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.

Alt Left: A Men’s Rights View of Pedo Hysteria: It Was Created by Feminists To Demonize Normal Male Sexuality

This is so perfect. I found this on a men’s rights site. It’s brilliant and I think it explains this latest moral panic about pedophilia and child molesting (and more importantly, the sexuality of teenage girls, which is what it is really all about).

The “popular usage” of the term pedophilia is basically the pedo-scare created by feminists to criminalize healthy and normal male sexuality as many boys who are either in jail or on sex offender lists have now discovered. How many? We don’t know since there are no federal stats on who is actually on those lists, but some local studies point to a very significant percentage of “sex offenders” being kids just fooling around.

Just like the definitions of “rape,” “assault,” “domestic violence” that have been redefined to include pretty much anything a female finds convenient, “pedophile” now effectively means “any guy who is attracted to a woman younger than me.”

Then why have we suddenly felt the need to protect young females from sex more now that feminists are in charge?

Why has there been a sudden ramping up of the legislation ‘protecting’ teenage girls from “abuse” since feminists started gaining real power at governmental level, particularly since 2000? Isn’t a simple EP explanation that it is in feminists selfish gene reproductive interests to limit sexual competition from younger girls by raising the age of consent and creating pedohysteria memes?

And it was 19th century feminists who largely determined that 14 year olds are children – something that would have been considered ridiculous in most of human history and even in much of Europe before 2000.

Pedophilia got hijacked by feminists, expanded well beyond its clinical definition or even basic common sense (like jailing consenting kids or guys who had no reasonable way of suspecting the age of their partners), criminalized to the point of absurdity (sex offender lists for consenting kids having sex with each other? Really?) and used as a “scarlet letter” that needs no proof (RL: And hence is not falsifiable and is also tautological).

It’s the same strategy that led to do the absurdly broad definitions, lack of due process, and blatantly sexist criminalization of “domestic violence,” “sexual assaults,” or “sexual harassment.” They not only smear an entire gender but also keep individual men in a permanent state of subjugation to women. Note that most men would think twice before arguing against an abusive female because they can easily get expelled from school, or lose their job, or get evicted from their home.

The root is deeper in my opinion: the “men only want one thing” is just a special case of “male sexuality is bad” which itself is coming from “men are evil”.

The decades-old smear campaign of lies spearheaded by feminists has basically left the general public with an appalling opinion of men:

Men are considered as pedophiles. Never mind that being attracted to a healthy fertile female is a perfectly normal behavior, and Romeo and Juliet were 14 yrs old or so.

Men are considered as perverts guilty of sexual harassment for looking at a girl with her tits and ass hanging out, but having your tits and ass hanging out in the workplace is somehow not considered perverted or sexual harassment.

Men are considered dangerous to children. Never mind that biological fathers are protectors of their children and have an absolutely incredibly positive influence on them.

If you redefine male sexuality as evil and perverted, then it becomes a rhetorical question. (RL: Absolutely perfect and immaculate.)

Alt Left: Just Banned from Reddit Again

I got banned from Reddit, so I went and got a new name and signed up under that one. I got banned almost immediately. So now I’ve been banned twice. But now I have a new name, ha ha. A Satanic feminist sub reported me to Mommy Reddit because I wrote a comment asking why it was wrong for adult men to fantasize about teenage girls. After all, 100% of all straight men are attracted, typically maximally, to teenage girls. There is some other data suggesting that attraction declines with each declining year, but all men are maximally aroused by 16 and 17 year old girls.

One study found that for 15 year old girls, it was 90%, for 14 year old girls, it was 80%, and for 13 year old girls, it was 70%. Fairly high levels of attraction from 10-60% remained even in the pedophilic range – for 12 year old girls, it was 60%, for 11 year old girls, it was 50%, for 10 year old girls, it was 40%, for 9 year old girls, it was 30%, for 8 year old girls, it was 20%, and for 7 year old girls, it was 10%. Below that there was no attraction, thank God.

When females are lumped into a group called 13+, 100% of
normal straight men react maximally to this group.

Since men generally react maximally to teenage girls, what would be wrong with men fantasizing about the things that maximally arouse them? Isn’t that normal human behavior to fantasize about things that maximally arouse you?

For this the feminists banned me, wrote me a scathing email with orders not to contact them, and reported me to Mommy Reddit. The cucks and faggots at Reddit then banned me for something gay called “child sexualization” for stating some basic scientific facts along with a scientifically uncontroversial opinion.

Today I just banned again from another gay subreddit. I attacked feminists in the thread, and I accused people in the thread of being carceral liberals and police state liberals, which is exactly what almost every liberal in the US is. I’d argue that that’s what almost all US Communists are too. US Communists are so cucked and gay it’s pathetic. I doubt if there’s no real man among them.

Anyway, I got banned for “hate speech” for attacking feminists. According to Reddit homos, hate speech is:

No racist or sexist speech in comments or submissions. Also no abusive speech based on religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. These are not rules against swearing; they’re not rules against expressing political opinions.

I went back and looked at my comment. Nothing in there was racist or sexist at all or attacked any of their pet protected groups. In fact, I didn’t even mention anything having to do with race or sex and their protected groups anywhere in the post. The only thing I could figure out is that I attacked feminists.

Somehow feminists, a political formation in the form of a hate movement against men, is somehow in the category of race, sex, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. Obviously feminism is none of these things. The only thing I could figure out is that the mods on his sub are such faggots that they think attacking feminists is the same as attacking women.

Which brings me to another question. All liberal and left women  are feminists. 100%. No exceptions ever for any reason. And worse, close to 100% of liberal and Left men are utterly cucked male feminists. Face it boys, there’s nothing more pathetic than a male feminist. The only real men and real women are found on the Right, which is disgusting. If you’re on the left and you’re a real man, you will get tossed off just like that, with extreme prejudice too. They will order to go over to the conservatives.

Which makes me think: How many rightwing men are conservatives mostly because they are sick and tired of faggotized and pussified left and liberal politics? How many of them are Republicans because the Republican Party is the party of the real men? That’s a dumb reason to vote Republican (What have Republicans ever done for us men?) but most people vote based on the most retarded reasons imaginable that have little or nothing to do with their lives.

How many women have gone rightwing because they like to act feminine? They’re girly girls who love being girly, feminine, and womanish? I’ve talked to many women who told me that the main thing they hate about feminism is how much feminists hate femininity.

It’s true. Feminists do hate femininity.  Of course they do.
They’re dykes and manhaters or both, and they love nothing more than women with short hair wearing pants who are nearly indistinguishable from men. This is how women are supposed to look according to feminists. Like a goddamned butch bull dyke. I’m thinking maybe quite a few real women are voting right simply because they’re disgusted that leftwing women have turned into a bunch of man-hating dykes. They won’t throw you out of the left for being a feminine woman. But you better believe they will throw you out for not being a feminist.

By the way, what in the Hell’s the matter with straight men nowadays? I can’t believe how gay they are. If you’re going to be that gay, why don’t you just quit lying, move to Frisco, and stick a cock in your mouth? Are there any real men at all amongst these Millennials and Gen Z’ers? Almost all of them seem like complete faggots.

Alt Left: Young Women Are Dumping Me for Not Being Woke Enough on Feminism, Homosexuality, and Transsexualism

First, I’m 62 years old, so I’m even sure why this happens to me at all. But 15, 16, and 17 year old girls (JB’s) all came to me on the Net just recently. And they approached me in every case. I don’t go chasing JB’s. It’s a bit sleazy. If they come to you, fine, obviously they’re doing  what they want to do, but chasing JB’s as an older man leaves me cold. It does seem a bit predatory.

The 16 year old came to me with the  usual line, “Hi Daddy! Wanna fuck  me?” All young women and teenage girls call me Daddy nowadays. WTF is it with this Daddy shit? She didn’t respond back. She was a Black girl from Michigan.

The 15 year old came to talk and told me she liked it really dirty. I was scared to talk to her because I don’t even know if this is legal! We talked a bit, but really she had no personality at all, didn’t know how to flirt or even talk, and she turned me off. This is typical of JB’s.

I haven’t touched one since age 21, but I’ve talked to many of them on the Net. Back in the 1990’s the scene was wide open and there were all these Yahoo chatrooms like “Younger Women for Older Men.” Full of young women of course, but they also had so many JB’s in them you would not even believe it. JB’s like men! Back then nobody cared about any of that.

Most are awkward, don’t know how to talk to me, don’t know how to talk dirty, act robotic during sex games, or just seem extremely naive. For me, that’s a turnoff. I was glad she went away because I’m not sure if this is legal. This Sex Panic gets worse every year. Are these gay cop cucks going to go after us for talking to JB’s now? You can’t talk to other humans? I can’t believe what fags cops are nowadays. You’re going to arrest me for talking to a 16 year old girl? You call yourself a man?  Take off that uniform.

The totally hot 17 year old sent me some pics, but there was nothing illegal in there. She just wanted to talk dirty and talk about sex. I guess that’s legal! She was 7,000 miles away anyway. Come get me, FBI, you penny ante trivial pikers. Why don’t you feds focus on real crime instead of teenage girl bullshit?

But she was dominant and so am I, so we didn’t connect. She wanted to peg me in the ass with a dildo. She also really wanted me to turn bisexual and fuck guys. Those are both pretty gay things, but she probably liked submissive men, and the more submissive the guy is, the more he’s into getting pegged and fucking dudes.

A 30 hot year old woman came to talk to me recently, and she was along the same lines. She said she was bi-curious and she would not mind if I was too. I told her that if a man even touched me in a weird way, I would probably jump backwards. She said correctly that I was a homophobe (after all, I am afraid of that stuff like most straight men) and left me.

I have young women leaving me all the time nowadays because I’m not woke enough. They hate that I’m an MRA and an anti-feminist, or they think I’m a homophobe, or they think I’m a transphobe. They get furious and say, “You’re really closed-minded!” They range in age from 19-30. Two women, age 28 and 30, told me, “I don’t date homophobes.” This is so weird. Growing up you would never have heard of such a thing.

Alt Left: Sex Trafficking: What Is It?

What are the sex trafficking laws all about. You realize that when that term was first invented it referred to people who were prostituted by basically a pimp or a procurer who they work for? Bottom line is they are not free to leave at any point. The employer is keeping them there by threats of violent harm or death if they ever try to leave. They’re basically “sex slaves” in that sense. It’s fairly common.

Girls and women tricked and sent to countries like the US and Israel from Korea, Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe after being promised a legitimate job like waitressing are also being trafficked. Once there, their passports are confiscated, and they are told that there is no waitress job and that they now work in a brothel until they pay off the transport fee. Typically Organized Crime and often has strong links to law enforcement who are presumably paid off.

There is way too much of this bullshit in the prostitution industry, and this is one reason by some feminists have taken up prohibition.

However, there has been gradual language rape concerning the term “sex trafficking” which now cover all sorts of nonsense that the original definition never covered. Some feminists grotesquely abuse this term to say that all prostitutes are “trafficked.” The FBI seems to have been involved in this language abuse. God knows what the Feds or anyone means when they talk about “sex trafficking” these days.

Bottom line: if you are free to leave at any time, you are not being “trafficked.” Lots of prostitutes have pimps who move them around the country, but as they can take off any time they want, they’re not being “trafficked.”

Your Personal Views on Race, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, Etc. Do Not Necessarily Have Anything to Do with Your Politics

People compared me to this guy for years. He may have started out on the Left but like all such types, he drifted Right after a while. He’s now come out as a full-blown Libertarian. So he’s gone completely rightwing and his cultural views match up with his economic and cultural views, as they do in almost everyone in this retard country.

Sometimes I think I’m the only person in this damned country who is conservative on culture but liberal on economics and everything else. I’m on Reddit all the time, and I see people making political opinions all the time, and I’ve never seen one person like me. Ever. Sure Alt Left/Realist Left types line up with me, but where are they? They must be quite rare.

This is so sad.

If you are leftwing on culture, you generally but not always are leftwing on economics. There are a few odd Libertarians who are very leftwing on culture but rightwing on economics, but they are not common. Anyway they are basically conservatives. They despise the Left and liberals and always vote rightwing or Republican, no exceptions. So their left cultural views do not put them on the Left.

If you are rightwing on culture, you are always and automatically rightwing on economics and everything else in all cases.  The few that are not are Nazbols, Strasserites, and Third Positionists, and I am seriously turned off by all of those Right/Left mixed movements. Even if they are left on economics and everything else, if they have rightwing cultural views, they vote rightwing. Always. No exceptions. They all vote Republican.

I guess economics is just not all that important. It seems utterly asinine but apparently when the vast majority of Moronicans go into the voting booth, they vote on culture, not economics.

If they’re right on culture, they vote Republican.

If they’re Left on culture, they vote Democrat.

I can’t believe how dumb this is. Really? Really? Culture is really the most important thing in your silly little life? Oh you silly person. Mr. Marx would like a talk with you.

Culture is nothing, it’s crap, it’s bullshit. Ultimately it’s not even a politics. It’s more a matter of personal preference or even personality.

A White liberal Democratic man who votes straight Dem (preferably liberal), never votes Republican, supports (preferably liberal) Democratic candidates, and even contributes to (preferably liberal) Democratic campaigns and candidates is simply a liberal Democrat.

Period. That’s his politics. Your politics is who you vote for at the end of the day.  It’s how you devote your time politically by writing, contributing or working for candidates and causes.

Your goddamned personal views about culture don’t mean a hill of beans to anyone but you, your conscience, your pastor, and your God. They don’t necessarily have anything to do with your politics at all.

These are your personal views about social matters.

Now suppose the White liberal Democrat quoted above has some racist views, which, trust me, many liberal Democrats do. In particular they are racist in the SJW sense where every other particle on the universe is apparently racist or evidence of racism.

Hell, he could even be worse than that! I know a Centrist Democrat who is pretty damned racist. He routinely refers to most all Blacks as niggers and has a very low opinion of them,  He also dislikes Hispanics or Mexicans as he calls them. I’m not sure how he feels about Asians. He’s very pro-White, supports White Supremacist views and defends them.

Although if you Black folks met him, I’m sure he would be perfectly nice to you. Furthermore he is a brutally partisan Democrat who despises Republicans and votes straight Democrat. He often supports pro-Black political projects so as you can see, his personal racism doesn’t even extend to his political racism. This is the case with a lot of these people. The personal is not necessarily the political at all. That’s one fat lie.It’s an intellectual racism, not a personal one.

Our commenter from New York recently noted that most of the liberal Democrats in his building harbored out and out racist views, certainly in the SJW sense, mostly aversive racism, but still. This stuff is probably a lot more common than we think.

However it’s perfectly acceptable in the Democratic Party to be racist against Whites.

This White male Democrat may have some sexist views against women. He may even be a misogynist, especially in the insane feminist sense where any sane person can hardly help but not be a misogynist, especially if you believe in facts and truth. I know Centrist Democrats who are out and out misogynists and openly admit to being so. They also say that most men are misogynists. I’m not sure if he’s right or not. He has a girlfriend and he acts like a teddy bear around her, so this is an intellectual sexism or misogyny, not a personal one.

This same White liberal Democratic man have homophobic views. I know people who wouldn’t vote Republican if you paid them who definitely have what are considered to be homophobic views nowadays, which frankly is about half of life according to SJW’s. I know a liberal Democrat who quite regularly refers to gay men as fags and lesbians as dykes. I don’t think he hates them. He’s just a normal heterosexual man.

Most if not all straight men have a dim view of male homosexuality and most are literally homophobic in the sense of being completely phobic about the whole subject. What the Hell do you think keeps straight men from putting a cock in their mouth? It’s their homophobia, dammit. If not for that they’d probably do it. After all most men will fuck anything if you let them.

The degree of revulsion that straight men feel towards male homosexuality is off the charts. A recent study found that straight men showed more disgust towards photos of gay sex than towards actual maggots. Maggots. Gay sex is more disgusting than maggots. Think about that.

What I am saying is that the White liberal Democrat man italicized above is absolutely a liberal Democrat. After all, that’s his politics. Contrary to SJW clowns, your politics does not encompass every second of your life, especially your personal life. A lot of people live lives that are completely outside of politics. They may not even vote. If they don’t vote their politics are irrelevant. Who cares what they think about anything! It’s literally not important!

If this White liberal Democratic man has racist, sexist, misogynist, or homophobic views, that certainly doesn’t make him a conservative for God’s sake. He goes into the voting booth and votes straight Dem for Chrissake! Those are his personal, completely nonpolitical views. Now you may say that him having those views makes him a bad person. Perhaps it does. Maybe it doesn’t. It’s a matter of opinion. But even if he’s a bad person, he’s still a liberal Democrat, dammit. A lot of liberal Democrats are awful people. They’re human after all.

One might also see this as being instead of personal views as personality flaws. You might argue that a racist, sexist, misogynist, or homophobic person has a personality problem. They’ve got a lousy personality, a personality defect. Like being a bad person but not the same thing. They’re not healthy. They’re too full of hate to be healthy. Perhaps they don’t have a personality defect. Perhaps they’re not unhealthy. It’s a matter of opinion.

Your personality type or health or your personal views, moral or immoral, are not necessarily evidence that you are a liberal or conservative. The only way we can figure that out is by how you vote, etc. or which political candidates you support.

You support Democrats, you’re a liberal whether you pull the lever or not.

You support Republicans, you’re a conservative whether you vote or not.

Generally speaking your views on culture are your own views whether they are bigoted or not. They are only political if you politicize them by say voting for, contributing to and working for bigoted candidates. These would probably all be Republicans. If you vote like that, you’re a conservative.

Temporarily Banned from Reddit

I get banned from almost every Reddit I am on, but that’s ok. I also get banned from every single liberal or Left site that I am on, but that’s ok too. It doesn’t mean I’m not liberal-Left. I’m certainly no conservative. I’m right and they’re wrong and that’s it. It’s always been this way.

Banned from r/communism: No misogynists.

Banned from r/debatecommunism: Transphobia.

Banned from r/feminism: No reason given, apparently misogyny. My perfectly reasonable post was brigaded by feminists trying to shoot down attempts to discover the facts, and then deleted. There’s nothing a feminist hates more than truth, facts, or science. In fact, that goes for all Identity Politics. Which is why it’s all shit, and which is why no self-respecting person, especially on the Left, should have anything to do with this truth-hostile, science-hating, irrational, psychopathological political strain.

This is the most popular feminist sub by far and it is said to be moderate and reasonable, but many of the mods are radical feminists and the content is extremely misandric and man-hating. I really don’t think there’s much difference between mainstream, 3rd Wave intersectional “moderate” feminism and radical feminism, although they don’t like each other much (though most of the hatred is the latter hating the former). This is the big lie. That there’s a moderate, sane mainstream feminism, and a lunatic, crazy radical feminism. It’s all crazy, it’s all radical, and it’s all extremely hostile towards us men.

Banned from r/xxchromosomes. Apparently misogyny. Supposed to be about women but is actually a 3rd Wave Intersectional mainstream feminist site. And their man-hatred is off the charts. They differ from radfems only in degree not in theory. No reason given for ban. I asked a perfectly rational question about female sexuality, was brigaded by a horde of hostile women shitting all over me, calling me a liar, saying I don’t understand women’s bodies and sending me to r/badwomensanatomy, a sub.

Banned from r/gendercritical. Misogyny.

Banned from r/politics. Minor sexualization. Promoting pedophilia. LOL. I said it’s normal for an adult man to have sex with a teenage girl while acknowledging it might well be a legal or moral issue.

Banned from r/Epstein. Justifying pedophilia. LOL.

Banned repeatedly but temporarily from r/purplepilldebate. No reason whatsover and all bans were temporary. All bans were by one female mod, a wicked feminist cunt from Hell and all were for no reason at all except she hates me.

Banned temporarily from Reddit. Three days. Minor sexualization. Same thing. I said adult/teen sex was normal, though it may be immoral or illegal, depending on the law and your views.

Banned again from Reddit. Seven days this time. Minor sexualization. Same thing as the r/politics ban above. In fact, I was banned twice for the same post, which was deleted anyway! I sent them a protest mail from my ban for minor sexualization from r/politics, explaining my case in detail. Instead of listening to me, they banned me for my sexualization on the basis of the same post I was protesting about!

I assume I will be banned permanently from Reddit soon. Oh well. I hate it anyway. It’s SJW Hell on steroids.

Alt Left: Mass Exodus of Masculine Men from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party: Blame the Cultural Left

In the 1st World Western countries, Alpha Whites, Hispanics and East Asians are all right-wingers of some sort: Republic, Libertarian and weight-lifting racists.

Yes, Alpha Whites in the US tend to be rightwing and the “men” of the Left are basically all pussies, fags, and cucks. If any of you ever see a real man on the American Left, please let me know, ok? Been looking for one for a while now.

This is due to the Cultural Left of course because the Cultural Left, being primarily feminist, has the effect of feminizing, pussifying, faggotizing, and cucking the men who buy into this profoundly gay and anti-masculine if not outright anti-male philosophy. The only men allowed on the Left nowadays are men who hate men, and those guys are automatically sissies, girlymen, and fags.

In fact, much of the movement of masculine men (real men) towards the Republican Party in recent years is because it is unrepentantly in favor of masculinity and (real) men. The fagged-out Left has a tendency to drive out any real men. Those that are not driven out convert and get a de facto if not de jure sex change, and turn into a bunch of girls.

Game/PUA: Some Very Creepy Truths about Adult-Minor Sex

I work in mental health and I specialize in people who have issues around thoughts about sex with children, etc. I’m an expert and I have people coming to me from all over the world.

First of all, no one is going to believe the facts I state are true. Trust me though: I’m right. All studies were done in the lab and have been repeatedly replicated. In fact, they’ve been replicated so many times that it seems stupid to do them again except morons keep demanding it. I guess we’ll be replicating them until the end of time then.

  1. Men are attracted to teenage girls. 100% of straight men react at very high levels, typically maximum, to females 13+. That should not be surprising to any sane person, except that in our Feminist Clown World, those men would be called pedophiles. We can call them any name we want, but we now have to call all straight men pedophiles. Are we comfortable with that?
  2. So much worse than that is the fact is that not only are straight men turned on by teenage girls who look like women, which is not surprising, but that 90-100% of straight men are even turned on by little girls under 13. More on that below.
  3. Yep, that’s right. Straight men are even turned on by little girls under 13. In general, most straight men are attracted to them at a fairly low level, less than they are to mature females, but a measurable attraction is definitely there.
  4. So much, much worse than that even is that 23% (in three studies – 21%, 23%, and 26%) of straight men test “pedophilic.” That means that 1/4 of straight men are pedophiles by our typical understanding of the term, which probably even includes DSM-5 Pedophilia, a garbage diagnosis if there ever was one. What this means is that 23% of all straight men are as attracted or more attracted to little girls under 13 as they are to mature females 13+. Crazy statistic, huh? The question arises why these men don’t run around molesting little girls. Penalties are very harsh if you get caught doing this, and almost all these men have very strong attractions to mature females, so I assume they focus on the prosocial urge and suppress or repress the antisocial pedophilic feelings. In the Current Year, tens of millions of Americans say they want to kill all the pedophiles. Well, that’s just fine. Are they prepared to execute 1/4 of the men in the US, or 25 million men? Let me know when they get those gas chambers running.
  5. Not sure if this is shocking, but .1-1% of straight men are actual, true pedophiles. They are strongly attracted to girl children and have little or no attraction to mature females, which is the only definition of pedophilia that makes sense. Nevertheless, this means there are 110,000-1.1 million full blown, real deal, scary pedophiles in the US. Once again, we say we are going to execute them. Fine. We are going to execute 100,000-1 million American men? Let me know how that goes.

PUA/Game: Statistical Alphas, Behavioral Alphas, Chads, and Behavioral Alpha and Behavioral Beta Societies

First of all, some basic definitions:

Statistical Alpha: 15-20% of males, attractive to most women most of the time for whatever reason.Probably no more than 15-20% in any society, existing or conceivable.

Behavioral Alpha: Displays “Alpha behavior.” This may vary. In some societies like the Middle East, a majority of the men probably display Alpha behavior. Not limited to 15-20% the population.

Chad: An 8-10 on the 1-10 looks scale. Often does well with women but not necessarily, as certain other variables can mess him up. Mental Chads, Shy Chads, Odd Chads, Introverted Chads, etc. can definitely have problems with women. Sure some woman usually grabs them and rapes them sooner or later, but they can have long incel periods. A Chad could very well be a virgin or an incel. In fact, on incel forums, they discuss the phenomenon of the Chadcel.

Alpha behavior is probably learned, and Alpha behaviors are best acquired early in life, hopefully by high school or at least college age.

Chads are basically genetic. There’s no reason to brag about your Looks. They’re a gift from God. You didn’t do one thing to deserve them. You just lucked out in the genetic lottery is all.

However, I do think that men do better in societies where more men are Behavioral Alphas. They do better with women and male-female relationships are a lot better. There’s not much hypergamy, there aren’t many incels, and women don’t cuck men, monopolize Chads, or marry Beta Buxxers and then shut down the pussy, etc. The men are naturally masculine and the women are naturally feminine and both sexes seem to like each just fine that way. In addition, the men seem to love women (at least they are very sexually attracted to them), and the women seem to love men.

Societies Where Most Men are Behavioral Alphas (Male Rule Outside Northern and Western Europe and the Anglosphere)

On the other hand, these are typically patriarchies, and societies with many Behavioral Alphas are not great for women, face it. Some societies where most men are behavioral Alphas include Spain (though suffering from a wild feminist insurrection and the beginnings of a soyciety, though heavily resisted by the men), Portugal, Italy (feminism failed there, though that may be changing as new reports indicate the possibility of a soyciety arising there of all places), Greece, the Balkans, and frankly Eastern Europe and the Baltics.

Russia, the Caucasus, Turkey, Arabia, Mesopotamia, the Gulf, and the Levant. North Africa too. Of course we must include all of Black Africa. All of Latin America obviously. Micronesia, Melanesia, Polynesia. Central Asia and South Asia – Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and even India and Nepal. The Stans. I actually think SE Asian men are behaviorally Alpha. And traditional Korean, Japanese and Chinese societies were very behaviorally Alpha, and the older men still are.

Cucked Soycieties Where Most Men Are No Longer Behavioral Alphas (Behavioral Beta Soycieties under Female Rule in the West)

The soycieties where the men are no longer mostly behaviorally Alpha and have become behaviorally Beta are obviously most of the West as in Western Europe, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Asians in the West, especially in the US. These are really the only places where Female Rule (Feminist Rule) has been implemented, though the infection is spreading, not diminishing, and the target is the whole world, as it is with all totalizing ideologies.

The result of Female Rule is an extreme reduction in:

  • Behavioral Alphas.
  • Sex for young single men.
  • Patriarchy.

Obviously all three of these are related.

The latter is often replaced by the rise of an oppressive matriarchy in its place. Why? Because in society just as in the home, someone has to wear the pants. If the women take the pants off the men, they won’t throw them in the corner or burn them as they probably should. They put them on themselves, turn into men, and turn the men into women.

Basic heterosexual behavior always exists. If the norm is toppled, the inverse simply takes its place. Someone’s got to rule and someone’s got to be ruled. Pure equality among the sexes is obviously not possible. Even Gloria Steinem admitted that!

What’s true among the sexes is probably true for society too, as basic sexual behavior is probably mirrored in some odd way in our sociopolitical world. There’s no escaping sex. It never ends, even in your 80’s.

Being Dumb Isn’t the Problem; Being Dangerous Dumb or Dangerously Ignorant Is

I don’t hate lower IQ people. A lot of the people I hate have high IQ’s too. I hate stupid people. Stupid people who don’t think properly. It’s more like ignorance and what I call a “dangerously stupid” attitude. By ignorant I mean it is completely opposed to science and driven more my mass hysteria and emotional societal panics.

Being stupid is one thing. If you are just stupid but you are not dangerously stupid so you might harm me, I don’t hate you 1%. You could have an 85 IQ but if you are smart enough to not get taken in by societal bullshit and intelligent enough to think for yourself and come up with your own answers instead of being a sheep, I love you to death.

An 85 IQ  person need not be an ignorant moron with repulsive and dangerous views. He’s a lot more likely to but that’s not guaranteed. On the other hand, it’s perfectly possible for someone to be high or very high IQ and be dangerously ignorant to where they have attitudes that are dangerous to me and others. A lot of these types are wrapped up in fanatical movements like feminism and SJWism that tend towards wild irrationality or no rationality at all, and contempt for science and logic in favor of emotional reasoning.

It might be hard to connect with you, but IQ’s no reason to hate a man. I guess I should say that what I hate is dangerous ignorance, but ignorance and dangerous, emotion-driven ignorance does tend to be more common as you go down the IQ scale. As you go up the scale, people can shut off their emotions more and see issues in the clear light of pure logic, in which case, they usually arrive at an answer that’s compatible with science and reasonable policy-wise.

Alt Left: The Undefined and Undefinable Feminist Definition of Rape

As I noted in another post, my Mom brought me up right. She taught me that under no circumstances was I to rape girls or women. She drilled into my head over and over that rape was force or the threat of force. Her message was, “Don’t do it, dammit!” She pretty much said everything other than that was fair game, which is the only sane view of rape.

My Mom’s a feminist, and a pretty bad one at that, getting worse as she ages. But nowadays feminists (most women) would call my Mom a rape apologist and a handmaiden because of the way the feminists have blown up the definition of rape and the fact that feminism gets increasingly insane every year, as is the case with all Identity Politics.

Of course the feminists and their fag “male” allies have no expanded the definition of rape to about the size of the Indian Ocean. Not only that but apparently no one can even properly define it as it’s as vague and  undecipherable as the Linear B inscriptions.

As it is, if a woman thinks she got raped, she got raped. That’s now the definition of rape!

Women actually believe that crap. When you put women in power, the first thing they do is  make vague, unenforceable laws to bring about their desired utopia.

Of course this never works, therefore all through space and time, whenever women are put into power over men, the result is simply complete chaos. People tire of it after a bit, and pretty soon, the sane people say, “Let’s have some sense here. Let the men take over!

And then some sort of patriarchy, benevolent or otherwise (typically otherwise), is reimposed. Society’s not fair after that, but it wasn’t fair under Female Rule either. Pick your poison. You will either be ruled by women or men.

Look around you at the Anglosphere, the UK, and Scandinavia to see the dystopian chaos of idiocy that ensues under Female Rule.

I’ll pick men any day. Women are incapable of ruling societies.  Women can do a lot of things,  but that’s not one of them. It’s fine really. Hey, women can’t do everything. Sometimes the ladies just need to step aside and let the boys take over.