists. I’m not really talking about gay men. I don’t think a gay man would have reported my tweet unless he was an SJW. Most of the use of that word and similar words is to describe SJW straight men, to attack their masculinity and say they’re not men.

Straight men use anti-gay slurs towards other straight men all the time. Those men are often male feminists and SJW’s are the enemies of the men, especially the real men, and so we are attempting to humiliate them, attack their masculinity and say they’re not men in an effort to shame them and get them to quit being our enemies. This site is anti-SJW, not particularly anti-gay.

Straight men also use anti-gay slurs to describe straight men who are pathologically unmasculine. We also call them pussies, wusses, little bitches, women, girls, girlymen, etc. We don’t use those words towards gay men. We use them towards straight men in  order to police masculinity, which I believe is correct. Straight men should be shamed over grotesquely anti-masculine behavior by other straight men. They should be called names to attack their masculinity. Maybe they will come to their senses and man up.

For instance there is a #metoo movement right now that is attacking straight men by saying that flirting with women is harassment, dating is sexual assault, and sex is rape. This is all coming out of feminism, and it is part of war on straight men. A bunch of pussy straight men are lining up with the women in that war. They are our enemies. In general, gay men don’t care what we do sexually with women, being libertines themselves. I really doubt if most gay men are trying to get us fired for talking to, flirting with, dating, and having sex with women. They’re mostly on our side in this issue. As sexual degenerates, they’re mostly of the opinion that it’s ok for straight men to be sexual degenerates too.

For instance, we call Starbucks Fagbucks not so much because it is all that gay, though there are some gays working there, including some most idiotic and obnoxious ones who are basically SJW’s. Mostly it is because Starbucks has gone insane on feminist SJWism and #metoo crap. They are banning men from stores for looking at women! They are banning men for trying to talk to men in a completely nonsexual manner, as in just saying hi or talking about the weather. They’re basically banning straight men’s expressions of sexual behavior towards men. We would call them “homos” for doing that.

So we call it Fagbucks to shame them. Any man trying to prevent straight men from having sex is a “fag” because it’s “gay” to try to stop us from getting with women.

Keep in mind that most times you see anti-gay epithets on here that they are directed mostly at straight men and at gay men only to the extent that they are SJW’s. Mostly we are not referring to gay men at all – just our SJW straight male enemies.

I try not to use fag and faggot and anti-gay slurs on here towards gay men because I think it is a bit shameful, and I don’t want to hurt gay men’s feelings by attacking them just for being gay. They can’t help being gay so we should not attack them on that basis. Granted, all straight men hate male homosexuality, the idea that they themselves or their friends being that way, and gay sex itself, but we should not be attacking gay men just for being gay because it’s not something they could control, and it’s not their fault.

If I ever use anti-gay slurs, it will just be towards some particularly unpleasant gay men or to over the top public expressions of male homosexuality, as in I might say, “faggoty gay pride parades” because I think those parades are gross and disgusting outrages. Gay men are not gross and disgusting outrages, but those parades sure are.

I apologize to the feelings of any gay men reading on here, but when you see an anti-gay slur on there, keep in mind that I’m attacking feminist and SJW straight men who are waging war on their brothers. It’s part of a tactic to attack their masculinity for attacking brothers and basically going over to our enemies.

We’re not talking about you!

Alt Left: Stupidity about “Sex Trafficking”

This term has been grotesquely abused lately, starting with feminists, who equate all prostitution with “trafficking” and then the federal government, which passed a rather silly law 5-10 years against “sex trafficking.” Increasingly what you are seeing in the media is a complete conflation of  prostitution and “sex trafficking.”

In particular, anyone pimping minor females is said to be “trafficking” no matter whether there is any coercion at all. Trafficking was originally supposed to mean women who were being essentially enslaved, kept prisoner, held against their will, and forced to prostitute themselves for others. Basically sex slaves. There are a lot of forms of this coerced and imprisoned sort of prostitution in  the world, and it is an ugly thing to be sure!

But that silly federal law conflated that with any prostitution of minors. So “sex trafficking” is not just sex slavery but it’s also prostituting of minors. Which seems a bit silly. How are minors being “trafficked” if they are not being held against their will? It’s ridiculous. The crime should be something like Prostituting a Minor, along those lines. Perhaps that’s a serious offense, I have no idea. But it sure isn’t “trafficking.”

Increasingly I have seen articles, many coming out of Texas, about big roundups of “sex traffickers.” They were rounding up 50-60 men at once and the guys looked pretty ordinary. That’s an awful lot of “traffickers” to round up at once. When they do round these guys up, they usually only catch a few at a time as they are hard to catch and not particularly common anyway. So I did some research. It turned out that of those 60 men, only one of them actually trafficked in prostitutes, and even he was just prostituting minors. I have no idea if coercion or imprisonment was involved. The other 59 men were guilty of…get this: buying a teenage prostitute!

Look I’m not saying that buying an underage prostitute should be legal. But you should have to prove that he knew that she was underage or by her appearance, she could not possibly have been 18. The bizarre thing about these laws is that in many states, it is perfectly legal for any adult man to have sex with a 16-17 year old girl as long as he does it for free and doesn’t pay her. The minute he gives her some money for her treasures, it’s a crime!

Even knowingly buying an underage prostitute is not “trafficking” in any way, shape, or form. It’s a crime called “Buying a Minor Prostitute.” How in the Hell is buying a whore “trafficking?” It’s absurd.

To tell the truth, many prostitutes with pimps may be being trafficked. That’s because many pimps won’t let the girls in their stables free. They threaten to hunt them down, beat them up, or kill them if they run away from the pimp. Any prostitute in a situation like that with her pimp is indeed being trafficked.

Now buying a teenage prostitute is an odd crime. Minors are not allowed to legally prostitute themselves, but many do it anyway. And 50% of minor female prostitutes are Black. Blacks are only 13% of the population. So there’s massive over-representation of Black teenage girls in minor prostitution. Quite a few of those girls probably have psychopathic tendencies too, or will develop into psychopaths when they are adults because we are not supposed to diagnose psychopathy or any other  personality disorder in minors. Fully 45% of adult female prostitutes are psychopaths. Newsflash: whores aren’t very nice women. They not even very nice people.

A lot of them are simply criminals and ripoffs and all sorts of petty thievery and female prostitution go hand and hand. In my opinion, a prostitute and a thief are the same thing. This is what the female psychopath becomes: Histrionic Personality Disorder, the “Mata Hari” or “femme fatale” disorder. Basically what I would call a thieving whore. Many female strippers, porn stars and other sex workers are also female psychopaths or have high scores on the PCL.

Many male porn stars are the same. This was observed as far back as the 1970’s and 80’s. If you look at those old porn movies, look at how mean and evil so many of those male porn stars are. And look at how crass, loud, brassy, and cold the women are. That’s the typical whore personality: hard, cold, brassy, callous, cynical. It looks like a damaged woman. Their emotions look shut down and they’ve gone hard.

The Sexual Sadist

In the Delphi Murders case, one of the early suspects who has since been completely cleared was rumored to like to drink and beat women when he had sex with them. Reportedly he beat one woman so badly that she had to go to the hospital. In the Karenna McClerkin disappearance in the same area of Indiana, one of the suspects is a Black firefighter who reportedly likes to beat his women when he has sex with them.

Although this behavior sounds horrific, it’s more common than one thinks. And even more bizarrely, there a quite a few women who actually like to get treated like this. Yep, they actually like guys to beat them up when they have sex with them. I’d like to avoid women like this as much as I can in life, although I once had a girlfriend like this who wanted me to inflict pain on her, like squeezing her nipples very hard. It didn’t do anything for me and I didn’t understand how this was supposed to be exciting. It just seemed sick to me.

Of course all of us men have a sadist buried inside of us from boyhood days. Not a sexual sadist because boys have no sex drive but a sadist, of course. It’s the natural state of the Boy in Nature. Nevertheless part of the process of honing a steel boy from the brittle iron of primitive mammalian boyhood via the fire of the cruel bootcamp that is involved in minting boys from men is to progressively stomp out this primitive mammalian sadist in the boy. It gets drummed into our heads as we move through boyhood more and more that this sort of thing is not acceptable in a man.

Young men still have a lot of sadism in them. This is part of the reason why they’re such assholes, and I say this as a former ill-behaved young man myself. As a man moves beyond 30, even this casual sort of social sadism, often written out as a male bonding practice via ribbing, teasing, etc. becomes increasingly “uncool.” At my age, late middle age, you’re just not supposed to act like this. Ever. With any man. No matter what. It seen as “uncool” and immature behavior.

Besides, it marks you as a huge dick. Feminists think we are monsters and a lot of red-pilled men agree with them. This isn’t really true but in the redpilled areas of the Manosphere range where the more toxic forms of masculinity play, you see quite a bit of it there tool. I find it ugly. I don’t like to fight with guys. I don’t even like to compete with them. I’m a Sigma Male. I don’t even have to compete. I look out and other men and think, “Competition? You call that competition LOL?” and never think of it anymore.

Anyway, the feminists need to know that it’s perfectly acceptable to be a real nice guy even in Man World, the world of masculine heterosexual men. You don’t have to be a dick. Honest.

Back to sexual sadism. Sadly there are probably lots of guys who like to beat and hurt women during sex, and just because some guy is screwed up like that doesn’t make him a murderer. And most guys like that probably never kill. They can definitely hurt women pretty badly though, that’s for sure.

The problem is it’s a bit hard to beat someone up “just a little bit.” Once you start beating people up, it tends to get out of hand pretty quickly.

Also this type, the sexual sadist, tends to get more excited as he hurts people, and hence he might feel his behavior escalating during the act. The disorder called sexual sadism tends to worsen with time, and it’s not unusual for these people, almost always men, to show up in therapist’s offices as their sexual sadism escalates concerned that the last time they did it they felt themselves escalating and had to stop themselves. They show up afraid they may kill someone next.

This disorder, like many mental disorders (at least to a point), tends to be progressive and worsen with time, at least without treatment. I’m not sure why that is but if I’ve learned one thing in life it’s that bad things tend to worsen, not get better, over time. Whether this is due to life sucking in general, Pynchonian entropy, the Spenglerian life process itself, or simply God being a Sadean sonofabitch is not known.

I recall a woman on the Net had some sick fetish where she wanted men to pretend to murder her during sex. So she had this sort of sex with ~10 different guys, and she said in a lot of the cases, the men got more and more excited as it escalated, and a number of the men said they had to stop themselves or they would have killed her.

These men may not have ever been full-blown sexual sadists. It’s simply true that sadistic violence tends to cause excitement in the male as the violence unfolds. As the excitement goes up, so does the violence in tandem. The end result can be seen in the crime pages of big papers every morning. You remember that feeling as a boy when you got more excited as your psychological or physical sadism progressed against your victim.

This type of sexual paraphilia is rather dangerous. Most never kill but it’s like handing someone a stick of dynamite and telling them to play with it.

A lot of people like to play around the edges with this sort of thing in sex, but they’re not seriously wrapped up in it as in the BD/SM lifestyle, which I regard as completely sick in its full-blown manifestation.

As long as it’s just a game that confines itself to the bedroom, it’s seems to be ok.

But in my opinion most serious sexual sadists and even sexual masochists are not very healthy people, and I’ve been studying this from a rather appalled distance for some time now. Women who come out of relationships with sexual sadists often appear damaged, and the damage often looks like a battered woman. The relationships themselves, when viewed from a distance, look precisely like the abusive male-female relationships you hear so much about, albeit in these cases, these precisely same relationships are completely consensual on the part of the woman.

It’s always consensual on the man’s part. He’s the one dishing it out after all. Most people who dish out abuse are quite happy to do so and guilt is not commonly experienced because the man most likely to feel guilt is the least likely to be abusive. As usual, the worst men feel the best and the best men feel the worse, and this applies to women too.

I’m not sure if there’s any safe or healthy way to do this crap. And in case you’re wondering, not that it matters, but this is not exactly my bag. I like to like and love the women I’m with, not hate them. But I’ve studied serial killers forever and this is a major part of their pathology. Also I work in mental health and a lot of the people I work with are dealing with antisocial thoughts – molesting children, committing homicide, etc. I specialize in this stuff.

Alt Left: Definitions: Rape, Statutory Rape/Illegal Intercourse

Rape: Non-consensual sex generally involving force, the threat of force, gross deception like pretending to be another person, or drugging the victim. Everything else is gray rape and most DA’s won’t touch it with a 10 foot pole. Realistically, if she is protesting and telling you to stop and you are forcing yourself on her, it’s rape whether a DA will take it or not.

Coercion is an odd word. Anyone can coerce anyone into doing anything legal. People have been coercing me all my life. It’s not very nice, but it’s hardly rape as long as she ends up willing. It’s important to limit our definition of rape because even stranger rape is rarely prosecuted.

Almost no one ever goes down on sex with an intoxicated woman, no matter what she is intoxicated on. The feminist line that intoxicated women can never consent to sex is odd.

By this logic, intoxicated men can never consent either. Conceivably, a sober woman having sex with an intoxicated man is guilty or rape!

By the same token, an intoxicated man and an intoxicated woman are guilty of raping each other! Except of course only the man will conceivably ever go down on it.

And what of alcoholic women and women are drug addicts? Apparently every single time they have sex with anyone, they’re being raped!

Also, no one even knows what intoxicated means? At what point is someone drunk enough to not consent? Who knows!

What about other drugs – heroin, cocaine, cannabis, hallucinogens? At what point is one so intoxicated on this or that drug that they cannot consent? No one knows!

Obviously this law is ridiculously vague. All vague laws are unconstitutional and illegal because no one knows whether they are breaking them or not.

As usual, the intoxication is rape argument makes absolutely no sense, like almost everything feminists say ever. Which is a good reason to abandon feminism. It’s nothing but lies!

If you wish to know, DA’s will only prosecute on intoxicated sex as rape if she is passed out cold or passing in and out of consciousness. And even then, some video evidence might be nice. Case in point: the Steubenville boys. If she’s passed out, leave her alone! What are you, a necrophile? If she’s passing in and out of consciousness, forget it. She’s too wasted to enjoy it and half the time, you’ll be having sex with a corpse. In which case, what the Hell is wrong with you?

Logically speaking, you can coerce anyone into sex legally. If you make a condition of a job, it’s not illegal then either, but you can be sued as it’s a civil offense. As I said, anyone can coerce anyone into doing anything legal as long as there is no force or threat of force involved. If by the time she’s in bed, she’s awake and enthusiastic, it’s not important how you got her there unless you used force or the threat of force.

All affirmative consent laws are insane and stupid because no man has ever gone down on failing to read a woman’s mind properly. But if she looks terrified and unenthusiastic in bed as if you are forcing her to do something you don’t want to do, I don’t know pal, but that sounds awful rapey to me. It may be legal but that doesn’t mean it’s right.

Statutory rape (illegal intercourse): Of course teenage girls can consent, but in a legal sense we say some cannot with certain different-aged partners for various reasons, mostly that society finds the idea of adults having sex with teens of certain ages to be unsavory. Where it is consensual, the harm is almost zero.

Nevertheless, men should be advised that these laws are enforced, and nowadays they put you in prison. It’s mostly a non-issue compared to the others here. AOC varies but tends to be ~15-16 in most of the world. In European countries with AOC’s at this level, problems are very rare. This isn’t even really rape. It’s better to call it “illegal intercourse.”

Child molestation: Any sex with an adult and a child under 13 is child molestation. It has to be sex. Backrubs and shoulder pats don’t count. There has to be some sort of genital contact. As I noted in a previous post, harm varies with the degree of coercion.

Feminists should wish to recover all victims of child molestation to live full lives instead of being victims. Child molestation is illegal and should never be allowed. Some kids actually like it believe it or not (I’ve met adult women who enjoyed being molested), but we still need to keep it illegal because we do not wish to live in a society where adults have sex with kids.

Child rape: Sadly it is important to separate child rape from child molestation. This is because feminists and moral scolds have taken to conflating all child molestation as “child rape.” They’re not the same thing. Yes, small children cannot consent to sex with adults but that doesn’t mean it’s rape when it happens. Instead we use the word molestation to refer to the fact that little kids can’t legally consent. There’s no need to muddy the waters here.

Child molestation is generally “consensual” psychologically. However it is not consensual legally because we say that kids can’t consent to sex with an adult. Almost all sex with kids is molestation, not rape. Child rape does exist and it is a severe crime. It often involves strangers, abductions, threats, weapons, and violence. It’s always non-consensual by definition. In some cases, the children are physically harmed or even killed.

The consequences can certainly be long-lasting, even affecting the victim over a lifetime. Nonetheless, women seem to be able to get over rape. I know a number of women who were raped and got over it fine. I’ve only met one woman raped as a child and she won’t discuss it. And yes, it was pretty bad. Two 11 year old girls raped at knifepoint. As bad as it gets.

Pedophilia: This is simply a sexual orientation like homosexuality that means the primary or sole attraction is to children under 13. Hebephilia (primary attraction to pubescents age 12-14) and ephebephilia (primary attraction to teenagers) are not included in pedophilia.

These men cannot help their condition and need to be helped to manage it so they do not offend. There are now organizations of virtuous pedophiles dedicated to pedophiles who have committed themselves to non-offending. Pedophilia cannot be combated or prevented because we have no idea what causes it. There’s no way to fight it because it simply exists.

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: Verbal, Physical, and Sexual Abuse Does Not Automatically Have a Lasting and Detrimental Effect on Victims

This is from a session about a paper called “Najib Ali, A One-Woman Campaign Against Pedophilia,” by Louise Feather. There were many problems with this paper, including repeated conflation of pedophilia, a sexual orientation, with child molestation, an act that is typically a crime. There were numerous remarks about fighting, preventing, combating pedophilia.

Pedophilia can be neither fought nor combated. It’s a sexual orientation. It simply is. It exists. Once it sets on in a man, it’s for life. 3% of men are primary pedophiles who are more attracted to children under 13 than to mature persons. That’s 3.3 million men in the US. Good luck putting them all in prison! Pedophilia needs to be managed.

Pedophiles who have not offended deserve our compassion. They didn’t choose their orientation. Pedophiles need to get with a caring therapist and see them regularly to keep from offending. Many pedophiles can go decades without offending. A followup of pedophiles released from prison found that 25 years later, only 50% had offended. So 50% of a cohort of offending pedophiles were able to go 25 years without molesting a child.

Consequently, pedophilia cannot be prevented because we do not have any idea what causes it in the first place. We simply know that 3% of US adult males end up with this orientation.

Here in the UK we have finally come around to the understanding that any form of abuse, be it verbal, physical or sexual will have a lasting and detrimental effect on the victim.

From a comment from a session on “Najib Ali, A One-Woman Campaign Against Pedophilia,” by Louise Feather

There is no evidence that this is true. See Ritter et al for the definitive statement on CSA. Far be it for me to defend psychological, physical, or sexual abuse of children, but there’s no evidence that any of those has lasting harmful effects on everyone subjected to it. My whole family was subjected to a lot of psychological abuse. I’m certainly not harmed by it but choice of my own.

I have no idea about physical abuse. Most people can work their way out of whatever damage this sort of thing caused. Of course, in some cases, there is long-lasting harm.

I work in mental health and I seldom find a client who is damaged from a bad familial upbringing, barring extreme situations. Instead most seem damaged from peer relations, especially those from junior high and high school. Many of these folks are still suffering decades later in their 30’s.

It’s not helpful to tell the hundreds of millions subjected to this sort of thing growing up that they are damaged for life unless you want to create hundreds of billions of professional victims, which I suspect is the feminist project.

Back to child sexual abuse, meaning molestation of children under 13. That leaves out all the childhood sex play, peer sex among teens, and statutory rape, which usually leave no ill effects at all.

I certainly don’t wish to advocate CSA of little kids.

However, in many cases there was no coercion. That is, the molestation was consensual. Kids can consent to sex of course; it’s just that legally we say they can’t because they are too young to make that decision.

At any rate, molestation is divided into with and without coercion. Even coercive molestation usually does not rise to the level of rape. Child rape is terrible and should never be conflated with run of the mill molestation. It is usually done by a stranger, a weapon is often used, the child is often abducted, and injury or death is not uncommon.

The psychiatric literature is clear. Coerced child molestation can and is often quite harmful to the child, with harm extending to adulthood. However, non-coerced child molestation usually does not leave lasting ill effects. That is, most subjected to it simply work their way out of it over time. I have been involved with a few women who were molested and worked their way out of it without lasting harm.

The fact that many are able to get over being molested does not mean it should be allowed. Most of us don’t want to live in a society where adults have sex with little kids, regardless of whether the kids work their way out of it eventually or not.

Promoting perpetual victimization or lifetime victimization is not a feminist value IMHO. It certainly does not benefit the victim.

Alt Left: Saying Someone “Hates” or Even “Loves” the Opposite Sex, other Races or Ethnicities, Homosexuals, Transsexuals, Etc. Is Usually Too Simplistic

Claudius: I meant the militant MRA’s and MGTOW boys. I don’t know enough about MRA so maybe I shouldn’t have made a gross generalization. I forgot you were MRA.

I’m an MRA who hates most MRA’s. I’m for my people: the men. The feminists are waging all-out war on me and my people: the men. Shouldn’t I fight back against these bitches? I’m a bad person for fighting back against my enemies?

I’m not against women at all, though I’m as frustrated with them as any man. My enemies are the man-hating feminists, not the women.

And almost all feminists have a lot of anger towards men. Feminism is all about plugging into the anger, rage, bitterness, hatred, and resentment that most women feel towards men to some degree or other. It’s ok for women to feel that way. We men are pretty terrible. I can hardly blame them. But hating all of us is as bad as being a misogynist.

So almost all feminists are plugging into the part of themselves that feels anger, rage, bitterness, hatred, and resentment towards men. To say that they “hate men” is too simple. My Mom’s a full-blown feminist. Does she hate men? Not exactly. But she definitely has a part of herself that feels anger, rage, bitterness, hatred, and resentment towards us, that’s for damn sure.

Saying someone “hates” the opposite sex or some particular race or ethnicity, homosexuals, transsexuals, etc. is often too simplistic. Most people have a wide range of feelings for the opposite sex, different races and ethnicities, homosexuals, transsexuals, etc. These feelings can range from the most intense love to some pretty serious hatred and every gradation in between.

We say someone “hates” when most of their feelings towards the group are feelings of contempt, and they have few if any positive feelings about them. We can say that someone “loves” when most of their feelings towards the group are feeling of fondness, love, and devotion.

But most people fall somewhere in between.

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: Child Molestation and Child Rape Are Two Different Crimes and Kids Can Both Consent and Can’t Consent at the Same Time

A woman gets molested as a girl? Well, it some cases she just likes it, believe it or not. I’ve met them and they’re not exactly rare. Others didn’t like it but decided to sexualize it as a way to get beyond it. I’ve met them too. There’s nothing wrong with enjoying getting molested consensually as a child and deciding that you enjoyed that experience.

It doesn’t make you a bad person of a “defender of pedophilia” as they say about Milo when he reacted that way to statutory rape with older men when he was a 13 year old gay boy. He loved it. Most gay teenage boys love the sex they have with older men, and up to 1/3 are in a relationship; with an older man at any time. So gay boys absolutely do not get harmed by statutory rape. They love it!

It’s your choice how to react to such things.

We still need to keep it illegal though. In many other cases, she doesn’t like it, but she’s mostly just confused because “it feels good but it’s wrong,” as one woman told me. But she just moves on too. I’ve dated a number of women who were molested as girls. They told me they just got over it.

In fact, studies show that most women just get over it. This is what is in the Reiner et al study that Congress itself voted to condemn, although it was a completely scientific study. And I think the psychological establishment even had a fit over it. Some facts are not ok so they must not be facts! And they call these people “scientists of psychology.” What a joke.

This goes completely against the narrative that getting molested as a kid ruins women for life, and it’s not PC at all to say that. But we should be happy that so many women just handle lousy things that happen to them. What do the PC idiots and feminists want? They want all women damaged for life so they can say child molesting is bad? We already know it’s bad. And so they got over it? So what? That doesn’t make it ok. And the more coercion that was involved, the more likely the woman is to be damaged. However, most child molestation is just that – molestation.

It’s not rape. Most molestation is indeed consensual. The kid usually just goes along with it or gets convinced to go along with it. I’m not sure exactly how this works, not having been molested or molested a kid myself. I imagine the consent aspect is pretty complex. But indeed, most kids do “consent” to getting molested – consent in a psychological sense.

However, they are not consenting legally because we do not recognize a child’s consent as valid. So the lie that “kids can’t consent!” and “minors can’t consent!” all the way down to 17 year old girls two weeks shy of their birthday is nonsense. Of course they can consent and with teenage girls, it’s almost always consensual. So they can consent, but we do not recognize their consent legally. That’s the sane way to say it. “Minors can’t consent” is cucked faggotry. That’s for male feminists and other soyboys. No real man says that about a teenage girl.

Child rape and child molestation are two different crimes. Child rape is quite rare. It’s is often a stranger and a weapon is often involved. The child may well be harmed or even killed. Now that feminists have weaponized the definition of men raping females to include everything but the kitchen sink, all molestation is being seen as “rape.” And all perfectly consensual sex with teenage girls – often initiated by the girl, by the way – is also rape. I guess everything’s rape then! Hey feminists. Is there any kind of male-female sex where it’s not rape on the man’s part? Wondering here.

 Alt Left: Identity Politics Is Counterintuitive: The More Their Demands Get Met, the Angrier and Unhappier They Become

 IP Is Counterintuitive: The More Their Demands Get Met, the Angrier and Unhappier They Become

All IP people are angry. They’re getting a raw deal! And paranoid. All IP people are locked into war with some binary “enemy identity.” Whites are the bad guys. Men are the enemy. The enemy is keeping us down!

With all IP, curiously, the more the groups realize their goals, first, they keep moving the goalposts, insisting its not enough and inventing new demands, and oddly enough, they get even more pissed off!

Remember the Second Liberation of Blacks in 1964? How did Blacks react to the greatest freedom from shackles since the First Liberation in 1863? For the next half decade, they rampaged though America’s cities with deadly riots, killing people, fighting cops and firemen, getting themselves killed, and most stupidly, burning their own hood, and then complaining their living in the embers of the ash heap. I’ve got a theory about why this curiosity exists. It actually makes complete sense.

I’ll give you a clue? Though they were in shackles, the source of all of their misery was not to be found in the shackles. A lot of it was but a lot of it wasn’t. So the shackles came off and they looked around, and they still weren’t equals. They felt ripped off by a shapeshifting enemy and exploded with frustrated rage. And it continues to today.

As racism declines with each year, Blacks continue to have their usual Black problems. Their ideology tells them that their problems are all caused by racism, so if their problems persist even after all these years of work, racism must truly be insidious, evil, and even possible mysterious and invisible. Solution: Double down on the antiracism and Black IP to defeat this racist monster once and for all!

We liberated women, and they still had most of the same old woman problems. Liberation didn’t fix their troubles, so obviously they didn’t do it hard enough. So they double down.

We liberated gays, but of course they’re still all screwed up. They’re far nuttier than straights. Both sexes of homosexuals live 18-20 years less than straights. All of the problems of gay men (Remember Boys in the Band?) remain. All of the problems of lesbians (Remember The Well of Sadness?) remain. All the wars of homophobia didn’t work. What to do? Double down on the anti-homophobia campaigns.

Alt Left: Womyn’s Identity Politics: The More Feminist a Woman Is, the More Unhappy She Is

Womyn’s Identity Politics, in other words, feminism? Numerous studies have shown what the rest of us have always known: feminists are miserable. As womyn get more and more feminist, and feminism reaches more of its goals, womyn simply get more miserable. More freedom, more anger and unhappiness, and increasing demands for more goodies to stop the misery, except the goodies are what’s causing the blues in the first place. And they’re angry, of course.

No matter how much your try to kill off your misogyny and sexism, feminists with X-ray vision keep telling you you’re not trying hard enough. You’re still a woman hater. It’s probably for life. Men can’t be feminists. They have misogyny genes and they come out sooner or later. They all end being spies anyway.

More chiding! You wonder when the feminists are going to pull down your pants and give you a spanking. You keep flashing back to preschool days. Every feminist you meet seems 3X your size.

Alt Left: Banned from Reddit Again

LOL I’ve been banned many times. Usually they catch me sneaking on again and ban me again. This time I sneaked on again and posted for a while but I was banned within a week or so. My crime? As usual, hate speech! LOL! I get banned from everywhere for hate speech. I hate to join a rightwing, reactionary, or Alt Right site but those are the only sites anymore who aren’t run by cucks and faggots who ban you for “hate speech.”

You can literally say whatever you want on those “evil rightwing sites.” They’re the only sites left up that allow for freedom of expression. The whole rest of society has been taken over by SJW faggots. Pretty much all leftwing men are homosexuals and girls anymore. Sad day when all the real men are on the Right. How pathetic! We started the sexual revolution, dammit! And here we are, limp-dicked male prostitutes, cucks, and white knights, about every one of us. You guys ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

This is what I said:

Well, basically I said something along the line that all women are whores. This is particularly apparent to me at this age in life because almost every woman who says she will have sex with me is demanding money to do that. So I am at the age when virtually no woman will have sex with you unless you pay her first. Insulting or what? This is what I said:

I wish all women were sluts instead of whores because whores have a way of lightening my wallet and draining my bank account.

Pretty funny, huh?

Obviously a woman turned me in, and she had to be a feminist because only a feminist monster would turn in a real man for daring to tell the truth about women like that.

This earned me a lifetime ban from this faggot-overrun site for hate speech, I guess in this case, “misogyny.” Except I don’t even hate women, of course. I love women! Of course that doesn’t prevent me from telling the truth about them, which is that they’re all whores.

Actually all women are not whores. It’s just most of them. For some insane reason, Alpha is actually not a whore! She’s more or less told me that. I had to check in mind that she was truly female after she told me that because…who the Hell ever heard of a woman who wasn’t a whore? No such thing, right? Good girl, Alpha. I always knew you were ok.

My former best friend who is now an ex-friend, a 32 year old woman who happens to be a total knockout, is also, for some insane reason, not a whore. She was a camwhore for a while, but that doesn’t count. She’s just charging men to see her naked. No problem with that! There’s been plenty of men who saw her naked and didn’t pay a dime, including me! If she was charging any man who wished to see her naked like most women do, I’d be a lot more upset.

She’s probably had sex with over 120 men in her life, and a couple of women, just barely. She never charged any one of them a nickel for pussy access! Well, God bless her for that!

Well, she did, once. She signed up for Seeking an Arrangement, a site where young whores, excuse me, sugar babies, get together with rich johns, excuse me, sugar daddies for quite a pretty price. She went on two dates. On the first date the guy sent  her home because she was so nervous. On the second date, the guy paid her $350 to fuck her.

She put it in her pocket, but she said she felt horrible and there was no way she could do this. Can’t do what? She told me flat out that this is prostitution and try as she might, she simply cannot be a prostitute, including their synonymous misnomers sugar baby and call girl.

She said most of the other camwhores were call girls and they kept telling her to get in on it as it’s a gold mine. She said she thought about but she just couldn’t. She thought being a whore was absolutely the most shameful thing that any woman could do. She doesn’t even charge men for dates! I’ve gone out to dinner with her a couple of times and she insisted on paying her way both times!

However, she ferociously defended prostitutes and whores, although she thought they were so loathsome that she dared not be one. Incidentally, just about every woman I’ve ever had this conversation with has defending prostitutes, lowly common whores, to the hilt! Even my mother defends them, although she basically looks down on prostitutes as the lowest of all women. Don’t knock the gravy train as long you poor oppressed womyn are getting all that free stuff from the evil oppressive patriarchy, right, ladies?

Perhaps you think I hate women in writing this. I’ve had experience with many women. Problem is just about every man you meet like that is pretty damned cynical about women. That’s because, tragically, the more women who know well, and the more intimate time you spend around women, the more you realize what women are really like.

Women are half bad and half good. Men are also half bad and half good. When I write an article like this, I’m talking about the bad side of women. And the downside of the Feminine Principle is an ugly thing indeed. It’s only saved from Purgatory by the fact that the bad side of the Male Principle is probably 10 times worse.

Of course, I prefer not to focus on the bad side of women because when you do that, you quite logically start hating them. It’s not that women don’t deserve to be hated. Many men have a perfect right to hate women considering how women have treated them their whole lives. It’s more that I just don’t prefer to be a woman-hater. Sure, there are a lot of men out there like this, but when I get into a misogynistic frame of mind, it doesn’t feel good. It feels like an ill-fitting suit, the kind you keep trying to shrug off your shoulders.

I also think misogyny doesn’t work. You start hating women, of course they start hating you right back. You go out into a world every day in which every other person you meet is a member of an enemy army ready to shoot you on the spot. Life’s difficult enough. I prefer not to literally feel like I’m at war whenever I stumble out of my abode to go face the cruel world. Might as well make it as innocuous as possible.

Otherwise you’ll probably barely leave your house, and I almost have that problem anyway (though I do go out at least twice a day and sometimes more often. If you want to know why I go outside, it’s to by coffee, two times from two different locales. She I can make it at home cheaper, but even my misanthropic self has become people-addicted that I need a fix twice a day.

It’s hard for me to believe that here we are in 2021 and there are still women in existence who thing being a goddamned prostitute is most disgusting thing a woman could be. And that includes “only dating rich men,” asking men for gifts and presents,” charging men for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, on and on. It’s all just whoring. Not but prostitution and all the women who do that are nothing but lowly prostitutes, common whores, no better than a degraded street whore, every one of them.

Any women reading this (if there are any women left who dare to read this blog), you upset at me calling you a whore? Well, I’m not necessarily talking about you, but since you asked, stop using your vagina as an ATM machine and I’ll take it back. Deal?

Game/PUA: Repost: Why Hating Womanizers Is Preposterous

First of all I want to say that there are two types of players, womanizers, playboys, or polygamous men out there.

You ask most people and they will just say something retarded like all guys like that hate women. And that’s not completely false. Or it’s obvious that they don’t care about women very much because they are so cold and callous. And once again, that would be partly true. But the reason why I think people are morons is that they are half-right most of the time.

But half-right doesn’t cut it. When you are half-right, you have not adequately explained the situation. Further, you are claiming a full truth that is actually more of a half truth. That is a philosophical error. Truths should be the best explanation of the facts, as we see them now, in most cases, most parsimoniously. Few truths will be 100% correct. But when you look for a truth, you look for something that explains the facts better than any other solutions.

If I wanted to know about womanizers, I suppose I would ask my mother, the smartest woman in the whole world. Also her generation is so much wiser than these later generations of women that it’s not even funny. I think feminism with its endless lies has really done a number on modern women to where they can’t think straight and simply do not understand the world.

For the longest time, since I was a teenager, my mother has been telling me her theory about this type of man. She said there are two types.

The first type pretty much hates women or at least acts like it, as they spout a lot of misogyny. Typical advice from these men is that the only way to deal with women is to treat them like shit. Also all women love to be treated like shit anyway. And if you don’t treat them like shit, you won’t be able to deal with them well.

A think a lot of players get cynical about women because they see the good and bad sides of women. A man who has dated say hundreds of women has started to learn quite a bit about the gender, if he had his senses turned on and was taking notes. The problem is that after you date hundreds of women you end up with a lot of experiences, good and bad. You have a whole universe full of some of the greatest experiences on Earth and a whole universe full of some of the most awful experiences you could imagine. They’ve seen women at their best and at their worst. It’s the good, the bad and the ugly.

Also they really understand women. And when you really understand them, you figure out that women are not sugar and spice and everything nice. There is a dark side to women as there is to men, and it’s not pretty at all. It’s ugly as all get out. What probably happened with a lot of these men is that they saw so much female bad behavior and had so many bad experiences with women, that they just don’t think much of women anymore.

About their notion that the only way to deal with women is to treat them like shit, unfortunately, this works because a lot of women are susceptible to abuse. And abuse works. It’s lousy, but it works. These men have grown callous and hardened.

Examples of misogynistic womanizers abound. The world of porn is full of sadistic, often dangerously misogynistic men who like to brutalize women. Male porn stars are always beating up their wives and battering them. Linda Lovelace’s porn husband beat her all the time.

In the PUAsphere, we have Roosh, Heartiste, a lot of the guys at Return of Kings, and Redpill on Reddit as examples of the misogynist type of womanizer. Now why men who hate women that much want to spend so much time around them, I have no idea, but they do.

My mother said there is another type though. This type really, really loves women, as she put it. Most people don’t realize this. Often this type was very close to their mothers, sisters, girl cousins or maybe even aunts. They often hung around girls more than boys at school. In college in beyond, you often saw them socializing with women more than with men. If you ask these men, a lot will tell you that they hate men, and they only like to hang around females.

So there is definitely a type of womanizer who loves women like crazy and can’t get enough of them. Because they love women, women pick up on this, feel comfortable with them and like these men. This makes everything work a whole lot better.

You might be surprised, but guess what? Women really like men who love women. If a man loves women, women can pretty much figure it out via energy flow, mindreading, intuition, etc.

Then my mother said, “They don’t treat them very well, but they do love them.” Most people will tell you that sounds insane on the surface, but actually that explanation works very well, and my experience in life has taught me that that explains the facts perfectly.

They keep doing studies on the dating sites. The 80-20 ratio keeps coming up over and over. Feminists say that the 80-20 ratio is a great big fat lie, but they keep finding it in study after study. For instance in a recent study on a dating site, they somehow ascertained that 80% of the women were chasing only 20% (probably the top 20%) of the men. And 80% of the men were chasing 20% (possibly the bottom 20%) of the women.

A study of STD’s in the Black community found that a lot of the women were being infected by a small group of men, maybe 20%. There were four female patients for every one male patient. 20% of the men were screwing most of the women.

Now on dating sites, the top 20% would probably be the best looking men. It is these men and these men only who most probably are the Alphas. Alpha is a much abused term ,and the feminists say that the whole concept is idiotic and false. But it makes sense. Alpha, Beta and Omega make sense. This is what they mean, roughly.

Alpha: The top 20% of men in looks, etc. These men are attractive to most of the women most of the time. In other words, this is the small group of men who are so hot that just about every woman wants them. That’s all Alpha means. Nothing less. Now why is that a false theory?

Beta: This is the mass of men, and there is nothing wrong with being in this group. Almost all men are in this group. Betas are simply men who are found attractive by some of the women some of the time. That’s it. Nothing more and nothing less. Why is this a bad theory? What’s wrong with it?

Omega: These are men who are found attractive by almost none of the women almost all of the time. They are totally rejected by women. Why is this concept false? Do we deny that these guys exist?

Also note that on that dating site, 80% of the men were having to chase a small pool of only 20% of the women. So this is where your incels come in. Obviously all of that large number of men cannot get with that 20% of the women. It’s logically impossible, and you have a lot of guys left over or left aside.

However, life for men who are found highly attractive by women can be grand indeed. You would not believe how easy these guys have it.

Bottom line is women and girls are pretty much throwing themselves at these guys all the time, and these guys are supposed to “Just say no.” Well, men don’t do that. Men don’t “just say no.” That’s not in our vocabulary. If women and girls are throwing themselves at these guys all the time, why are they scumbags for going for it? That’s like letting a kid into a candy store, telling him he can take all he wants for free, and then calling him a thief when he does it.

Mostly back when I was younger (best of all in my teens and 20’s), before I turned old and ugly, females just threw themselves at me a lot. I didn’t even approach all that much. I wasn’t chasing females much because there was simply no need to.

They were coming to me instead so all I had to do was sit back and reel in lines when the fish came to bite. There was no need to “prey” on women (and some of these guys do that), especially vulnerable, wounded, weak or easy to fool ones because I never liked to do that anyway as it always seemed so sleazy and also because there was never any need to.

At the time, most of my friends were women and girls, and I spent most of my time hanging around with them because I liked their company and I like women a lot more than I like men, about whom the less said the better. People talk about friendzoning being horrible, but it usually wasn’t for me.

At age 18, it got rather bad because I was just getting friendzoned and it was like “friends with all, lovers with none.” This situation feels very bad, does a number on your self-esteem, and I do not recommend it.

But with me, Friendzoning has been a lot different. For some odd reason, women would only stay friends with me for a while, often a few months, before they would simply try to seduce me. They didn’t seem to be able to be just friends with me. I have no idea why that is, but that’s how it was, and I still cannot be platonic friends with women very long because my female platonic friends try to seduce me to this very day!

Also if you are lucky, your female friends are a great source of new females. My female friends and even relatives were always more or less throwing their friends at me.

“Hey Bob, you know my friend Laura? She says she wants to go out with you. She really likes you, and she wants you to take her out.”

And sometimes I would even get specific instructions from my female friends on what they wanted me to do to their friends. It was:

“Hey Bob, I want you to go out with my friend Sarah, ok? She says she really likes you. She told me to tell you that she wants you to take her out. So you want to go out with her?”

“Sure.”

“Well if you do, I really want you to fuck her because she’s never been fucked and I want you to be her first one.

So sometimes my female friends would fix me up with their friends with specific instructions to have sex with them. They would tell me that they were going to check up afterwards and I better follow through on having sex with her friend otherwise they would be very disappointed.

And sometimes I would get a girlfriend(s) and females would see me with new girlfriend and then come up to me and try to get me to cheat on her.

“Hey Bob. Who is Lori? Is that your girlfriend? Are you guys close? Why don’t you go out with me too? Would Lori get mad? Anyway, you should be with me instead. I am a lot better than Lori, she’s no good. I’ll be a better girlfriend than she is. Try me, and you’ll see.”

So even when I got a girlfriend and tried to be monogamous, females would keep coming up to me and tempting me to cheat on her. They knew I had a gf, but they did not even care!

They would say,

“I know Tracy’s your girlfriend, but you should go out with me anyway, Bob.”

“Ha ha ha! You want me to cheat on Tracy? She will not be happy about that, you know!”

“Who cares about Tracy, Bob! She’ll never find out ! Anyway I bet I’m better in bed than she is. You should dump her and go with me instead!”

So when I had a girlfriend, other women would encourage me to be a cheater.

Even when I had a girlfriend, I stayed close to my female friends, who typically could care less that I had a girlfriend now because they kept trying to fix me up with all their friends!

I would say,

“But what about Rhonda? I am supposed to cheat on Rhonda with your friend Joan. She will kill me if she finds out.”

“Who cares about your girlfriend! Hell with her! She will never find out anyway. Here, go out with Joan, she told me she wants to go out with you. Joan’s better looking anyway. Rhonda’s cute, but she’s not as cute as Joan. And Rhonda’s a bitch! I hate the way she treats you. Joan will treat you way better. She hates Rhonda too.”

So my very own female friends were always encouraging me to cheat too.

I could go on and on here, but you get the picture. For a lot of these guys it is absurd to hate them. They have females after them all the time, and they are simply taking them up on their offers. These guys are evil users, predators, criminals, scum, etc, why? Because they refuse to “Just say no?” But why should they just say no? Most men won’t do that.

It is like if people were walking up to you handing out $100 bills all the time and saying,

“Here you want this? I think you are a really cool guy, so I am going to give you this $100 right now.”

Well you take the bills most of the time, right? ”

“Hey, thanks for the $100 man, you sure are nice.”

Then the people who gave you the bills would yell at you for taking them.

“You bastard! You just took that $100 from me. You are a user! You used me for $100! You ripped me off! You’re a criminal! You’re preyed on me! You’re a predator!”

You would say,

“You want it back?”

They would say,

“Nope! Keep the $100! But you are an evil man for taking it! You’re a predator scum! You used me like an object! You should have been a good person and just said no! You realize you are hurting people by taking those $100’s? You hurt so many people!”

You would say,

“LOL how do I hurt people by taking free $100’s? You guys are idiots LOL!”

He would say,

“Because reasons bla bla bla!”

Well you would just laugh and say,

“Screw you idiots! I am going to keep on taking $100’s, you lunatics! You give me $100’s for free and then you yell at me for taking them and say I should have just said no ! Haha! How stupid you are!  I don’t care if it ‘hurts people’ LOL! Who cares! Just give me your $100’s people! About those people I hurt by taking the money, hey I promise I will pray to Jesus for them!”

Why the Genetic and Normal Evil of Boys Must Be Destroyed before They Become Men

The evil in boys in the natural state of males, genetic. It is schooled out of us by maybe our mothers, except that being boys, despite the fact that we love them to death we don’t listen to them because…what male listens to a woman? It’s removed from us mostly by other boys, but especially men in our families, and older brothers and relatives, etc.

The men really come down on you if you stay evil too long. You’re supposed to drop the boyish evil. If you retain it too long, people get worried, for good reason. The boyish evil is schooled out of you harshly verbally or maybe even psychically. There’s also ostracization and being told that you’re acting like a boy, not a man, and that you are immature, and no teenage boy wants to be told that.

This is done because the boyish evil must be smashed out of us before we become men because otherwise all of us men would just murder each other. I’m serious. Boyish evil is not acceptable behavior for a man. You’re acting like a kid. You’re not a real man. You’re still a boy.

But more important than that, you’re being a dick because retention of boyish evil causes you to attack your fellow boys and men, and that’s considered dickish to asshole behavior. You lose friends after a while. And along the way, someone’s going to hit you. Men who are dicks and assholes to other men can’t get away with it forever.

Male society has a way of self-policing. It’s called The Rule of the Punch in the Face. You violate the basic rules too much in too outrageous of a way, and you’re going to get hit. Real simple. The only thing that keeps Man World halfway sane at all is the threat of a punch in the face.

Now that we live under Female Rule in a feminist matriarchy, this tool has been taken away from us. Try to enforce the rule and you get the cops called on you and prosecute for assault or battery. In the olden days, an asshole would get beaten up and get a punch in the face and all of the men who saw it would get together and whisper, “I didn’t see a thing, did you?” “Nope, not a thing.”And the guy who enforced the Rule would get a handshake and everyone would offer to buy him a beer.

Further, it’s considered bad karma. If you go too far, other men will also act like you are scary and evil, and will refer to you as a psycho. Even though I am definitely dangerous and can be psycho if you make me mad enough, I don’t appreciate being called one. Because in the Ted Bundy sense of the word, I’m definitely not.

The truth is so brutal that only someone with an Oriental philosophy that doesn’t care for pretty lies and has no problem equivocating and thinking in terms of grey and not black and white can see it. It is this: Women and men are both half good and half bad. To put in the terms speak of on here, both the Masculine and Feminine Principles are half good and half bad.

However, I believe that our basic bad side of a man is still there, it’s just that most of us put it in a maximum security prison in our guts, and we swear to never let the POS see the light of day. Nevertheless he does come out now and again, and it’s usually not good. Usually there’s an altercation between another man. If you are lucky if there’s just verbal fighting and threats, maybe throwing stuff or destroying an object or two. It very quickly spirals out of control.

Yet it does come in handy now and again when you have to try to kill someone, and for one too many men, that moment comes at least once in a lifetime. I can’t tell you how men have told me that another man or men tried to kill them, and they didn’t even go to war where it’s a quotidian thing.

And in an amazing few cases, friends have told me that they actually committed homicide. In both cases, they were mugged by male attackers with weapons on city streets very late at night. Things got ugly real fast and in self defense, my friends grabbed the weapons and killed the men with it. In one case they grabbed the guy’s knife and stabbed him to death. The other case may have been the same. Both times they didn’t stick around to find out what happened. They just left him for dead. And neither went to the cops. That’s a real stupid thing to do in a case like that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: Updated: How the Armed Colombian Left (the FARC and the ELN) Came to Be

I just updated this post with a lot of information about the assassination of Jorge Eliécer Gaitán in 1948 which led to the massive riots called The Bogotazo, after which a decade of mass killings called La Violencia took place. The assassination of Gaitan, even more than the banana workers strike, jump-started the movement of the armed Colombian Left in the form of the Colombian guerrillas.

In 1948 in Colombia, a very popular presidential candidate, Jorge Eliécer Gaitán of the Liberal Party, was assassinated for the same reason that given for the overthrow of Arbenz of Guatemala seven years later. The Liberal Party was one of two fascist parties of the oligarchy, along with the Conservative Party. See below for more on them.

The Liberal Party was anything but. Yet Gaitán was an interesting figure, part of a socialist movement in the party who advocated very popular candidate who promised major changes in Colombian society a battle against social, political, and economic inequality. He was also a feminist who advocated the uplift of the status of Colombian woman in society. In addition, he broached the subject of land reform, a hot button issue in Colombia.

In fact, as in so many other places in Latin America such as Guatemala, Nicaragua, and El Salvador, the endless Leftist guerrilla war against the government is more of a fight over land than anything else. To this day, the Colombian oligarchy has refused to do a land reform, in part because this is where most of their money comes from.

Even Venezuela has had only partial success at a land reform, as it has proven too difficult to break up the big estates or latifundias. Instead, since much of the land lies idle and fallow, peasants have conducted land invasions of fallowed land in the latifundias, which has resulted in a lot of conflict.

Death squads funded by the latifundia oligarchs have murdered over 150 peasant leaders since Chavez came in over the last 20 years. Parts of the Chavista Movement have been aligned with the rural rich for whatever reason, and they have been involved in repressing these peasant movements also.

He was murdered by the Colombian oligarchy or ruling class, which has stayed in power by mass murder for 75 years now. They were even massacring people earlier, as there was a mass slaughter of striking workers at banana plantations in the northwest in a place called La Magdalena in 1928.

Even this early, the US was waging a Cold War against the USSR. The US became very alarmed by the strike, as the plantations were owned by the US United Fruit Company. United Fruit and the US government described the strikers as subversives and Communists. The US threatened to invade if the strike was not put down by the Colombian government.

Under orders from United Fruit, the Colombian military attacked the workers. Many striking workers were killed. The event was memorialized by Gabriel Garcia Marquez in his famous novel 100 Years of Solitude. The event was a watershed in Colombian politics, as an actual Colombian Left was formed around this time.

Gaitan was an excellent speaker and his rallies drew large crowds of union members and poor people. He was characterized as a demagogue, like Juan Peron, who was already rising to power in Argentina. He was also a budding nationalist. He was criticized by the Conservative Party, the right wing of the Liberal Party, and even the Communist Party, which regarded him as a competitor for the interests of the workers.

In 1933, he split with the Liberal Party and formed the Unión Nacional Izquierdista Revolucionaria (National Leftist Revolutionary Union). In 1946, he proposed a Gaitanista Program. It advocated many things:

Development agencies for the advancement of the social, political, and economic advancement of peasants in the countryside. Policies to redistribute wealth in Colombia. Nationalization of public services, a progressive income tax, and the development of a national economy. A land reform and new pro-labor laws.

In terms of foreign policy, it advocated an economic union of Latin American countries so they could serve the interests of their people instead of that of the oligarchies and foreign carpetbagging corporations. His project could be best described as anti-plutocratic and anti-imperialist.

He was assassinated in 1948 by a “lone gunman,” Juan Roa Sierra, along the lines of Lee Harvey Oswald. Two ex-CIA agents have confessed that it was really the CIA that was behind the operation. The assassin took orders from two named CIA agents and the assassination plan was called Operation Pantomime.

This was probably one of the first of countless assassinations of liberal and leftwing figures the world over by the CIA undertaken as part of the Cold War. Sierra visited Gaitan in his office in  the morning and at 1 PM, he shot Gaitan dead.

An enraged mob then set upon Sierra, who was protected by an Army colonel. He was chased to a store where  he holed up. The mob smashed into the store and dragged him outside. He was beaten and stabbed so many times that his corpse was unrecognizable.

At the time of his assassination, a meeting of the Pan-American Conference led by US Secretary of State George Marshall. At this meeting, all members of the group agreed that fighting Communism was their number one concern.

The despicable Organization of American States or OAS, a fake organization of Latin American countries that is actually run by the US and serves to promote the interests of the US and its neo-colonies in Latin America.

At the same time, the Latin American Youth Congress was taking place. It been organized by Fidel Castro of Cuba and was funded by Juan Peron of Argentina. A young Gabriel Garcia Marquez was a law student at the time and was eating lunch at the time  Gaitan was killed. He rushed to the scene and arrived just in time to see Sierra lynched by the mob. He memorialized the event in his book, Living to Tell the Tale.

It is possible that Gaitan, like Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan and James Earl Ray, was a patsy for an assassination carried out by the US Deep State in the case of the former and by the FBI itself in the case of Ray.

Gaitan suffered from schizophrenia, could not fire a gun properly, the gun in his hand was not capable of firing accurately, and he was standing quite a distance away from Gaitan while the murder occurred at a short distance. Further, Sierra was not seen anywhere near the assassination. The first time  he was spotted, he was in between two police officers.

The Colombian government quickly blamed the USSR and the Colombian Communist Party for the murder. They also tied in the young Fidel Castro with the plot. This version seems very unlikely.

Notice that this CIA assassination took place under “liberal Democrat” Harry Truman.

The murder of this candidate was followed by a wild  riot known as the Bogotazo. Many of the rioters were armed and the riots left much of downtown Bogota in ruins. The riots left 1,800 people dead. This was part of a larger reign of violence in the countryside which had started in 1930. By 1948, Bogota was full of peasants fleeing the violence in the countryside.

The Bogotazo led eventually to La Violencia, a truly crazy 10 year period from 1954-1964 in which Liberals and Conservatives, which ideologically are both simply fascist parties, with the Liberals masquerading as social democrats to the extent that they are even members of the Socialist International, massacred each other in huge numbers for no particular reason at all.

The Liberals and Conservatives typically trade off running the country. Although they hated each other to the point of slaughtering hundreds of thousands of each other, the odd thing is that despite their names, ideologically and in governance, there is little difference between. They are both far rightwing parties of the oligarchy.

The armed Left in the form of the ELN, which was created in 1964, theorizes that La Violencia was simply a way for the elite to slaughter the politically active working class.

After La Violencia ended in 1964, a small group of people tired of being massacred settled in some property in West-Central Colombia and declared themselves a semi-autonomous republic. They were also heavily armed. They said that and armed themselves mostly to keep from being massacred. And they did set it up as a “Communist republic” but it was only a small patch of land of no particular consequence and the group’s numbers never numbered greater than 200.

They named this place Marquetalia. Manuel “Sure Shot” Marulanda, the leader of the FARC for the next 40 years, was one of the founders of this commune. The Colombian government became very alarmed that 200 people had called themselves Communists and settled some lands that they freaked out and called for Uncle Sam to come help.

This was under the “liberal Democrat” Johnson Administration. The US also became very alarmed and we sent several generals and a troop of Green Berets down there.

At this time, the Green Berets were advising the Guatemalan government in putting down a Left insurgency that began there in 1960. They put it down via massacres of the civilian population. There’s nothing noble about the Green Berets. They’re simply the US government version of a Latin American death squad.

Anyway, a significant army detachment was mobilized and Marquetalia was attacked with US advisors by their side. There are suggestions that the US and Colombia even used chemical weapons against the commune.

The Marquetalians fought back but were defeated, suffering many casualties. The survivors retreated into the mountains of Colombia. These are really mountain jungles as the mountains are covered in a jungle-like near-rainforest and it’s impossible to find anyone or anything in there.

There they decided that all peaceful attempts at change, including setting up a semi-autonomous commune, were impossible, so they could either sit in the villages and wait for the government to come murder them or they could take up arms so they could at least fight back when the army and death squads came.

The group was called the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia), and they are still active to this day, 56 years later. At one time around 2000, they controlled ~50% of Colombia and formed an actual threat to the regime.

The ELN (National Liberation Army) was formed at the same time, in 1964, in Eastern Colombia under obscure circumstances that I’m not aware of.

The original philosophy was Liberation Theology and their leader was Camilo Torres, the original “priest with a machine gun.” Liberation theology can be thought of as “Jesus with a machine gun” and in fact there are murals in Latin America showing exactly this. The idea is that Jesus supported “the preferential option for the poor” and that even armed struggle to achieve this goal was not only valid but very Christian.

One of the original theorists was an educator named Paulo Friere in Brazil who published a famous book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed – also published in the same year that the ELN and the FARC were formed in 1964 -along these lines, advocating a liberation theology component to be the focus of the curriculum in Latin America. Theologian Gustavo Gutierrez could be considered the father of Liberation Theology. He wrote a book called The Theology of Liberation around this same time.

To this day, although the ELN are Leftists, they are still officially a Christian organization and they have many supporters among the Catholic clergy in Colombia, as does the officially atheist FARC.

Alt Left: Why Identity Politics Is Alive, Has an Individual Ego, Does Not Wish to Die, and Is Essentially Fascistic at Its Core

Polar Bear: The Social Left is more loony and emotional than ever. “Whites need to be silent but we also need to end White silence.”

Sure, I work in mental health, and I assure you that the Social Left is essentially mental disorder spread out over an entire movement. People don’t understand. They think only individuals get mentally ill. It’s not so.

Entire groups of people get mentally ill at once. We call it a shared disorder. Entire ethnic groups or societies can become mentally ill, and the disorder looks exactly like it does in an individual. In that sense, groups themselves actually have egos, psyches, etc.

What is an individual? An ego. What is a group of individuals? A mass of egos all together. As an individual can become egotistical, paranoid, projecting, etc., so can a group. In that case the amassing of individual egos creates something like a “group ego.”

So we can see entire ethnic groups and nation states as having “individual” egos, defense mechanisms, projections, psyches, and mental disorders. Every part of an individual’s psyche can probably become part of the group psyche. In this sense, entire ethnic groups and even nations are like “people” or can be constructed as a person, the way turn of the century cartoons had avatars that represented entire countries, for instance, France represented as Beatrice.

And this is why nationalism  is so dangerous. All Identity Politics is just nationalism and suffers from all of the problems(and I would argue mentally disordered thinking) that goes along with nationalism. For Identity Politics is just the “nationalism” of whoever your identity nation is.

Normal nationalists may be Syrians, Turks, Russians, Chinese, or whatever, but in IdPol, people are members of the Female Nation, the Gay Nation, the Black Nation, the Jewish nation (although this blurs with actual nationalism), the Woke Nation, and even, yes, the White Nation because White nationalism is just as insipid and mentally disordered as any other IdPol, except it’s probably worse because the hatred is so severe, on the surface, and often acted out with violence.

Politics can become nations. Communists are often members of the “Communist nation,” being all Communists. Antifa adherents are members of the Antifa Nation, to the extent such a thing can exist at all with anarchists. Even politics now, ordinary Left and Right, seems like forms of nationalism. Democrats are members of the Liberal Nation or Democratic Nation. Republicans are members of the Conservative Nation or Republican Nation.

What is interesting is that all of these IdPol groups will behave precisely like the nationalisms of ethnic groups or nation-states. Look at how nationalists act, especially ultranationalists, which is another word for fascists. Look at the similarities with IdPol.

This is how IdPol in its extremes seems fascistic.

Feminazis anyone? But feminazis often call themselves socialists. Ever heard of Gay Nazis? Black and Hispanic nationalists can seem fascistic, though they often call themselves Communists. Look at Farrakhan (a “Black Nazi”) and the Azteca Movement (“Hispanic Nazis”). Both look surprisingly fascistic, all the way down to the typical antisemitism of so many fascist movements.

In this way, a lot of “Communists” in the imperial core are actually fascists. Any “Communist” who supports separatisms such as female or lesbian separatism, Black separatism with a Black state in the South, or Hispanic separatism with an Aztlan state in the West is really just a fascist. If you were a real Communist, you wouldn’t be shutting the door to other workers just because they’re White or men or whatever.

Communism and Left Populism tends to be inclusive and led by the oppressed or underdogs.

Fascism and Right Populism tends to be exclusive and led by privileged or ruling groups who bizarrely say they are being discriminated against by their own minorities! Mostly they are afraid of losing their power due to some economic, political or demographic threat.

Hence, “Communism” in the imperial core, with its support for the various mental disorders known as Black, Hispanic, female, and lesbian separatism, has always been more fascist than Communist. This is probably one reason why it has failed so badly. It demonizes far too many proletarians for having the wrong skin color or genitals.

White nationalists of course have always been true fascists and often more or less Nazis in one way or another.

Although they really aren’t, conservatives call Antifa fascists. They’re more Communists but you can see above how these fascist movements often cloak themselves in the colors of socialism and Communism because they see themselves as oppressed.

Antifa is exclusive as it deliberately excludes and discriminates against Whites in some places like the Autonomous Zone in Seattle, and their “fascism of the oppressed; i.e. Western Leftism” is really not a whole lot different from the true fascism of a ruling group threatened with the loss of its power either politically, economically, or demographically. For an example, see American White nationalists. They’re coming from completely different places, and they typically want to murder each other, but really they’re more alike than different.

Zionazis? Ever heard of people calling Israelis fascists? Israel is indeed a fascist country, especially now under Netanyahu, a classic fascist on the model of the fascism of the 1920’s, which is he reduplicating via his heir Jabotinsky. See The Iron Wall by Jabotinsky, 1921. Not only does Jabotinsky express admiration for existing fascists, he lays the blueprint for a Jewish fascist state. And the project in the book looks like a printout of the Likud Party’s positions.

The group is alive. All groups are alive. As individuals don’t want to die, groups often don’t want to die either. That’s why movements like feminism and gay rights won’t just disband and take off already even though they’ve gotten most of what they want.

“Feminism” is like an individual person; the movement itself is “alive” like a person is alive. In addition, many mentally disordered people (this is especially prominent in feminism where almost all of the women are disordered) gain a sense of identity or even have their entire identity tied up in the movement.

Furthermore, the movement, while being an extension of their own disorder, also needs to stick around in order to keep the disorder going. Typically the disorders in movements like these are characterological, and at any rate, they are very ego-syntonic. No woman is wailing about how some part of her is forcing her to become a feminist against her wishes. That would be a neurosis or ego-dystonic anxiety disorder.

Without the movement, these people tend to flounder. They are quite characterologically disordered, so this gets in the way of a lot of real relationships in actual Meatspace, itself being different from the “space” inhabited by the movement. They get quite lost and typically start looking around for another movement to attach themselves to gain a sense of purpose in what is now a purposeless life.

They  often grab the nearest movement that comes along, even one in complete contradiction to their previous one, to attach to like a remora onto a shark. This is why you see people flipping from fascist to communist and vice versa (the turn from Far Left in university to Far Right at 40 is typical of many upper class Latin Americans). You see feminists becoming radical anti-feminists. You see far Leftists like David Horowitz and many other neocons doing complete flips and becoming raving reactionaries, albeit with a Wilsonian window dressing to cover their “humanitarian massacres.”

Alt Left: #believewomen

#believewomen and #ibelievewomen

I can’t think of a more terrible idea than that. I can’t believe how many cucks, I mean male feminists, put that hashtag on everything. Disgusting. No group of people should be automatically believed.

But this is feminism. In feminism, women are never wrong. And men are never right. Women are 100% good and men are 100% bad.

Try this experiment. Try getting a feminist to agree that there women have one even tiny flaw or negative trait. They never will. They will never, ever agree that women are deficient or come in second place to men in just about anything. It’s the most useless and idiotic philosophy out there. Why on Earth should we on the Left have to believe such a ridiculous, anti-scientific, blatantly propagandistic and dishonest philosophy? Give us a reason? And if we don’t believe in this nonsense, that means we hate women?!

Honk! 🤡

What It’s Like to Be a Man: Experiences of Transmen or FTM Transsexuals

Talk to a transman, especially one who has gone back. This is the story they will tell you:

When you are a man, it is unbearably lonely. No one cares about you. You can drop dead tomorrow and no one will bat an eye. No one will come up to you and start talking to you. No one will ask you out on a date. You are all alone in a world that cares nothing about you. It’s the most terrifying feeling of loneliness and vulnerability.

I’m not here to bitch. I am a man. I know full well that this is just how it goes. I don’t like it, but I made my peace with it long ago. Don’t fight the things you can’t change that will never go away anyway.

But yep, this is exactly how it is to be a man.

If women had to live the sort of lives we men do, they would not be able to handle it. They’d tolerate it for a while, but then they’d blow their brains out.

Do we get any sympathy for this from women? Why? Because women, like society in general, could care less about us men. This the precise and open statement at the bottom of feminism, which developed as a hate movement against men. Feminism is nothing but female psychology unleashed, decriminalized, and reified. Women are gods, men are devils, and that’s it.

If women were really the compassionate creatures they claim to be, they would not feel this way, nor would they join this vicious hate movement against their brothers.