New Sex Poll

Repost from the old site. A sex poll came out 2 1/2 years ago, but I am only just now hearing about it. Oh, well, it seems like sex is always leaving me standing at the station these days. The articles on the poll deal with teenagers having lots of oral sex, apparently instead of intercourse. The article all act like this is horrible, but I actually think it is good. Despite my feast or famine bachelor life, I actually do love sex, and I am a sexual liberationist. The articles mostly fuss on and on about all of the diseases one can acquire from oral sex. First of all, this is part of an insane national neurosis we have long had in this nation about sex. Europeans have long commented on it. We are Puritans, yet we demand that Americans be having sex continuously. Even if they are not married. Even if they are not 18. Yes, it is true. There’s a $6 billion dollar a year porn industry, and we are in the midst of a Mass Hysteria called Child Molester Hysteria. Although there are reasons to worry about adult sex abuse of children, I really fear that this is part of our neurosis about teenagers, especially teenage girls, having sex. Child Molester Hysteria, the way I understand it, pretty much makes it illegal for teenage girls to get laid. If she does it, the guy’s a molester, no matter what his age is. It is understandable that conservatives, Christians, married men and vaginized males of all types would be behind this Protect Our Teenage Girls! bullshit. What doesn’t add up is that the feminists are behind it too. Yep, feminists, the very women who ought to supporting teenage girls who choose to have sex, who ought to even be urging girls to learn to have an orgasm by age 15 since science shows waiting longer increases the odds she will never get one, are leading the charge of this preposterously chivalrous, putting girls on a pedestal, nonsense. Anyway, on the article. Article says, teenagers not screwing so much, good. Having oral sex instead, bad. Why is it bad? Because, the article worries, you can get VD. What sorts of VD can you get? Well, syphilis, warts (HPV), gonorrhea and herpes. Well, let us look at this notion. As far as cunnilingus goes, it would be quite hard to catch much of anything from doing that. You would be better off to worry about getting hit by a meteor. So go ahead and do it! To your heart’s content! She’ll love ya for it, guys! Now, onto fellatio. It is true that one can get gonorrhea of the throat from doing this, but it’s not a common problem, except maybe in the gay community. Syphilis is quite rare outside the gay community, and you always just very noticeable symptoms. So it’s not much to worry about. About herpes, well, one out of every six adults has it anyway, and it won’t kill you. It comes on strong at first, then it fades to an annoyance, and there are drugs that take out the flareups. So no worries. HPV is much more troubling here since research shows that you can catch it in your throat, and it apparently can lead to throat cancer. I’m at a loss for words about this, but I don’t think it’s the worry of the century. Lesbianism got a lot of writeup in the study. Apparently 14. What’s interesting is that whenever they go out and do these face to face surveys about sex and dope, they come with some very low figures for both gay sex and dope. No one wants to fess up to being a fag or a doper, even if they were only gay for a day or they didn’t inhale. But recently a new study allowed persons to answer questions about sex and dope anonymously via computer in a locked room. They were assured repeatedly that there would be no way to link up their computer answers with their actual selves, since the testers themselves were not grading the tests. As one might expect, scores for sex and drug use for young Canadians were much higher when the answers were submitted via computer privacy than via face to face. The authors considered that maybe people were making stuff up on the tests, but rejected that. Testers had been closely questioned before about the importance of being honest on their answers. If they were inclined to make stuff up, they were asked not to take the test. The numbers for current homosexual behavior among this group of young Canadian males were about 13-1 This was in Southern California in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. Other studies have shown some fairly high levels of males experimenting with homosexuality. Kinsey got 3 The same computer surveys above also found remarkably higher drug use among respondents than face to face surveys found, especially of hard drugs like PCP or heroin. One of the major findings of the study was that more and more straight folks are getting into anal sex. 4 Porn has made anal sex very popular, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a good idea. As a sexual liberationist, I really don’t care how people do it. I think people ought to consider that there may be a health downside to this type of sex. I have seen reports on bulletin boards of women aged 30 or so who had lots of anal sex in their 20’s who now have to wear a type of diaper because they have lost some control over their bowels. That’s called anal incontinence. I don’t know how much anal sex you have to have before something terrible like this happens to you, but it’s something people might want to think about before they jump into anal sex too much. There are all sorts of gay rights types and sex educators that say there is no way this can happen to you if you practice anal sex the right way, but I wish they would spell out their theory in clear science so it’s something more than a crap shoot.

How Andrea Dworkin Was Right

Repost from the old site. Obviously, I didn’t like Andrea Dworkin one bit (she just died a year or so ago) and I don’t support rape at all, of course. But Dworkin did say one thing that is correct: all heterosexual intercourse (penis-vagina intercourse) is rape (at least in a slight sense). One is doing the fucking and one is getting fucked. There are no two ways about it. Although I should point out that Dworkin herself said that this was a misreading of her own highly complex writing. It looks like she was saying that in what she sees as male supremacist society (You must be kidding if you think that the US is one!) intercourse is de facto rape because this is how patriarchy and especially us male pigs want to see it. I’m not going to go into this complex argument, but I will just direct you to a very interesting website called Rad Geek People’s Daily that explains it all pretty well (the comments are especially good). Dworkin does make some good points, even in her rebuttal. She says that women are basically allowed to be raped in marriage. Look, man, if you need to rape the wife, for Chrissake! Just get a divorce. I’ve been single my whole life, and I never had to rape a soul. It’s kind of lonely, but it’s not the end of the world. If your wife won’t have sex with you, then be mean to her. Then threaten to have an affair. Then actually have an affair – after all, she’s not screwing you, so you have every right to an affair. If that doesn’t work, just leave her. An earlier post of mine linked to a gay website called Heroic Homo Sex (Warning: plenty of gay erotica and some gay porn on that site!) that seemed to have hit on some amazing insights. I’m not gay or bisexual, by the way; I’m hopelessly straight and could not be gay if I wanted to. HHS’ notion was that the whole era of promiscuity, AIDS, “gay men as sex pigs”, effeminacy, degradation, etc, that characterizes gay life today came about through the mass promotion of anal sex. By the very act of getting penetrated anally, gay men were turned submissive. Why? Because getting penetrated and penetrating resembles rape. Fucking makes the fucker dominant (and a sort of a rapist) and getting fucked makes one submissive (and a sort of a rape victim). HHS argues that the only way that the gay men can reverse this trend is through something called frottage (they also like other non-anal sex acts) which basically boils down to 2 guys rubbing their dicks against each other in a sort of martial combat. By having sex in this way, neither man is fucked and thereby made submissive. Also promiscuity is reduced – HHS feels that by getting anally fucked, gay men are degraded and turned into “sex sluts” or “sex pigs”. The corollary to this is that anal sex is also degrading to women who engage in it, but it doesn’t seem to turn them into promiscuous “sex pigs”. Only in porn it does. So why does anal sex turn gay men but not women into “sex pigs”? Also, effeminacy will be reduced in gay men by eliminating anal sex, since getting fucked anally in and of itself causes gay men to act effeminate. I would also argue that the act of getting fucked in and of itself turns a woman feminine, and most men with sexual experience have seen this with their very eyes. The most evil bitch turns into a preening, coquettish Southern belle at least for a while merely by getting fucked. Probably, even pretty wimpy guys are turned a lot more masculine merely by fucking a woman (I can’t speak to this one, so I’m guessing). I have read pro-sex feminists say that getting fucked is an act of violence and and of itself (although they love it) and yes, it does resemble rape in a sense. As I’ve never been fucked, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt. I don’t agree when Dworkin conflates all heterosexual fucking with rape. Clearly rape is rape, and consensual sex is consensual sex. Of course I don’t support rape, but I’ve talked more than a few women into bed before. As in giving them orders, which they were free to refuse, like, “Get over on that bed right now!” Believe it or not, an very large percentage of females actually want to be bossed around and ordered around by a dominant male. So, I don’t support rape, but I think Dworkin did hit something on the head there. As far as the rest of her philosophy, I virulently disagree. Chip Smith, the great writer who runs the highly disturbing blog The Hoover Hog, had an excellent piece on Dworkin, whom he called a tortured soul but a brilliant writer, a while back called Writing About Prostitutes.

Cavewomen and Wormboys

Repost from the old site. A fellow named Zsidozas comments on the Race, Gender and Masculinity/Femininity post. My comments follow:

Zsidozas comments: A personal story – as a White American male I’ve encountered much hostility from White females because I am not an effete and feminized White American male like so many of the others are these days. I am more aggressive, dominant, and masculine than the majority of White males for sure, but I try to temper this by my strong orientation toward reason, rationality, and learning. So yeah, I’ve encountered problems with White women because many view me as an overly aggressive, pushy, and angry asshole/jerk/brute/prick/Viking/Neanderthal, of which I am not at all, but they only view me that way because I am quite a bit more masculine than most White men (who I agree are, on the whole, far too wimpy and resigned for their own good). I am not a bodybuilder or football player or anything like that, so it’s not like I am afflicted by the ‘macho male complex’ that men like that suffer from. So I’ve noticed that many White women think of me as something a bit unnatural or strange and view me with some contempt and suspicion because I am not easily dominated and controlled like the rest of White men. In fact, I’ll argue and bicker with women (of whatever ethnicity) until we are all blue in the face if I believe something strongly as I’m not afraid to back down like so many modern men are — and I usually win those arguments. And when I do win those arguments, believe it or not I’ve had women get violent with me either playfully or for real, like they are trying to get back at me physically for ‘beating them’ mentally and emotionally in an argument when they are just so used to lording over modern men. It seems as if many White women, if they date or marry White men as most do, actually sort-of want or prefer a push-over who they can easily control, manipulate, and dominate in many ways (though they still want the man to bring them home some money, of course). I think this is a rather recent development and a major reason why gender relations are so screwed up in the modern Western White world, particularly in America. A quick story: I was at a party with my girlfriend the other night that was mostly populated by a bunch of drunken lesbians and overly masculine (but straight) White females, along with their feminized male lackeys. And one of them, in a drunken and pilled-up stupor actually said to me and me girlfriend as we were talking to her [paraphrasing]: “I love to emasculate men. I just like it. It’s fun. I do it all the time at work.” And she said it sort-of at me and my girlfriend, like almost a veiled insult toward me or something. I continued to laugh with her and joked around and such, but still I think it was like a veiled insult toward me because she recognized in me a man who refused to be emasculated and feminized like so many modern men. So I laughed and joked (but was secretly disgusted toward her that she would actually take pleasure in mentally emasculating men and fucking with their egos). Lame story, but I think it illustrates a decent point about the attitude of most modern White women. Also, you didn’t mention Semitic peoples here like Jews and Arabs. But just a thought: Jewish males are certainly very effeminate (as effeminate as many Asian men, often more), and Jewish females very masculine (maybe even as masculine as Black women). Ditto with Arabs — and maybe this is why Arab men are so severe toward their women, like they want to keep them in check or something? Most Jewish and Arab females have, I’ve noticed, many masculine physical traits like deep/husky voices and hairy bodies, while many Jewish/Arab men have many feminine traits like higher pitched voices and moodiness/high emotionality. Many men in Arab countries also engage in some behaviors that are considered effeminate or even gayish here in The West like holding hands as they walk together and kissing each other a lot, but they don’t think anything of it over there. However, there is still something that is just intrinsically aggressive about both Jews and Arabs that I can’t pin down yet, though I’m looking for reasons — maybe it’s their rather fanatical ethnocentrism? So, if possible, I’d like your thoughts on Semitics (however brief) as well if you don’t mind.

Ok, first of all, I do not understand why women would hate an overly aggressive or masculine man, even in the feminized US. But I won’t deny you the reality of your experiences. Around here, most of the White guys are pretty machoed out. Now if you go over to San Francisco, it is a totally different story. The Northern California male is said to be so feminized that many people think that they are gay. Conversely, the women are often said to be quite masculinized. I never heard this too much when I was in Southern California. I do not know why this is, but for instance, my brother knows this older guy was paints his toenails like a woman. I heard that and freaked out. I said, “Is he gay?!” Because I think it sucks for a guy to paint his toenails. My brother answered, “No, he is just a Northern California male.” There are some others like that, including a guy well-known to both of us. I will note: “Sometime he acts like a total fag! What the Hell is the matter with him anyway?!” And then I will imitate his ridiculously faggy behavior. My brother responds that this guy is a Northern California male. Now this guy hooked up with and later lived with a woman for a while who was quite masculine, and I’m not sure what kind of a relationship they had, but they did seem to be happy, so I was very, very happy for them and especially for him, as I have known him forever. At one point, the relationship started ending, and I heard she was bi or lesbian or something and she had moved her girlfriend into the house with our friend. Now, this could be fun if they guy got into the sex, but I do not think so. Last I heard she has living with her lez girlfriend. There is another older guy close to us who has many extremely faggy characteristics: walks like a fag, talks like a fag, etc. I will say: “That guy acts gay!!” and someone will chide me, responding that he’s been married five times. He has some kind of weird relationship with his wife now where he acts all feminine or like a little boy or something, and she thinks it’s really cute, and I guess afterwards they fuck like crazy. Whatever. I am happy for both of them though, because she has made a lifetime project out of being miserable, and the guy is at least getting laid, and I cheer that on in all males. There is another one living in San Francisco married to someone close to us. Everyone (all my close relatives) insists that he acts gay but I do not think he does at all. I just think he acts like me. Hmmmm. But they are very happy together also, so I am happy for them too. I do not know about Arabs. I dated an Arab woman once, a woman from Egypt who was part Black. She was quite submissive, not bossy or aggressive or anything like that. She was Muslim, but that never got in the way of sex. In fact, she was so incredible that I think I want another one of those Arab women! I do not think that Arab women are bossy or domineering in their relationships with men, though some are. Saddam’s Hussein’s Dad was supposedly horribly pussy-whipped by his Mom. I suspect it is probably more common that one might think. The Philippines has a reputation for being a very sexist place where the males are very macho and do not really treat women all that well. Like Arabs, they frequently beat their women. However, a Filipina I know told me that there is a saying called, “under the saya“, which means that a Filipino man is basically pussy-whipped. Saya is skirt. So he’s under his wife’s skirt, and she controls him. I asked if this was common, and she said it was very common. Keep in mind that in the Philippines, the Arab World and Asia, the woman rules the home. The man just needs to keep out of there. I read an interview with an Egyptian man and his sons living at home in Cairo. The living room was decorated in frilly pink feminine stuff and the interviewer asked this macho Arab husband if he liked it this way, and he said basically, “Well, it’s her house and she can decorate it any way she wants to.” I assume the males have some control over the way they want their particular inhabited spaces decorated. In these places, often the woman controls all the money for the couple, and makes all decisions about household expenditures. My Mom told me a story about a Japanese couple who came to look at a house a friend of hers was selling. The seller asked the Japanese man if he was interested, and he said something like, “That decision is left up to her.” In other words, this poor oppressed Japanese woman actually gets to decide what house they buy! It seems to me that these women are not as oppressed as we think that they are, and many Japanese and Arab women resent Westerners and feminists sticking their noses in Japanese or Arab culture and telling them that they are oppressed. You’re often going to get people’s patriotic backs up when you do that. Better to let some folks negotiate their way to liberation by themselves. Jews and Arabs are both highly emotional probably because that is a “Mediterraneanism”. In other words, most of the folks in that part of the world tend to act that way. Arab guys put their arms around each other because this is common in many parts of the world. I had a friend from China who was always trying to put his arm around me in public. I see Mexican Indian farm workers in town who often walk around with their arms around each other, especially when drunk. I think it is an “Indianism”, as you don’t see the other Mexicans doing that. This male buddiness does not seem associated with homosexuality in these Indians and it is not in the Chinese. The Arab World is quite complex. In the Levant and Mesopotamia, homosexuality is despised and treated very harshly, not uncommonly with death. In the Gulf, especially in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, opportunistic or even preferential bisexuality is very common and in fact, the religious police often look the other way, as they are more concerned about men and women together! Stupid or what?! In Egypt, there is fairly free and easy bisexuality among unmarried males, which they may continue after marriage. This is a lot more common in Nubia in Southern Egypt, where people are a lot Blacker, and there is actually a long tradition of that stuff. In Cairo and in Morocco, many males will play the male role in homosexual sex with a “gay” male, who plays the female role. In many cultures, it’s not considered gay to play the male role in gay sex. Most guys who do this are young unmarried males. This is what happens when you forbid young males with a stratospheric sex drive female outlets: they screw each other. I don’t find Arab males feminine at all. In fact, I find them ultra-macho. The commenter asks about Jewish men and women. Well, I don’t think Jewish guys have a reputation for being feminine so much as wimpy. Wimpy and oversexed at the same time! So that is not quite the same thing. And there is the stereotype of the Jewish woman as neurotic, insecure (she hates her looks and longs to be a blond), controlling, addicted to cheap, tacky and gaudy clothing and jewelry, domineering, histrionic (drama queen), and in particular constantly badgering him to make more money. There were horror stories by Jewish men about Jewish women dating all the way back 100 years ago to the early Jewish press on the East Coast of the US. In many ways, this stereotype has not changed. The Jewish guy is supposed to marry a Jewish girl, but he often resents their domineering nature, and the stereotype is he wants a blonde shiska. Jewish women, like Black women, complain that their men don’t want them. But most Jews do still marry their own. On the plus side, Jewish women can be very nurturing, and in my opinion, they can be real Stand By Your Man types. I had a Jewish girlfriend who everyone thought was a bitch. People thought she treated me like crap in public and would say, “I hate the way she talks to you!” Well, in the relationship, she started out as a bitch sometimes, but I turned the tables on that pretty quickly! I forgot her birthday, forgot our anniversary, got in a big fight with her on her birthday (The most evil, cruel, mean, horrible and insensitive thing I could have done!), calmly laughed in her face at her horrible insults, made her cry repeatedly, called her a bitch and a cunt and all sorts of other horrible names I have never called any woman, and this was one of the best relationships of my life. She hated me at times, but she hated me for being a man. She called me cruel, mean, asshole, jerk, evil and wicked, and at the end she called me Hitler. She would horribly insult me to my face. I would respond, “Shut the fuck up, you stupid fucking cunt. Shut up, you dumb bitch, etc., etc,” real calm and assured-like. After a few minutes of that, she would be blubbering like a little girl, “Oh, I adore you so much. Oh, I love you so much. I love you baby. Let’s get married, etc. etc.” Oh man! Isn’t love grand! It’s a horrible cliche, but a lot of these real bitchy types are really looking for a hard, masculine man to put them in their place and turn them into a feminine, blubbering little schoolgirl in love again. These bitches always go after wimpy guys, because they love to dominate them, or they think they love to dominate them, but that just doesn’t seem to work, as it violates nature. I don’t like to be Mr. Advice Column on here, but at 50, it has occurred to me someone is going to wear the pants in a heterosexual relationship. If you don’t, she will. If she suspects you have taken off the pants for a while, she will try to make a power grab to put the pants on herself. This must be stopped, often harshly, with profanities, harsh words, meanness, threats to leave, etc. Usually she will back down completely and start bubbering and even whimpering apologetically and asking, “Are you mad? You’re not mad, are you?” Assure you that you are not but issue an order that she is not to speak to you like that anymore, as you really, really hate it. Women want to take control, but really a lot of times they hate it, because at the same time, I think that even masculinized Western women are disgusted by their vaginized metrosexual wormboy partners. You can wage cultural revolution and gender bend til the cows come home, but at the end of the day, I am convinced that you can’t fool Mother Nature.

Western Civilization: A Value Worth Saving

Repost from the old site. Although I find it preposterous that White people themselves need to be saved from extinction, and cannot figure out any lawful way to so anyway, I think that White Nationalists (WN’s) like Jared Taylor do make some interesting points. Taylor, like most WN’s, is a hardcore conservative, but when he talks about saving White civilization, the values he credits White civilization with are positively liberal. To be sure, I do disagree with the WN contention that Euro Whites created these liberal, free and humanitarian structures due to some unique endowment of their genes, though is it is an interesting argument. At the end of the day, it is not really falsifiable. With US Whites at 6 I agree that White Civilization, whether with Whites or without us, is worth saving and needs to be preserved. Jared Taylor of American Renaissance makes some interesting points, and I would like to make some others. Taylor, either admittedly or not, credits nearly the entire liberal and Leftist structure of individual freedom, humanitarianism, democracy and equal rights to White Europeans. In this it is fascinating that the Western Left and even Western liberals are so hostile to White European culture, often vilifying it as the worst on Earth, when the vast majority of their values stem directly from it. Let us look at some of the achievements of White European culture, arguably beginning with the Renaissance, continuing to the Enlightenment, the French and American Revolutions, Napoleon, the Geneva Conventions of the rules of warfare, all the way to the Cultural Revolution of the 1960’s, with the radical egalitarian agenda of feminism, anti-racism, civil rights, pacifism, animal rights, gay rights, children’s rights, prisoner and suspect rights and the Green Movement. Almost all of our entire edifice of liberal and Leftist rights, goals, and beliefs is derived from this Hegelian emancipation project in the West. I do not mean to degrade the emancipatory projects undertaken elsewhere, especially in China under Mao. But I do think there is something worth saving here. I also think many humans, including many non-Whites, appreciate this project once they are exposed to it in the West. I doubt that they have a genetic aversion to it. There is something appealing about the fight for emancipation, egalitarianism, basic fairness, checks and balances, and individual rights that probably appeals to most humans no matter the genetic background or personality. Freedom and fairness are like drugs that most folks want to get high on once they try them. Let’s look at some of what might be worth saving even as US Whites decline into possible minority status all too soon: 1. Human rights. In the Geneva Conventions after World War 2, the notion of human rights in warfare was proposed by European Whites. Only European White nations have even tried to play by these rules. No one else even bothers. 2. Rule of law. I’m not sure anyone does democracy quite as well as European Whites, but I could be wrong. I am convinced that Asians value authoritarianism over freedom. 3. Environmentalism. As an example, only European Whites seem to have outlawed the very worst pesticides. These pesticides are now massacring US songbirds by the millions. As a birdwatcher, I have seen the decline with my very eyes. Even Latin Americans like Chileans and Argentines have not outlawed the most deadly of pesticides. This is because Argentina never got a good European-type culture. All places colonized by Spain got Spain-wrecked, as the culture of Spain in all its brutality, hierarchy, corruption, collectivism of both right and left, religious superstition, feudalism, extreme racism, intolerance, violence and corruption got transplanted to all of its colonies. To this day most places colonized by Spain are in bad shape, characterized by contempt for the land and the living things on it, casual brutality, extreme sexism, extreme racism, wild gaps between rich and poor, a collectivist mindset that veers between Communist-like and fascist-like, wild corruption and a general lack of democracy. Spain and Portugal themselves have really come a long way, but it is still intriguing that they only got rid of fascism in 1980 and 1985. Their former colonies have not come so far. In Brazil, the environmental devastation is mind-boggling. The fact that Spanish-colonized places ended up so backwards and reactionary and those colonized by other Europeans did not implies that there is nothing genetic about the progressive values that many Europeans laid the groundwork for. Instead, what we see here is the trailblazer called culture. 4. Nonhuman life. If you can find any other nationality besides European Whites who are not trying to exterminate every living thing that they cannot kill for food, grow for food, domesticate, or use in any other way, show me. Asians in particular seem highly contemptuous of and cruel towards non-utilitarian non-human life. Put another way, it seems that European Whites are the only people who care anything about saving wild plants and wild animals that have no utilitarian values at all. It is true that Amerindians were pretty good to the land, but heavily-Indian nations of Latin America have devastated the land with ferocity. 5. Women’s rights. Women’s rights is a Western concept. In the rest of the world, the human norm of enforced patriarchy has been the honored tradition. Only in the West have women even approached something like equality, and even that is only in recent years. 6. Anti-racism. Human societies have always been racist, as ethnic nationalists go to great pains to point out. Indeed, it is probably true. Real anti-racism came out of the West, possibly beginning with Napoleon. After the tumults of the 1960’s, a political correctness characterized by extreme anti-racism has become the norm in the West, usually only wielded against Whites. Casual experience with folks from the rest of the world shows that many display the casual racism that has probably been the norm for our species. 7. Anti-litter. It is true that the Asians have been pretty good at having nice and clean societies. But so have Europeans. One very negative thing about the latest tidal wave of Hispanic immigrants is that they are complete pigs – they casually throw garbage everywhere. It is the same in Latin America. Africa is now a continent almost covered in garbage, at least in its cities. Indian cities seem to drowning in mountains of garbage, often left by the side of the road. Afghanistan is an unspeakably dirty country. 8. Ability to break up a state. I have suggested elsewhere that European Whites are probably right now the only people capable of breaking up states without starting horrible wars. 9. Prisoners’ and suspects’ rights. This seems to be limited to White Europeans. Elsewhere in the world, including Japan, confessions are regularly beaten out of prisoners. Inside jail or prison, prisoners have little to no rights at all. To sum it up brutally, it seems that all of the hallmarks of the liberal society of the West that we cherish so much came straight from the minds of European Whites from the Enlightenment on. Most of the rest of the world seems to regard this stuff with either contempt or indifference. Our nation is in for some very heavy changes over the next few decades, many of them demographic. The replacement of US European White culture with, say, NE Asian or Latin American culture, would be a grave error. If we save anything about this nation in the wake of these tumultuous ethnographic changes, let us save the White European Christian culture we developed here, with all its liberal trappings.

Altruism Does Not Exist

Repost from the old site. The other day I brought up this theme to three people. Two left the room, one with a hurt look on her face, the other slamming down a book on the table and shouting. That left one male, and I succeeded in slowly pissing him off over the next hour or two. I talked to a female friend about this theme tonight and she stormed off too, saying she had to go to sleep. I’m off to an excellent start, but I’ve only pissed off four people. That’s a piss-poor showing, but the theme shows great promise as a provocation. This blog has 800 readers a day, and if I can toss this theme out there and piss off even a small number of them, I can sleep well tonight. Here is my notion: altruism simply does not exist. Along the same lines, everyone uses everyone. If you don’t like the term “using”, we may substitute the term “utilizing”. I really love this theme, because people are always fretting about being used. Suppose you were a millionaire – all your friends would be using you, including those armies of horny and beautiful women besieging your abode. The horror, the horror. I’m 50, and I still look at young women. I’d date one if I could, but 9 Although this desire is as old as modern man, and probably even our ape-like ancestors, this drives modern US women insane. “Any young woman would just be using you!” They huff. Indeed. Use me every day and sometimes at night and then get up and use me some more. I’ll cry all the way to my grave. To this nonsense, I usually say nonchalantly, “Everyone uses everyone,” with a shrug. This really makes most Americans furious, because they are caught up in the ludicrous delusion that they are altruists. We vote Republican, marry for money, ruthlessly climb the corporate ladder, frantically purchase status symbols to look down on the Joneses, yet we are a nation of Mother Theresas and Father Terrances. Uh huh. What is most amusing about this is that you tell most anyone from another country that everyone uses everyone and they just laugh and say of course. You tell them that middle aged men ogle young women they can’t get unless they are rich, and they laugh, acknowledging that males are genetically similar to dogs and this cannot be changed. American women are funny. Feminism acknowledges that men are dogs, but instead of seeing it as an inevitable genetic heritage probably from as far back Homo Erectus, they see it as a pathology, a deviance, a sickness to be cured. Men who act like normal dog-men are losers, pathetic, sickos and perverts. Usually there are rejoinders that women do not act like men, that is, a 50 year old women has no need for a boy toy, and therefore men are twisted. Women don’t need boy toys because their genes tell them that. Men ogle unattainable daughter types, obeying the imperatives of their genes. Back to the theme. Yes, everyone uses everyone. Hence, manipulation is no big deal in my book, as long as the manipulator is friendly enough. I would seriously love to be callously used by a nubile, neurotic 20 year old seeking a father figure who cares nothing about me. I long to be used as a high salary employee but a soulless corporation would as soon throw me to the curb when I am am used up and done. Give me a cool million so I can be surrounded by fair weather friends who will leave me the minute the money spout dries. In this thinking, there is a kind of liberation. One no longer frets about “true friends”. What the Hell are those anyway? If you are over 30 and have one “true friend” who is not related to you, consider yourself lucky. Friends are good, true or “non-true”, as long as they are domesticated and generally friendly, or at least put on a good show of it. One no longer worries about “being used”. If the users fill my time and space and keep me company and are pleasant, it’s all good. There is a difference between utilization and use. We can say use is callous, even unfriendly, and grossly manipulative. It might not feel good. We all utilize. We utilize objects and we utilize others. We utilize others for company, conversation, love, friendship, food, shelter, utilities, rides, drugs and booze, phones, tunes, TV shows and computer time, sex and love, for this, that and everything. We utilize our pets and they utilize us. Even in love, we utilize each other to love and be loved. We do not enter into relationships without needs and wants. To fulfill those needs and wants, we utilize others in the form of relationships. If you have no needs and wants and do not utilize others, you are on a level with a rock on the ground. Rocks neither need nor want, hence they neither utilize nor use other things. Along the same lines, almost all of our actions are driven by selfishness and narcissism at least in part. Hence, altruism is a lie. We are friendly to be nice, to keep relationships going smoothly, and as part of our morals. I say that nice people are also motivated in part by selfishness. They are nice to give themselves “nice person” points to feed their egos. Even the most selfless acts have a selfish aspect. Your daughter calls you in the middle of the night and you drive 50 miles to pick her up when her car stalls, then spend the night at her place. It’s all a drag, and 9 Even acts that are totally degrading are in part self-motivated. A person crawls on hands and knees through the rain and mud for two hours. Why? In part, to get selfish “masochism points” that their ego desires. Totally incomprehensible behaviors of crazy people are some of the most selfish of all: the crazy person is acting totally based on their own desires, and other humans are usually not involved at all. A man opens fire on strangers, then kills himself. Sheer selfishness. He projected his self-hatred onto others and stole their lives from them in utter contempt for their rights. And one could hardly argue for a more selfish act than suicide, though the benefits to the person are usually dubious. The most selfless act of all? A mother throws herself in front of gunfire to save her children’s lives. As she always told them, “I would die for you!” She goes down in a hail and the kids live. 9 There is a liberation here too. Americans, unlike Third Worlders, are hung up on the idea of selfishness. We have a selfish economic system and everyone knows our society is outrageously selfish, but we all insist that we are not selfish ourselves. Indeed, selfishness is the worst thing of all. No American is selfish, and if this is so, then narcissism, selfishness’ outlier, cannot exist either. When we step back and realize that we are all selfish and we are all narcissists, and pathology is only a matter of degrees of such, we are liberated. Sure we are selfish, sure we are narcissistic, but just not too much. And we are free to enjoy ourselves with less guilt. There is a glass of red wine by my side as I type this. There is no need for me to drink it, but I will. I will utilize the glass to move the wine from the container to my body as I utilize others in my relationships. I am not drinking this wine for anyone else; it is for me and me alone. This glass of wine is a parable of our lives, admit it or not. Interesting but intense discussion along these same lines at the very difficult but interesting blog Overcoming Bias. This post prompted a post at the always interesting Entitled to an Opinion blog.

In the Shining Path of Ann Dunham

Repost from the old site. It’s a lie that Sendero Luminoso never had much support. Simon Strong’s 1992 book gives the lie to that quite well. In the 18 months following Fujimori’s seizure of power, an unbelievable 1.5 million Peruvians were arrested on charges of being members of or collaborating with the Shining Path. Surveys done at the height of their power indicated that they had the passive support of about 5 In the American Revolution, few Americans know that only 1/3 of Americans support George Washington’s bands, another 1/3 were basically traitors supporting the English crown and another 1/3 were pragmatic fence-sitters waiting to see which side was going to win before they decided who to support. Most people don’t realize that in most civil wars you have a huge percentage of fence-sitters who are mostly just trying to stay alive. Sendero had support even in the churches and in the military. They completely blew it in a lot of ways though, and though they still operate, they are a shadow of what they formerly were. In my post, Sendero Fades and FARC Rises in Peru, I elaborate how Sendero has faded in Peru only to be replaced by the FARC of Colombia, who have been moving far down into Peru for some time now, and have been doing well with peasants fed up with Sendero’s mad violence. The remains of the MRTA (yes, they still exist also) are up in the far north of Peru in This article from La Rouche Publications (no, I do not endorse them) while a bit over the top, has an excellent roundup and analysis of the Sendero phenomenon. Particularly interesting is the huge support they had in the Peruvian diaspora in Europe, the US and Mexico, with a mind-numbing array of organizations. In the US, the support was run by the Maoists in the RCP, a large US Maoist group. RCP’s homepage is here, and they actually run some decent articles, though I don’t support Communism in the US or anywhere else in the First World at the moment – I support some variety of socialism instead, and that can even mean social democracy. El Diario International is the international paper of Sendero, or at least what remains of it. What is amazing is that this Belgium-based paper still prints a lot of issues, at least on the Net. It’s chock full of brand-new raving articles all the time. I don’t read Spanish very well, but maybe someone who does could check it out and come back and report to us in the comments. El Diario del Hoy was Sendero’s paper in Peru, but it’s long been shut down. I think it reappears clandestinely from time to time. I have read tons of Sendero propaganda and position statements. These people are completely off the deep end. All existing Communist states are “revisionist” (not real Communists but instead reformist traitors to the movement), and that includes North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos and of course China. They despise both Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Evo Morales of Bolivia. Chavez is pegged as some sort of “corporatist fascist”. Sendero does support other armed Maoists like the revolutionaries in the Philippines, Nepal and India (but their most recent editorial condemns the Nepalese Maoists for “capitulation”). The Nepalese revolutionaries have done very well, the NPA in the Philippines is a vast organization, and the Indian Maoists are expanding like mad in the east. I don’t have a problem with any of these three movements. Their position statements, and regular publications of their Red Sun Magazine (both here) are some of the rantingest, ravingest Commie stuff out there (Red Sun (Sol Rojo) 29 in Spanish, Red Sun 29 English supplement). As Peruvian society is evil and the system is a pile of garbage, Peruvian reality drove Senderistas insane. The crazier and more wicked the society, the crazier and more wicked the guerrilla reaction. The La Rouche link (forget the nonsense about how Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch support Sendero, and forget anything about the UK – LaRouchies have always been insane on the subject of the Crown) makes clear the link between Sendero and radical anthropologists and academics, in particular psychiatrists, psychoanalysts, historians, teachers and agronomists. The role of anthropologists , both Peruvian and even foreign, as essentially the brainchildren of Sendero is especially glaring. Just for the record, this blog supports the ELN and FARC in Colombia, and supported the MRTA in Peru, but cannot support the project of Sendero. The link with anthropologists is especially interesting in that Obama’s mother was an anthro, and she has been decried as an America-hater, and this America-hatred of hers can be seen supposedly in both Obama and his wife. Though I do not care about whether or not Obama and his wife hate America, I think these latest America-hating charges may well be fatal for his campaign, especially with White ethnic working class types (Reagan Democrats), independents and Republicans who were voting for Obama for some bizarre reason. This Asia Times piece by Spengler is worth reading along those lines. Though I am not a big fan of Spengler, he is definitely worth reading. He tells it like it is all right. I’m for whichever Dem, the Black or the woman, can beat the Republican clown. At this point it’s starting to look like the lady. Women all over the country are fired up and hopping mad about the sexist BS directed at Hillary all through this whole campaign. A bunch of yahoo alpha male dogs showed up at one of Hilary’s appearances in New Hampshire and yelped, “Iron my shirts!” Jeez. Good for American women for standing up to this sexist crap. Everyone should stand up for their rights, and I applaud my sisters. This blog will never attack Hilary on sexist grounds.

Sendero Fades and FARC Rises in Peru

Repost from the old site. Web Archive is your friend. What wonderful dead Internet things it has managed to preserve for us, little snapshots long expired, such as Argentine Jewish journalist Uki Goni’s interview with Nicholas Shakespeare, author of the novel The Dancer Upstairs, based on the Shining Path* insurgency. The novel was later made into a Chuschi, Ayacucho, on May 17, 1980, almost exactly 200 years after the last Inca rebel, Tupac Amaru, on May 17, 1781, was drawn and quartered by Spaniards, the four pieces then buried at far corners of Peru. The Chuschi ballots burning was an inauspicious affair. At 2 AM, five masked youths and one adult entered the office of the registrar, tied him up, burned the ballots and registry and retreated into the night. The attack had been led by a schoolteacher. The incident was scarcely even noted in the press. But the single spark to light the prairie fire had been lit. The correlation with the execution of Tupac Amaru was not accidental, yet this little-noted fact has hardly been noticed by anyone who studied the insurgency. But it has profound implications for understanding the movement. Best’s son was the Edith Lagos, a fighter killed in 1982, drew over 30,000 (in a city of 70,000 people) – mostly Indians – to her funeral in Ayacucho, the capital of the province where it all began. The huge crowd had defied a ban on her funeral. Furthermore, Lagos (rare photos of the strikingly beautiful Lagos here and here) had recently graduated from a Catholic high school run by nuns in Ayacucho. She had been a model student at the high school. Earlier, her parents had sent her to Lima to study to be an attorney. She often skipped school to watch movies from India, because, she said, she liked to cry. When she was not doing that, she was meeting with trade union workers in the city and talking revolution. She was rapidly recruited into the Shining Path and her rousing speeches electrified Indians throughout the Southern Sierra. At age 17, she was already a guerrilla commander. Lagos was captured several times by government forces. There is a photo of her in government custody in 1981, face swollen by beatings, 18 year old eyes already hard with determination. By now, Sendero held the northern third of Ayacucho. On May 2, 1982, in one of Sendero’s most impressive actions, 500 Senderistas raided and took over the university city of Huamanga, a city of 80,000 people. They blew up the local jail and raped, tortured and finally bayoneted to death by government forces. She was all of 19 years old. This was pretty typical behavior by government forces. In contrast, Sendero often tended to wounded government soldiers’ wounds, took them prisoner, and asked them to defect from the security forces or join Sendero. Her father was asked to come to Andahualyas to identify the body. He came, picked up the body and took it back to Ayacucho. All along the way, the procession was repeatedly stopped as throngs of peasants poured into the road to mourn their dead heroine. Her funeral and mass were held in the main Catholic (Lagos was a Catholic, as were most of rank and file Senderistas and even some of the leadership – Abimael Guzman himself is said to be Catholic) cathedral in Ayacucho, where her coffin was draped with a hammer and sickle flag inside church, an odd sight. There is a rare videotape of the funeral. The chapel is packed with peasants, storeowners, government workers, all dressed in Indian garb. As her coffin is borne out of the church, a rousing, clapping chant rises from the crowd as it presses forward and drapes a hammer and sickle flag over her coffin: “Commandante Edith presente! The people will never forget your spilled blood!” The crowd circled the square three times, each time swelling the crowd as more and more people poured out of their homes to join the march. Marching into the cemetery was a solid wall of humanity. The Shining Path banner rode on the outstretched arms of the crowd. There are those who swear that Maria Elena Moyano, “Mother Courage”, in 1991, is without merit. Further, Moyano was killed, albeit brutally, for organizing counterinsurgency patrols and turning in supporters and members of Sendero to the police. As such, she was no longer a civilian. The very name of the group was the Peruvian Communist Party en el Sendero Luminoso de (in the shining path of) this fascinating web page. One cannot really understand Sendero without knowing about Mariategui. So from the start, Sendero raised feminism and the liberation of the Indians as two of their banners. Simon Strong’s Shining Path (1992) is the finest book ever written on the movement. He spent a lot of time in Peru and concluded that at the time, the movement had a huge amount of support, even among the military, the Catholic church, teachers, students, workers, peasants, the urban poor and exiles. They also had massive support among the Ashaninka Indians in the Amazon, and also with some other tribes. The notions that Sendero held 1000’s of Indians “prisoner“, or that they massacred scores of unarmed jungle Indians, are total nonsense. At the time Strong wrote his book, the movement was at the peak of their popularity. Later that year, Guzman was captured, and it has been all downhill ever since. But the general assessment of anti-Sendero authors, that Sendero either had no understanding of, or was hostile to, infuriating Peruvians with her Maoist “Serve the People” purse (the rightwing blogosphere has had an idiotic field day with this, but I seriously doubt that Diaz supports or supported Sendero, so the whole affair is just the usual rightwing character assassination), the Peruvians they refer to are elite, the only ones the media ever talks to. No one else in Peru matters or has a voice. At the moment, Sendero is fairly unpopular, even among those who formerly supported them. These same people also despise the government, the system, and the White elite who exploit them. But Sendero was so vicious and crazy, killing so many people, including the masses and other Leftists, that they left a bad taste in the mouths of many. These people have not given up on revolution by any means. After all, the Peruvian system is worthless, insane and evil, and it should be destroyed. It is only reasonable that such an insane and evil system should produce an insane and evil insurgency – Sendero. Now, Guzman and his fellow leaders sue for peace in prison, while a few holdouts under Comrade Artemio wage armed struggle, mostly in Ayacucho, the Huallaga Valley, the Satipo River area and Huanuco. A few years back, they were recruiting in the squalid slums of Lima once again. These days, a more intelligent group of guerrillas is in Peru – the FARC* of Colombia. A massive, wealthy movement with deep roots in the Colombian poor, especially the rural poor, FARC has been spreading out lately down into the Ucayali River area in the jungle. They are primarily in the area of Yurimangas and north. They have been spotted as far south as the Apurimac River near Ayacucho (where Sendero is still active) and even in Lima. They are very well-supplied, upbeat, loaded with cell phones and radios, very well-disciplined and are making deep inroads in Peru. They give medical care, food, cooking utensils and field tools to the people and don’t bother a soul. They are quite popular with the masses they are interacting with, who see them as better than Sendero. Many former supporters and members of Sendero have lined up with the FARC in Peru. Earlier this year, a column of Senderistas went back to Colombia, probably for training. FARC has been urging Sendero to join with FARC and modify their line. Another column of the remaining leadership of the MRTA* (Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement) from around Tarapoto and Moyobamba in San Martin Province (their longtime headquarters – photo here) also left for Colombia around the same time – FARC is trying to join together remnants of both Sendero and MRTA with FARC in Peru – a very interesting and possibly fruitful plan. For a great webpage on Tarapoto, complete with awesome pics, by an American woman who spent some time there, see here. The notion that the MRTA was finished after the hostage raid in 1998 is not true – as the century turned, they continued to build the movement in every province of Peru. One of the problems with the MRTA is that they never had much money. Even around Taratopo, where they had a lot of support, they were a sorry sight, often sickly, pale, thin, and broke, wearing ragged clothes. Compared to that impotent picture, and Sendero’s madness and brutality, many of Peru’s peasants think that the FARC are just dandy. Even in Colombia, the FARC has been much more sane and less brutal towards the masses than Sendero was. As such, you can now go into areas of Colombia where everyone for miles around is in the FARC in one way or another, every villager in every town, every ragged farmer in every field with a gun hidden in his clothes, every woman in apron cooking in her kitchen. And it has been this way for decades in Colombia in these areas. This is the reality of FARC’s roots in rural Colombia. The interview with Shakespeare, who is hostile to revolution, nevertheless makes clear that Peru is one nasty place. It is the most racist country he has ever been to, Shakespeare opines. Sure it is. If someone from a lower class (or caste, really) asks a white elite for the time of day in Lima, the rich man will not even speak to the lower-class person. In fact, he won’t speak to him virtually no matter what he wants. The Indians have been killed, enslaved, raped, abused, ignored and basically slaughtered with hunger, disease and out and out murder since Pizarro stepped ashore in 1521. Shakespeare went to Ayacucho, where a white man had been murdered by Indians a week before. Everywhere he goes, the Indians whisper pistaco – the name for a mysterious white giant that murders Indians for their fat which he uses to run Western industry. Pistaco does not exist, but the Indians think he does. Shakespeare said that Sendero started a myth that Tupac Amaru’s body, quartered and buried over 200 years before, was slowly growing underground and would regenerate as he rose with Sendero’s victory. The materialist Sendero would never make up such a story. The story could only come from the Indians themselves, and I am sure they believed it. And in many ways, Peru today is the same as at any time in the decades and centuries after Pizarro waded ashore 500 years ago. Until that changes, Peru will always be in a revolutionary situation. Peru created Sendero; it could not have grown in any sane or decent society. If Best was evil, so was the land that made him. The crimes of the Sendero Frankenstein rest in large part with its creator, the horror called Peruvian society itself. Sendero carried out 96 actions last year, about 2 a week; clearly, it is still alive, though nowadays they are fighting to get their leaders and cadres released and negotiate and end to the war – reasonable demands that no Peruvian state will cotton to. A few years back, they were recruiting again in Lima’s horrid shantytowns (photo here). Meanwhile, FARC expands with great success across Peru. They combine this success with a group in Venezuela, FARV – Revolutionary Armed Forces of Venezuela – (which has 2,000-3,000 members but has not engaged in many actions yet) and another group in Ecuador called FARE – Revolutionary Armed Forces of Ecuador – mostly in the border area with Putamayo and just building a movement now. FARB – Revolutionary Armed Forces of Brazil – exists in the Dog’s Head region of Brazil where Peru, Brazil and Colombia all come together, building a movement once again. FARC also uses the border areas in Panama as an R and R area. The local Cuna Indians of the Darien are quite cooperative, but the Panamanian state has murdered some of them for allowing FARC to stay with them, though FARC has never done a thing in Panama. Recently, FARC has been spotted all the way over in far northern Guyana, where they are trying to tax the gold mining operations. This sighting implies that FARC also has a presence all across far northern Brazil. US media reports place FARC operatives recently in Bolivia, where they were giving political advice to groups associated with the new president Enrique Morales before his election. Despite recent offensives by the Colombian state, FARC is alive and well and expanding across much of Latin America. This as the radical version of Sendero peters out. Revolution is a bloody thing. If states don’t want 12 year old kids carrying AK-47’s professing revolution while roaming their slums*, they need only create a semblance of a decent society. There is no end of history, and you can only push a man so far before he rises up to strike you back. *A Salvadoran man I met in a San Mateo, California restaurant in 2001 told me he saw a 12 yr old boy in the San Salvador slums carrying an automatic weapon and chanting revolutionary slogans in 1969. He went home and told his family, and his parents resolved to sent him out of the country, saying that revolution was surely on its way. Their omniscience was keen. 11 years later, it exploded in full force via the FMLN*. *This blog strongly supported the FMLN in El Salvador to the point of contributing money to their weapons fund. We also strongly support the FARC in Colombia, all of its regional split-offs and the MRTA in Peru. We do not support the project of Sendero Luminoso as they kill people who are completely innocent. All support for groups is with certain reservations.

More on the Open Door For Bigots on the Economic Left

The Republican Party already lets all the racists in. The Democratic Party lets all sorts of bigots in, homo-bigots, feminazis, Black racists, Hispanic racists, Asian racists, etc. The Democratic Party is full to the brim with racists and bigots, but you’re only allowed to hate straights, men and Whites. Only Whites, males and straights are not allowed to be bigots in the party, instead, they may be victims of bigoted abuse and nothing else. They can’t even fight back. If they do, they’re thrown out of the movement. Right now the Democratic Party throws out anyone who is a White racist, male sexist or straight homophobe. So all the White racists, male sexists and straight homophobes are marching off and voting Republican, because the Republican Party has opened the door wide open for them. This is insane and has to stop. It’s furthering rightwing economics which is ruining the country worse than any male sexism, White racism or homophobia is right now. This is a matter of triage. What’s more important? Racism, sexism or homophobia or Left economics. Left economics trumps the other crap. We have to let the White, male and straight bigots back into the Left economics movement despite their bigotry. Some things take precedence over others. That’s what triage is all about. We don’t like their bigotry, but we won’t throw them out over it. Before the 1960’s, it was no secret that many White workers were racists. Of course most were sexists and homophobes, since that was just normal back then. There are still many racist and homophobic White workers. It’s not the end of the world you know. But no one was drummed out of the US White labor movement or the Democratic Party for being a bigot. In fact, a large portion of the Party’s vote was the bigot vote (Southern Democrats, Arkies, Okies, Rust Belt working class, etc.). An economic Left movement would elect economically progressive people. Anyone joining government as an economic progressive would be on board with rest of the Left anyway. Economic progressives are not going to vote to hurt women, gays and Blacks, and even if they do, that harm is less damaging that rightwing economics. What’s being pushed that’s harmful to these groups anyway? Don’t Ask Don’t Tell: Nice to overturn it, but Left economics takes precedence. Lily Ledbetter Equal Pay Act: Nice for women but Left economics is a higher priority. Women have suffered pay discrimination from Day One in this country. It’s unpleasant, but it doesn’t seem to be killing them. Pilgow Discrimination Against Black Farmers Law: It would be nice to address the discrimination that Black farmers suffered, but Left economics is higher priority. We have to draw some lines in the sand. No to overturning anti-discrimination laws against Blacks and other races. No to overturning Roe v Wade. No to recriminalization of homosexuality.

Dutch Nationalist Right Calls on Israel To Annex the West Bank

This is the nationalist Right, including the White nationalist Right’s hero, Geert Wilders. Yeah, he’s socking it to those scummy Muslims and those dirty immigrants, who, it turns out, are all Muslims too. This is what you get, idiots. When you vote for Islamophobes, you get the worst Zionists of all. I’ve been through all of the anti-Islam sites out there, including all of the blogs. It is axiomatic that if one if an Islamophobic nut, one is also a fanatical Zionist. One goes with the other. Wilders is calling for Israel to annex the West Bank, ramp up settlement building as much as possible, and apparently to send the Palestinians to Jordan (“Jordan is the Palestinian homeland.”) This is even more radical than Avigdor Lieberman. Like I said, this is par for the course with Muslim-haters. If you’re a Muslim hater, you heart Israel. Why? Because the most fanatical Muslim haters of all are in Israel. Because Muslims hate Israel, and therefore, Israel must be good. Because Israel is part of the Judeo-Christian West under assault by Islam. On the other hand, most anti-Semites love Muslims. This makes no sense to me. I’ve been around enough Muslims to figure out that they are not the greatest thing since sliced bread. Actually, they are much worse than that. Confined to their sandboxes, they do a minimum of harm, but we let that cat out of the bag long ago. If you hate Israel, you love Islam. If you hate Jews, you love Muslims. Why? Once again, the biggest and nastiest anti-Semites out there these days are Muslims. They’re the coolest and baddest Jew-haters of all! Yeah! If you hate Israel, well, Islam does too. Of course there’s a sensible line that almost no one takes. It could look something like this: Jews suck. Muslims suck. They both suck. Israel sucks. The Arab World sucks. They both suck. A better line is proposed by the Left in the region, especially the Left in Iran and Afghanistan. The Left in that part of the world is not wild about Islam, after all, Muslims pretty much exterminated the Left in that part of the world, and Islam is behind almost everything reactionary in Central Asia, in particular women’s rights. This is where RAWA, the famous Afghan women’s movement, is coming from. They grew out of the Afghan Maoist Left. The Left in that region also hates Israel of course, in line with the general Left line on Zionism.

Deep Ecology – An Overview

Repost from the old site. One thing people ought to know about this blog is that one of my philosophies is Deep Ecology. Click that link and you so you can try to figure out what it means. It was part of a debate in the environmentalist (especially radical environmental) movement that probably really got going in the 1990’s. It had several rivals, including Social Ecology, promoted by a fellow named Murray Bookchin . Deep Ecology was promoted by a guy named Edward Abbey of The Monkeywrench Gang fame, Dave Foreman, founder of is here. In general, Deep Ecologists were more anarchists and Social Ecologists were more traditional socialists. I recall a Social Ecologist saying that if an animal had to be driven extinct to keep poor humans from suffering, than so be it. They also opposed the idea of protecting animals like tigers that kill humans. If a tiger protection plan deepened the poverty of already poor humans, they would oppose that. This is pretty much the mentality of socialist states in the past 100 years, which in general have cared a lot more about the needs of humans than animals. Deep Ecologists had major roots in the Green Party and the worldwide Green Movement as a whole. They tend to support not just reduced population growth, but actual negative population growth and population declines within nations. This puts Deep Ecology on an oppositional status with almost all nationalists, especially ethnic nationalists. Ethnic nationalists in particular have always championed high birth rates. White nationalists are extremely pro-natalist for Whites only, and they go nuts over articles about White women having 18 kids. That would keep me out of such a movement right off the bat. Ominously, all fascists have also always been fiercely pro-natalist. Capitalism also, dependent on ever-increasing population for the insanity of ever-increasing economic growth, is very much pro-natalist. Capitalist theory holds that population declines will destroy the capitalist economy. That’s a great reason to reject neoliberal capitalism, or possibly capitalism itself, right there. One of Deep Ecology’s critiques of standard environmentalism is why we should preserve habitats and species. The standard line is that we must do this because these things can or may provide great benefit for human beings. Wilderness areas are preserved so humans can run around in them, birds are preserved so humans can look at them with binoculars, and rainforests and species are preserved because science can study them and figure out new medical or technological applications to benefit humans. Deep Ecologists say that this is anthropocentrism. Species and places should be preserved for their inherent value, regardless of whether or not humans can use them or exploit them for human benefit. That’s a major philosophical position that you might want to ponder. We had a big to-do over the California spotted owl (CASPO) in this part of the Sierra Nevada about 15 years ago. Bottom line is some mills closed, people lost their jobs, homes went into foreclosure, etc. About 10 As it turns out, the restrictions that the Forest Service put in are not even working to preserve the CASPO, and it surely needs to be listed at least as federally threatened. The crooked Fish and Wildlife Service won’t do so because that would mean further logging restrictions. At the time, I used to delight in infuriating people by saying that 1 spotted owl was worth about 20 humans. Hardly anyone seemed to go along with that. The species accounts on this blog are in the spirit of Deep Ecology. I’m an animal lover. I wish I could love human animals just as much, but it seems like non-human animals are in general nicer and more reliable. By the way, Dave Foreman’s Confessions of an Eco-Warrior (1991) is highly recommended as a primer in deep ecology.

Opinion: Women Like Sex More Than Men Do

From the comments section, a very interesting comment from the very interesting new and welcome commenter MaMu1977, whose commenting style is very much in line with the extreme heterodox and eclectic style of this blog. I don’t necessarily agree with everything he’s saying below, but I think he has some good points. The stuff about domestic violence made me shake my head, but he’s probably right. The feminists will go insane, but it confirms what’s the most cynical corner of my blackest heart has always suspected. Feel free to comment at the end; there’s a lot here to think and write about:

Anyway, like I told “Chuck” at guccilittlepiggy, women like sex more than guys. They’ve always liked sex more than guys. The “fly in the ointment” is this: the worse the sex, the less women like it. In a society in which sex is simplified to, “Insert penis in vagina, manipulate penis until ejaculation, remove penis upon ejaculation and go to sleep”, the amount of women who see sex as being worth the bother drops precipitously (with the women who enjoy it usually being in the presence of “Alpha” males or the “curiously gifted” {whether through sheer size, genital deformity such as G-spot arousing bends or flat out stamina}.) Notice that I didn’t mention anything about the women being aroused enough to enjoy sex in that little spiel, I just said that there are way too many men who treat sex like a slot machine (insert money, pull lever, extract winnings.) If you treat a woman like that slot machine, she’ll eventually figure out that her man’s collecting all of the money and she’s always getting cherry-cherry-bell on her screen. If she’s not getting her big O, then she’s going to come to the conclusion that noone’s getting the big O (or, obviously, she’s going to find herself a better man to give her her “medicine”!) Then I find myself “lucky” enough to go on the Internet and read about middle-aged men whose wives refuse to have sex with them, or MRAs who believe that all women are “evil” because their unsatisfied SOs ran off with the kids and their money (after spending years, if not decades, with men who either refused to learn or never bothered to learn how to give them their “cookies”). I say this to guys on a regular basis, “No woman is going to leave a man who’s able to make her come, period. And the sluttier she was, the less likely she’s going to leave you because she’s experienced more than enough bad dick in her lifetime to know a good thing when she’s holding it in her hand.” If you can make women have orgasms on a regular basis, you can quite literally do anything that you want with that woman for as long as you like. A woman who’s been raised to be “independent, feminist, ‘strong’ and (to take an example from my own life) ‘nationalistic’ (as in, ‘There are too many minorities in my country!’) will teach herself how to be more amenable to her man’s needs if she’ll maintain her access to pleasurable long-term sex from that man, period. If a “alpha” marries a woman who parrots the equality line (for argument’s sake, a broad-shouldered and rugged man in good health with a good job, but he’s unable to make her orgasm), he soon finds himself on the outside forking out alimony and child support. A “beta” (not as large, not as handsome, nowhere near as tough, less “manly” income) who’s managed to learn a bedroom trick trick or two can hold onto that woman until she has a foot in the grave. “Alphas” with no game have to sneak into a strip club, “betas” with skills can convince her to drive. You can even compare it to domestic violence victims. Interview almost any non-upper class DV victim and she’ll eventually say that the “aftercare” (read, rough/hot sex with orgasms) was what kept her in the relationship. Whether the man in question fed her submissive instincts and forced himself upon her, or if his “apology” for losing his temper was to treat her like his personal goddess (for more dominant women) and cater to her for the rest of the night, it was the payoff that made the abuse seem worthwhile. As someone who’s been on the listening end, the most common reason given for finally ending those relationships was this, “The pain wasn’t worth the pleasure” (for broken bones and more serious than black eye types.) If you meet a woman whose first visit to a DV center was based on the first attack, you can assume that her husband is either bad in bed or incredibly rich (barring, of course, foreign-born women who don’t know how to play the game.)

Hardcore Bachelor Blog

Repost from the old site. Pretty nasty and misogynistic stuff, but I guess, as a 50-yr-old hardcore (straight) bachelor – sorry, I have to say that because a lot of closeted gay guys used to call themselves “confirmed bachelors” – I ought to be cheering this site on in a way. There are definitely some truths here, if you winnow out the misogyny. I never had anything against married men, but I always resisted marriage. After age 40, I was turning down one woman after another, as they kept frenetically trying to marry me. Since 2005, I have decided I would like to get married, but I really don’t give a damn if I ever do or not. I feel the same way about kids. This is actually a major breakthrough. At age 47, I broke down and not only admitted to horrible and dreaded possibility of marriage, but welcomed it with open arms and cheers of joy! This article, Fuckers and Suckers, is pretty good. It’s written from the POV of a sucker. I guess I must have been a fucker as a young man. Maybe that’s why all those women and girls resented me so much. Even my Mom implied I was being a bastard! Horrors! Or maybe I was a sucker? I remember this one woman, Denice, age 18, who I used to date. She openly said that I was boring, right to my face. Thanks bitch. Hell with her; she never totally put out anyway – it was all halfway stuff. I don’t know what I am now. By age 50, the fuckers/suckers thing has sort of faded away. Both parties are married with kids, the women are all going for the money, and most of them can’t use their looks (sex) to buy the rich guys anymore, so the game is sort of up. I’m not saying that all women use sex, their looks and their bodies to get money from men, but it’s pretty common under capitalism. I’m not blaming women. If women paid us guys good money to screw em, we’d probably hold out too (or would we)? I’ve heard all the lame female defenses for why “non-prostitutes” should charge money for sex. 1. Men have a much stronger sex drive. Response: So therefore you have to be a whore? 2. “Non-whores” selling their bodies for top dollar are different from actual, real whores because real whores screw all kinds of guys, and the “non-whores” just screw (and screw over) one guy. Response: Forget it. Your pussy, your beauty and your body is either for sale to the highest bidder or it’s not. If it isn’t, pat yourself on the back. If it is, you’re a whore. Maybe you’re a lot less skanky that the crackhead on the street over there, but hey, there are all kinds of whores in this world. Maybe this shit made sense when women depended on a man’s income to raise their children – then it has evolutionary value to grab a high-value guy who can provide you with sustenance. At this point, they pretty much make just as much money as we do when they aren’t taking time off to have kids, so that argument goes out the window. I’ve had girlfriends who made more money than I did, but I still had to pay for everything. I dated this one Black woman who was the greediest bitch I’ve ever met. She more or less charged for visits. In general, I was not even allowed to come over and visit unless I was going to part with some cash. If I wanted to visit in the morning, I was buying brunch. Afternoon visit, I’m buying lunch. Night visit, I’m buying dinner. After a while I was tempted to just say, forget the food, here’s $20, let’s fuck. That’s not all that much different from buying a hooker, although in this case, I probably would have been better off at the massage parlor or at the call girl’s fancy apartment in Hollywood. This woman was cynical. I got the impression that she hated men and she got this from her Black mother and her Black female relatives. The attitude was that all men are no-good dogs, so just use your pussy and your looks to milk them for every dime you can get out of them. She loved to hear stories about call girls, and her eyes lit up when she heard how much money they made. So, not only was she a “non-whore” whore, she secretly wanted to be a real-whore whore to boot and double her luck, I guess. This bitch wouldn’t even pay the tip at the fancy restaurant. The way I saw it was all her money was for her and all my money was for her. This is progressive and egalitarian and feminist equal rights and all in exactly what way now? How about, it’s none of the above? It’s just a way for women to rip off men, and I’m calling ’em on it. At this point, I’m pretty much resigned to it, and I figure women cost money, especially the really good-looking ones. Especially if they don’t have much money themselves, I don’t feel bad about throwing money in her direction. I do resent spending money on a woman who has plenty herself though. Screw that. How come we never hear feminists talking about this? Where does a liberated woman get off making the guy pay for everything? Screw that. I don’t think women are even oppressed anymore in the US. Most of my male friends think men are way more oppressed in the US now than women are. I’d like to make a Commie point here: Capitalism turns women into a bunch of whores. Wonderful! Great system! There are some pretty cool links on there. Websites, blogs and articles: Don’t Marry, Dump Your Wife Now, No Marriage, Uzem and Luzem , American Women Suck and Confession of a Feminazi. Confession of a Feminazi was particularly chilling. I’m going to reserve judgment on this stuff for now and give you a chance to look it over and make up your own mind. One complaint: I sure wish this guy would learn how to spell or write a proper grammatical sentence. It really bothers me when American native-English speakers can’t even seem to do that.

We Love Yale Sluts

Repost from the old site. A most interesting event occurred around January 21, 2008, in front of the Yale Women’s Center at 1 AM. A group of men pledging the Zeta Psi fraternity (a mostly athlete frat) posed in front of the women’s center with a sign saying, “We Love Yale Sluts”. They then uploaded the picture to Facebook.  

Here’s the photo that caused the imbroglio at Yale. Actually, I think this picture is pretty humorous. I’m fully sympathetic with the female students who are pissed off about this though – it’s important to recognize that women are extremely offended and enraged by things we guys blow off. They see it as misogyny, and I guess they’ve got a point. It’s surely in poor taste all right. Thing is, I used to look at tons of Internet porn. I must say that your average Internet porn site is much more misogynistic than this stuff. I don’t know what point I’m making here, but this seems like small potatoes to me. On the other hand, I’m a male, so this stuff doesn’t really hit home for me. I guess I don’t get it. If you’re trying to succeed with women, why be a sexist asshole?

It turned into a great big brouhaha. The Women’s Center promptly threatened to sue for sexual harassment and mischaracterized the initiation rite. They said that the group stood in front of the Women’s Center and chanted “Dick, dick, dick, dick!” and blocked the door as woman after woman, mostly rape victims apparently, tried to come in for counseling. The facts: The incident occurred at 1 AM and the center was closed. There were no women coming to the center that got their way blocked, and there were certainly no rape victims. Rape victims hardly ever go there anyway, and there are few of them on campus anyway. They weren’t chanting, “”Dick, dick, dick, dick!”; instead they were chanting “Deek, deek, deek, deek!” That’s the name of a rival frat. Nothing has happened since the Women’s Center threatened to sue. They never attempted to contact the frat in any way, and the frat attempted to contact the WC many times. The leaders of the frat issued at least one formal apology. Apparently the lawsuit never came, and on April 30 Yale found the frat not guilty of intimidation and harassment charges relating to the incident. The guy who held the “We Love Yale Sluts” sign in the pic is a football player whose Myspace page is here. His name is Gio Chistodoulou and he claims he deeply respects women and had no idea what was on the sign he was holding. He says he thought it said, “We Love the Yale Women’s Center and All the Services It Provides”. So. Do you think he’s lying? A female, Jessica Svendson, claimed that she tried to enter the center but was blocked by the group of men shouting “Dick, dick, dick, dick!” She was so terrified by the word “dick” (I guess because she’s never experienced one) that she had to enter through the back door. Except that the center was closed, so how could she have gotten in anyway? She tried to appeal the university’s decision but was refused. In an earlier incident, a group of male fraternity pledges stood in front of the same Women’s Center and chanted, “No means yes, maybe means yes, yes means anal!” over and over. Lot of women didn’t think that was too funny either. The comments after these Feministing posts are interesting and encouraging. I sympathize with the anger and disgust towards these guys that these women are experiencing. They are calling these guys all sorts of names that they seem to deserve. That’s ok. I agree this was a pretty fuckwad thing to do. On the other hand, I think a lawsuit sounds pretty ridiculous.

Why Racism, Sexism and Capitalism Go Together Like Peanut Butter and Jelly

The new commenter Chuck is over at Abagond’s making a White racist ass out of himself in front of an audience of Black people. I expected a lot more of the guy, but I guess it’s to be expected. Most of these people who are into neoclassical/Libertarian economics are pretty nasty racists. At first it freaks you out, but then the more you think about it, the more it starts to make sense. Ok, here is something to think of. This guy, and all like him, is: an: 1. A Racist (goes with #1) 2. A Sexist (goes with 2 and 3) 3. A Men’s rights advocate 4. A Game/PUA advocate 5. An HBD guy and 6. A super-duper ultra capitalist Libertarian on steroids who *really really really really* hates anything suggesting of “socialism.” 7. A supporter of neoclassical economics. He has an MA in Economics. (6 and 7 go with 1-5) In general, if you have any one of the attributes 1-7 above, you will have all of the rest, and I do mean all the rest. This is unfortunate. Can’t White men be Captain Capitalists without hating non-Whites and women? You know, I always thought that the Left was full of crap when they talked about the link between capitalism and racism/sexism, but the more you think about it, the more you have to admit they’ve got a point. And indeed, some of the most anti-racist and anti-sexist societies yet designed were Communist and Euro-socialist societies. It is as if there is something inherently anti-sexist and anti-racist about socialism and the Left itself. This may seem elementary, but there’s a lot of blather on the PC ultra-Left from insane feminists about how all the men on the Left are sexist dogs and from anti-racist CRT kooks about how most to all White liberals are vicious and ugly racists. I’ll admit there is something to the ultra-Left line. Most of us guys on the Left probably are sexist dicks to some degree. But we are definitely a Hell of a lot less chauvinist than your average rightwing male pig. And I’ve long said on this blog that most White liberals are racist to some degree. But still, they are a Hell of a lot less racist than your average cynical Republican. Non-Whites and women ought to do what all sane people do in life. Be happy with what you’ve got. White male liberals are as good as White guys get. Either like us, or turn gay and move to Africa so you won’t have to deal with us anymore. We have a lot of cheerleaders for capitalism on this blog. I ask these cheerleaders that if capitalism is so groovy, why are the most ferocious capitalists are typically some of the ugliest people on Earth? Capitalism isn’t like health food, the more you dig it, you better off you are. It’s more like arsenic. You need a little bit of it, but a lot of it kills the patient. Further, capitalism creepily looks like a toxin. As people get more and more enthusiastic about capitalism, they get progressively uglier and meaner and more sexist and racist. Either enthusiasm for capitalism is a marker for assholery, or capitalism is poison itself to one’s mind. As you pour more and more capitalism into the mind, the patient gets increasingly vicious and immoral. I asked Joseph Bauthumley about the paradox in 1-7 above. He said the answer is simple. These people are in love with hierarchy. Whites like racism because it’s tied into White Supremacy, and increasingly this HBD crap is just another way of rudely waving the old white, white and white flag. White men like sexism because it tells them that women of all races are niggers, as Comrade Lennon reminds us. Combine the two and I get to feel superior to 6 Capitalism in its more unrestrained forms is all about hierarchy. Some are rich because some are poor. The Arabs understand this intimately. That is why Islam demands that the rich tithe 1 If you’re a White male asshole who’s into feeling superior to women and non-Whites, you need a spiffy new economic suit to go along with that cutthroat attitude. Neoclassical economics, or trickle down economics, is the economics of the winners. White men feel like winners. After all, we are superior, right? So neoclassical economics and radical free market capitalism suits us just fine. We get to run roughtshod over all the women, niggers and muds, and we get a scientifically proven model with empirically tested pure mathematical proofs to give our assholery the seal of scientific approval. Socialism, liberalism, and the Left is all about equality. We are not into hierarchy too much. Pecking orders are for lower animals like the dogs and cats romping in the living room. Humans are above that. The reason #1-7 guys have such a fanatical hatred of the Left is precisely because of our belief in relative equality and egalitarianism. If you think you’re better than 9 It’s hard to attack a nice guy, so the Natural Rulers of Mankind have to make up all kinds of lies about us. Feminists, who at best merely request some legal equality, are Kali-like destroyers reaping firestorms across the paper houses of civilization. In order to project, they also accuse those who request fairness for women of the hate that they themselves possess. Anti-racists, who at best are a noble bunch requesting only that one try not to feel too much animus towards entire races, try not to hate people too much due to their racial genetics, and try to treat each person as an individual, are treated much the same. We are all Little Hitlers plotting the Auschwitz of the Great White Race. We plant little seeds of evil niggerdom in white pocket fence pretty and dainty White towns, sending a flamethrower of malign and depraved Black crime tearing through White decency and rectitude. Then they project onto us, those who request that folks not hate. What do we suffer from? What else but what they do? We hate, hate, hate and then hate some more. The racists are put-upon Davids in tears only fighting back because they can’t hold back anymore. And the socialists, those of us who have tried to craft what can only be called the Great Human Emancipation Project that began in 1917 or earlier at the Commune? Instead of trying to make sure everyone has a roof, a bed, a job and something to eat, we destroy wealth and create poverty. Even more cruelly, those of us who put nutrition above all profit are accused of being so inept that we starve other humans. The capitalists, who starve 14 million people to death every year, mostly in South Asia, are running some worldwide Meals on Wheels program for the tattered, sighing and bony abject castoffs of our blighted globe. We, who put human health above all dirty profit, are accused of murdering hospital patients in their beds with our ineptness, or worse, of running Mengele-like hovering reaper death panels. I’ve given you a bit to think of here. Please think on it a bit. I did, and I feel a lot better now. Things are coming together like booze glasses clinking in the air. The lights are all coming on at once and merging into one blast of white light. Epiphany feels good. Try it some time.

The Dilemma of This Website

You see, due to the race stuff, my site attracts mostly rightwingers or mushy Centrists who vote Republican half the time. They then are repelled by my liberalism, especially on economics. This is a Left site, a socialist site, but my readers are a bunch of rightwingers and spineless Centrists! And I hate my rightwing readers (well not all of them), look for excuses to ban them and then end up banning them, which pisses people off. I really want Leftwingers to read the site and fill the comments section, but most Lefties despise my site due to the race and gender stuff. I’m a sexist and a racist! This really sucks. The real problem here is that the Left and liberals are out of their fucking minds on race and gender. Another problem is that as soon as Whites start getting racist or even race realist or racially aware, they automatically start moving to the Right and voting Republican. Like clockwork. Same with males disgusted by insane feminism. They automatically move to the Right and start voting Republican. Just like that. US politics is pretty retarded. FrankBD has been touching on this subject lately in the comments. I agree with everything he is saying.

Western Women's Culture of Meanness

Repost from the old site. In the comments section, Lafayette Sennacherib says, possibly jokingly:

I’ll go along with feminism this far: it’s ok for women to bring in a wage, as long as they still rear the kids, clean the place, cook, sew, provide regular sex, are totally faithful unless it’s with another woman and we can watch/share, and don’t mind their men having a bit on the side. Fair’s fair! We owe them that much!

I don’t know if he’s joking or not, but I won’t even go that far. I decided to ask Sexmaniacman his opinion of LS’ post, and here is what he said:

Bob, first of all, thanks so much for inviting me over so I can write about this. My complaint, Bob, is that feminism has cultivated a culture of meanness, at least here in the US. I would say that American women have cultivated a culture of meanness, but I think they reason they have is feminism. Feminism makes women pissed off at us men. Period. Full stop.As a het guy who chooses to deal with women as more than platonic friends, I don’t dig being hated on. It sucks, and it feels deflating to my cock. I’ve gotten to the point now where I can have sex even with a woman who completely hates me and is making that clear as we are engaging in the sex act, but it wasn’t always that way. Angry, bitchy, emasculating women make men impotent. Either physically, psychologically, or spiritually. I figure even non-feminist women are bitchy enough sometimes. Add feminism into the stew and now they are way bitchier even than they are normally. Fuck that. I hate bitchy women. Nothing worse. One thing that I have noticed is that a lot of wimpy, leftwing, pro-feminist men love bitchy women. They sit back and cheer them on. And these bitchy feminists are attracted to wimpy pro-feminist guys, but the truth is that these guys’ wimpiness drives the feminists insane, because even though they are feminists who say they hate macho men and machismo, they are still women, and most women hate wimpy guys and long for a macho man to reduce them to meek, wimpering Southern belles. That’s why feminism doesn’t work in practice. It creates what we’ve got in Northern California. The stereotypical Northern California male: so wimpy and/or feminized that a lot of people will think the guy is gay. And it concurrently creates the Northern California female: so butch and/or masculinized that a lot of people will think she’s a dyke. These two things attract each other. That’s why you will find a fair number of these wimpy-type guys messing around with guys, and you will find quite a few of these dykey women either messing with women or just going full gay either part of full-time. Macho guys create feminine female counterparts and vice versa. Wimpy guys create bitches at best and vice versa and create macho dykey women at worst and vice versa. At both extremes, normally het people will start moving into homosexuality and bisexuality. This is another thing I have against feminism: it’s full of lesbians. Now, I have nothing against lesbians and gay men being members of gay rights organizations. But why should feminism, objectively merely pro-women’s rights, be full of a dykes? Reason is that feminism creates lesbians, and for some weird reason, lesbians love feminism. Have you ever noticed that the women who scream most about rape are lesbians, probably really butch, dykey, homely and living in some gay community, IOW, just about the least likely women to get raped! The women most likely to get raped are het women, women who are fully involved with men and men’s lives, and who have men in their lives. Straight men, not gay men. Often they are raped by their boyfriends, husbands, dates or just guys they know. I go to a feminist site and typically it’s swarming with lesbians. My first reaction is why? I went to a feminist site, not a gay rights site. Second reaction is turnoff. I’m here to see what straight women think, not lesbians. Final thought is even more disturbing. A lot of radical feminists and feminist separatists openly hate men. They’re into misandry. Yep, the very women screaming most about misogyny are often misandrists themselves. It’s it’s bad for the goose, it’s bad for the gander. As feminism has cultivated misandry (something many feminists now admit), it’s turned lots of feminists into a bunch of lesbians. A family friend was one of the founding members of NOW, and I was a member myself for years. She eventually quit going to the meetings because the feminist women wouldn’t stop hitting on her and propositioning her. Even back then, the movement was swarming with lesbians. I’m perfectly willing to help raise the kids, clean the house and cook the food, but I am sorry that I cannot sew. I’d be glad to learn if it was easy. I’m not sure I even mind if women cheat. I never used to mind and often had open relationships. I was raised in the androgynous 1970’s. In part I was never comfortable with the macho man thing, so I rejected it because it just wasn’t me, and though I was always into masculinity deep down inside, I was also influenced by feminism wanting to make us into “New Men” – sensitive, vulnerable, all that. I turned into a straight Mick Jagger – Steve Tyler – New York Dolls androgynous surfer – rocker – punk rocker – doper – dope dealer – compulsive womanizer. What did I get for this? Guys tried to beat me up for “being a fag”. I even got beat over the fucking head with a baseball bat once. Nicer people were continuously suggesting that I was gay or bi, much to my consternation. Usually it was guys saying I was gay. Females, being more intelligent, usually thought I was bi, because gay men have no interest in women. I was attacked by my very own girlfriends, heads full of feminism, for being gay, bi, wimpy or just not much a man. Screw this. What did I get out of going along with this feminist “New Man” shit? Not a damn thing. Hell with it. I’m gonna be a macho pig, and the feminists can fuck off if they don’t like it.

Do We Live In a Patriarchy?

Repost from the old site. In the comments section, two of my favorite bloggers, k&y of to the ambient void suggest that we live in a patriarchy today. I think that these two guys are both gay, but that’s fine with me, in fact, I think it’s great! I decided to call Sexmaniacman over to ask him what he thought of the notion that we live in a patriarchy today. Here’s what he wrote:

It’s easy for gay men to side with women in the War Between the Sexes because they’re not trying to fuck women, so they don’t have to put up with women’s bullshit that is inevitable in those of us who do.They’re trying to fuck guys in a gay culture that seems a Hell of a lot more sex-friendly and sex-positive than this chilly het culture with these censorious female and mostly feminist Comstocks wanting to beat us with rods every time we get a hardon. Like to look at porn? You’re a woman-hater. Can’t get laid, poor guy? Haha, say the feminists, you loser. Now, me, a masculinist, I side with the guy. The guy’s not getting laid because of women. Women don’t put out that much, and they’re collectively refusing to fuck this guy, and then ridiculing him for it. Like to girl-watch? You’re a woman-hater. Like to look a pictures of pretty girls in magazines or on TV or like to watch beauty pageants or have girlie pictures on your walls? You hate women. Excuse me, feminist ladies, but that is one chilly anti-sexual turd you’re laying on our sex parade. This society of yours, where 9 I don’t know if we have a patriarchy or not. I go to the feminist sites and read about really horrible, obnoxious, and, yes, misogynistic behavior, and I feel tremendous empathy for these feminists in their frustration, depression and rage. Really I do. Now, these feminists probably hate me for being a dog, but I want to tell them that I feel your pain, ladies. Thing is, if we have a patriarchy, I, being a male, am supposed to be on top and winning the race. Instead I feel like I’m getting fucked, and have been getting fucked for much of my life. I don’t feel like I’m winning, or like I’m a member of some male ruling class, or anything like that. A lot of my non-rich male friends feel that way. They feel like an oppressed class, not some member of some ruling class called a patriarchy. I can’t think of one benefit I ever got in my whole damned life due to having a dick. So a lot of us are pissed at feminists. Feminists are sitting on the sidelines, screaming that we’re a ruling class that’s oppressing them, and we don’t feel like we’re oppressing anyone. As for being a ruling class, a lot of us can hardly pay the rent, much less take out one of these expensive things called females. In the same way a lot of White guys are mad at White Privilege Theory and the notion that we live in a White Supremacist society. What did I ever get from being White. How was I ever privileged in life? I can barely even pay my rent and bills. I’m privileged how now? I’m oppressing who now? It’s the same thing – they say we are in a White ruling class but a lot of us feel like an oppressed underclass. It also kind of pisses off us het guys that so many women are still gold-diggers, I mean whores, I mean, well, what do I mean? They want money, our money. Much of it, most of it, all of it, whatever. They go for the guy with the most money. If we don’t have lots of money, we don’t get laid. Worse, we are not even men. The number of women who have abandoned this collective gendered money-grubbing thievery of us men is small, although some middle-aged women start to leave it behind, because they lose their looks and are not much wanted anymore, so they can’t sell their fucking pussies anymore. If you’re a woman going for the rich guys, you’re a whore. You’re selling your pussy for money, real simple. If you’re not a whore, what are you? What does feminism say about this ubiquitous behavior? Nothing, nothing, nothing. The silence is deafening. You see the charts about how women make less money than we do. Are they including the zillions of dollars women steal from men by selling their pussies to us? Nowadays a lot of women make as much money as we do, or more. My girlfriends always seemed to make more money than I do, and that, by the way, pretty much ruins any het relationship nowadays. Even though these bitches made more money than I did, I still had to pay for every single fucking thing when we went out anywhere. All her money’s for her, and all my money’s for her. Nice arrangement. Nice rip-off arrangement. Rip-off of me that is. What does feminism say about this grasping whoredom? Nothing at all! Well, I’m a guy and it pisses me off. My friends and I regularly refer to women as “whores”, because from our vantage, that’s what they are. We’ve discussed this with some women. Those who responded civilly suggested that when you get married, the woman’s not whoring anymore, but then the conniving bitch gets 1/2 my money for the rest of my life. Does this sound like patriarchy to you? Sounds like women on top and us lowly males as some kind of Underclass. I’m tired of a lot of feminists, though I do support a lot of, or most of, their goals. What I’m tired of is this anti-sex shit. They seem like they don’t want me to get laid. And they don’t want my friends to get laid. They don’t even want me or my friends to look at women in public. God forbid we look at pornography. I’m not allowed to look at any sexual depictions of women whatsoever. That’s reducing women to sex objects. Well, fuck. If I’m horny, women are sex objects to me. Sorry. I’m not gay. I’m interested in fucking women. Have been my whole life. My surfer friends on the beach used to fuck everything female that moved. They’d rent a house on the beach, have permanent kegs of beer, sell dope, and screw 100 women a summer, three a day. These guys were my idols, but I could never quite do it like they did, no matter how hard I tried. It seemed like they were trying to set new world records. I understand that feminists hate this behavior and regard it as misogyny. Well fuck me. I guess I’m a boys will be boys, girls will be girls type. I notice 3rd world women take the attitude that all men are dogs and nothing can be done about this, so don’t worry about it. That seems a lot more helpful. I’m basically a dog anyway when it comes to women. I’ve always been one. I may not even be capable of monogamy. At various times in my life, I’ve been a compulsive womanizer. I understand feminists hate compulsive womanizers and say we’re misogynist. Well, fuck you, feminists.

No Wonder White Men Are Pissed

Repost from the old site. Cool post from the comments from an American mulatto woman, telling it straight up like it really is about masculinity, femininity and race:

I enjoyed reading your post. I am mixed-race, Black and white. I have been with both types of men. I feel that White males used to be much more masculine and the media portrayed them as masculine on TV, but now Black men are portrayed on TV as the heroes. On the other hand Asian men are under represented by the media.  Black men are too masculine for me, and I am really not attracted to them. I wish White guys were the way they use to be – in charge and take control. As a female I feel that a lot of this has to do with the feminist movement. No other men in the world give their women as much freedom as the White male, and in the end they tend to lose their woman to other men because they have let go and have given her too much power. In turn, the White female now has the power and is in charge in most White relationships. As a female I have observed the huge difference in how a White female treats a Black male as compared to a White male. It is like night and day. She is much softer and feminine with the Black male and takes care of him and his needs. With White males, all you hear is there was lots of sex before marriage, then after that she cut off the sex, then has a kid to keep him in control. This strategy does not work with a Black male because he may or may not even marry the White female and may or may not assume responsibility for the child. This makes the Black male appear as a challenge to a White female or any woman for that matter. Also White men are handsome and may have facial features that are handsome, but no male has the body of a Black male when they are in shape. Muscles make a man appear masculine. I don’t date black men mainly due to the fact that I find them to be very promiscuous. With Asian men the problem is their height. I prefer a man at least 5’10 at least. I find when the Asian man is mixed with white they are usually taller and better looking. As far as Black females I feel that European males appreciate them more than White American men.

We showed this post to Sexmaniacman, even they know crying’s not manly. Unlike Sexmaniacman’s mother’s generation, they delight in attacking our masculinity when they get mad. Sexmaniacman’s Mom shook her head when he told her that. “Oh Sexdude, hun,” she said solemnly, putting her hand on his shoulder. “We would never do that. That’s one thing we would never do.” Like guys in prison with Mom on their shoulder, Sexmaniacman cherishes his mother. If anyone suggests that he’s too close to her, he’ll just threaten to slit their throat, just like that. It’s not just guys like Sexmaniacman who get it. All men do. The most macho guys Sexmaniacman ever knew have been taunted with this shit, and they are the most furious and homicidal of all about it. One day Killerdude and Sexmaniacman were drinking and getting high. Killerdude was feeling angry and homicidal, but that was ok, because men are supposed to feel that way sometimes. “Sexman. Bro. I want to kill her,” he confided. “I want to kill that fucking bitch.” Sexmaniacman’s ears perked up. “Oh? Who?” It wasn’t every day they talked homicide. Killerdude looked at the ground. He’d been shooting coke and doing lots of PCP lately. Just the other day, he was lying on the ground at Sexmaniacman’s place, pissing his pants, orbiting the solar system on angel dust, while Sexmaniacman and his friends were drinking and laughing at the spectacle. “My old lady. I want to kill my old lady. I swear. I swear. If I could get away with it. I swear. If I could get away with it, I’d do it. Just like that. I’ve thought about it many times. I’ve got it all planned out. The crime, the weapons, the getaway, the whole thing. I just need you to swear you won’t tell.” Sexmaniacman didn’t have any tea to stir, but he wanted to. He took a swig of beer instead. “Maybe. Maybe I could. Why? What did she do to you?” Sexmaniacman knew Killerdude could do it, and he knew the bitch deserved it. Killerdude was quiet. His mood was bleak and scary. “She took my kid. She won’t let me see my kid. And she attacks me. She attacks me as a man. She attacks my manhood. I can’t tolerate that.” Sexmaniacman understood completely. In Man World, such a crime could and often did carry the death penalty. You attacked a real man’s manhood at your own risk, knowing that he may try to kill you anytime you did it. “Yeah. I’ve seen that. She calls you Pipsqueak. You. Of all people. The most macho guy that ever lived. A lot of other dudes, I can see it. But you? No way.” Killerdude is livening up. “Yeah!” He’s smiling and frowning, and he’s nervous and agitated, and it looks like he’s going to cry, all at once. “You’ve heard that? You’ve heard that? You heard that shit?” Sexmaniacman was quiet. “Yeah.” He shook his head with mournful outrage. “I’ve seen it. Unbelievable. She practically deserves to be killed just for that right there.” Killerdude is out of his chair, jumping up and down, spilling his beer. “Cheers!” They clash bottles. Attacking their manhood, the ultimate weapon of modern woman. The weapon that violates all rules of the World of Men. For in Man World, there are all sorts of highly intricate rules, and there is even a Geneva Convention. If you attack a man’s masculinity, that’s a war crime, and he has a right to punch you, and no one can stop him. He doesn’t have a right to kill you, but many times he’ll do it anyway. Well, women get to violate all the rules of Man World and violate all the conventions too. All war crimes are on the table. The bitches can do anything, and we can’t even raise a pipsqueak in defense, Sexmaniacman noted angrily, or they call the cops and lie and say we beat them. Sexmaniacman actually opposed misogyny, believe it or not. Misogynistic porn and misogynistic websites make him frown. The web sites tell how to treat your woman just shitty enough in some certain ways to make her really love you. Yuck. A friend told Sexmaniacman, “You can’t be a nice guy to women, Sexguy. You’ve got to be an asshole. You’ve got to be an asshole to women. That’s what they want. They want to be treated like shit by a macho jerk so they can sit around with their girlfriends and complain about how their boyfriend treats them like shit.” Sexmaniacman has a feeling he’s right, but it bothers him, and he thinks he still can’t do it. I really don’t care if girlfriends hate me, Sexmaniacman said. They can hate me all they want to, as long as they still keep coming around. They can call me names, insult me, call me lazy, rage at me, threaten to kill me or cut my dick off. It’s not exactly optimal, but it’s pretty much unavoidable. Hopefully, I’ll just laugh in her face, Sexmaniacman thought. Just hate me as a man, that’s all I ask. Don’t hate me as a not-man, Sexmaniacman said. That I won’t tolerate. No wonder that’s their favorite weapon, their secret weapon. Don’t date other guys, or screw other guys, and wave them in my face, just to taunt us, Sexmaniacman said, waving his beer bottle in the air and taking a swig. Yeah. Women do this to us nowadays. They don’t just screw other guys while they are with us. That might be tolerable if they were civilized enough to keep it a secret, but of course they’re not. No, they do it right in front of our faces. They parade the new guy, or the other guy, or whoever the Hell the jerk is, around right in front of our faces, just daring us to do something about it. Hard to believe? Just try. Feminist Woman created Wormboy, and she’s been stomping her foot in frustration and having masochistic sex with 80 IQ thugs and ex-cons, ever since.

Sexmaniacman Is A Creep

Repost from the old site. It’s official. Sexmaniacman is a creep. And a pervert. And he’s proud. Sexmaniacman just learned the definition right here. First of all, “creep” is a woman word, and no real male would commonly use such a word as a noun or a verb. Sexmaniacman just doesn’t use it in general, because he’s a real man, not a pussified ally of the females, but every now and then, it’s appropriate. For instance, Sexman’s Mom works at a college. There was a male student there for a while, socially inept, who used to hide under and behind cars out in the parking lot and jump out at the college girls. I guess he thought it was funny or something. The girls were not amused and they kept complaining to the administration. With some regret, Sexmaniacman will admit that this guy’s behavior is creepy. But really, it’s only creepy in that they don’t find him attractive. If Leonardo DiCaprio was hiding behind cars and jumping out at them, about 5 So it’s not necessarily the behavior that these silly little woman-children don’t like, it’s the fact that the guy is unattractive, unwanted and unappealing, and then he’s trying his luck with them. He realizes this was frightening to the girls, but Sexmaniacman happened to know the idiot who was doing this, and it’s just his opinion that the guy’s completely harmless, though obviously a social retard. These strong, modern, rough, tough, feminist puffed-up ladies should have just told him to fuck off a few times, and probably it would have all stopped. But apparently they kept running away like the little girls they really are deep down inside, so the behavior continued for too long. So, yeah, Sexmaniacman is obviously a fucking creep according to the definition above. Plus he’s a pervert. He never was one, but then he hit 47 or so, and now he can’t look at young women anymore in case he gives them a heart attack or induces post-traumatic stress disorder or molests them with his eyeballs requiring years of weepy and bank-breaking therapy sessions to untwist their poor fragile psyches. Sexguy is perfectly aware that the vast majority of young women don’t find guys his age attractive anymore. That’s very painful for him to realize. He looks at younger women, and he doesn’t think, “Wow, I have a chance with her.” Instead, she often reminds him of so and so who he dated or slept with back in 1978. So he’s looking at them and reminiscing, wistful memories of days gone by. And if that pisses you little bitches off, well he says too fucking bad. They looked great then, and they look great now. Beauty contestants focus on females aged around 18-20. Other than the fact that they probably can’t use minors, the reason they do this is because at this age, females of all races, in all cultures, and at all times, are at the peak of their physical beauty. It’s a common myth that a guy hits 45 and 50 and can’t get an erection anymore. Actually, many of us guys still can and do, believe it or not, Sexmaniacman noted. We may be old, but we’re not dead. You can’t touch a 16-17 year old girl with a 10-foot pole and an 11-foot extension, but they sure are nice to look at. If acknowledging this makes Sexdude a pervert and a fucking creep, then he will wear that badge proudly. Sexmaniacman probably wouldn’t want to sleep with them even if it were legal, because it’s impossible to have an intelligent conversation with these silly girly things. Not that older women are much better! Good. From the site:

I think I’ve generally come to the conclusion that a lot of women’s definition of a “creepy guy”/pervert is:  A guy they find unattractive, who checks them out. Most straight women, of course, liked to be noticed by guys they find attractive, and a lot of women will dress to attract men they fancy. The problem a lot of women seem to have is, is that there’s an unwanted side effect. If they dress sexy, they not only get looked at by the sexy guys, they also get looked at by the guys they don’t fancy.

Well, yeah, duh. If you don’t want us to look at your fucking tits, Sexmaniacman suggested, then don’t walk around with your boobs hanging out. If you’re showing cleavage, or God forbid have your tits halfway hanging out, Sexbro is going to look right at them, Goddamn it, and fuck you if you don’t like it. If it pisses you off so much, dress like a lady for Chrissake.

It’s like during the 1980’s when all political correctness issues came to the fore with a vengeance. In a work setting, a bloke could chat a woman up. If she fancied him, it was fine and dandy. If she didn’t, it was called sexual harassment. 

Yeah. Sexcat figure that’s probably what’s going on in a lot of this sexual harassment bullshit. He remembers he worked at a place once where the whole office freaked out because some poor schmuck asked a woman out. To look at the guy, Sexman figured he probably hadn’t been laid by a non-professional in at least months, so he had a God-given right to ask, and Sexguy felt deep sympathy for his sex-deprived brother. She was being nice to him and talking him, and all the silly bitch had to do was say no and that was that. The guy was civilized, he would have just taken it like a man. But oh no, Ms. Silly made it into a capital fucking offense, and it was the talk of the whole office for a while. Being a real guy, not a wuss, of course Sexbuddy took the guy’s side in this skirmish of the War Between Men and Women, but most of the “men” in the office sided with Ms. Silly, like knights running to save her honor. Afterward the poor guy told Sexpal that management told him that sexual harassment guidelines said that employees should not be dating. Great. Here it is, in the modern US, where so many of us are working long hours, and we can’t date at work. Great. So how are we supposed to get laid? Sexmaniacman finally had to adopt some new rules to deal with this bullshit, but he realized he was not the only one. He read a sociology paper about guys who moved down to Costa Rica. One guy said when he was 50, an uppity 17 year old girl spit at him for looking at her. I guess that was the last straw, and he high-tailed for the sexually relaxed tropics. His 43 year old sick, perverted, creepy brother had some advice: “Sexguy! Look. Invest in some sunglasses! I look at them all the time. That’s one of the great things about being in junior college – I’m surrounded by 18-20 yr old hotties!” Sexdude’s new rules were to avoid looking at obviously underage girls or sometimes even those around 18-20, but it was so hard to tell ages. He’d look at em a bit, see if they looked back, and if they didn’t, he’d try not to look at them too much. Kind of hard to do when they are young and beautiful! Sexmaniacman also noticed something disturbing about this bullshit. As much as these silly little twats claimed they hated it, he could not help but notice that a certain number of them (Definitely not all but for sure some!), often the better looking and older ones (18-23 or so), relished the attention they got from him. They deliberately strutted, tipped, weaved, swayed and sashayed, flirted and winked, stole glances and battled lashes. At the stores, they shoved the others out of the way so they could ring up Sexman and reap the harvest of his loving eyeballs. They smiled at him coquettishly and made bullshit excuses to get up and strut in front of him, to nowhere and to do nothing, and then traipse back, basking in the warm, delicious rays of his sick, pervy, aging gaze. They looked at him out of the corner of their eyes and winked. When he wasn’t looking, they moved way too close and pretended to look at store things they weren’t interested in. Sexmaniacman would look down, notice a 16 year old just about brushing her tits up against him, and pretend nothing was happening. It sure was an idiotic little girl game these female things were playing, but females often don’t make much sense to Sexguy. Some were jockeying for the eyeballs and others were bitching about illegal looking. Were some of them one and the same? Who knows? Sexmaniacman thinks we can look at them all we want, that’s his position. If they don’t like it, they can call the cops, or take pictures of us with their bitchy cellphones and post them on their screechy blogs, or sit around and carp to their girlfriends about us. There’s also a right and wrong way to look, Sexman thought. You look a little bit, you look away, a while later, you look again. Staring is pretty uncool. Sexmaniacman can’t remember the last time he catcalled a woman. That’s rude, and he’s not rude. Sexmaniacman doesn’t rub up against women, but when he was a lot younger, especially at bars and rock concerts, women were always rubbing up against him and touching him, because he was drop dead gorgeous guy, especially when he wore a beat-up 1950’s James Dean leather jacket. Touching and groping is rude, and he’s not rude. Jerking off in public is illegal, and guys who do that deserve cuffs. However, he objects to the whole Feminazi mindset behind this bullshit movement, mostly because they haven’t specified where harassment begins and where it ends. Supposedly the females get to make up the rules here, on an individual, case by case basis! Great! Webpage here, and most of these guys portrayed here are idiots, Sexguy agrees, but he’s still worried that there are no boundaries here. Sexman is particularly disturbed by the modern notion that he can no longer talk to teenage girls or young women in any way or at any time or about anything, since they automatically assume he’s trying to pick up on them, when usually he’s just trying to make some innocent conversation. Also, the silly feminist bitch idea is that all women hate being looked at. Bullshit. Sexman’s beautiful aunt was in the Castro District of San Fransisco eating at a cafe with Sexman’s Mom. His aunt is a silly woman, like most women are at least sometimes. She’s getting all upset. “None of these men are looking at me,” she pouted huffily. She’s beautiful, and male looks are like vitamins for her soul. Duh. They’re all gay. Sexmaniacman also knows some older women who love to be or would love to be looked at. One, 50 years old, mournfully told him that she wishes men or even boys would look at her. One delighted in telling him how young men and even boys continued to check her out, and how she loved every second of it, being 50 years old.

Some Comments on Race and Racism

Repost from the old site. In the comments section, Alan Lewis comments. My text is in quotes:

1. “It is irrelevant whether these differences are due to genetics or culture, since both intertwine anyway.”  Obviously it makes a great deal of difference, whether or not they “intertwine”. Human genes cannot (at least absent new technology) be altered; culture can be. 2. “…insane, decades- to centuries-long, never-to-be won wars against racism, sexism, homophobia and whatnot. These things will probably always be with us. The insanity of the Left is the folly that they dream they can eradicate these aspects of human nature.” Pardon me?! The Left’s largely SUCCESSFUL war against racism and whatnot, including the abolition of slavery and numerous other notable victories along the way, is “insane and unwinnable”? And since when is racism an “aspect of human nature”? What IS “human nature”, anyway? And what basis is there for saying that either racism is an aspect of it? (Is there more basis for saying that than for saying that anti-racism is an “aspect of human nature”?)

To which I respond: The facts are that there are differences in intelligence and other variables among the races. I wish to avoid the whole discussion of whether this is due to culture or genes, because it never ends. Also, the racists have taken over the genes debates as far as I can tell. 9 Why continue on and on with this stupid debate? What’s the point? Blacks do have a 15 point or so differential with Whites on intelligence. Surely, that difference is not due to racism. They also have a crime rate that is fully 8 times higher than Whites, and Hispanics have a crime rate that is 3.3 times higher than Whites. Surely these differences are not due to racism. That’s just madness. The problem with the Left and its lunatic anti-racism is that any and all differentials between races have to be chalked up to racism! What crap! In truth, that 15 point differential in IQ between Blacks and Whites alone could explain all sorts of differentials between those two races. For instance, in Why Black People Can’t Be Racist , Dr. Andrew Austin argues that Blacks have worse and lower paying jobs, worse educational outcomes, higher rates of unemployment, shorter lives, more diseases and illnesses, higher rates of infant mortality, higher rates of poverty, higher rates of incarceration, less home ownership, worse homes and so forth, and all of these discrepancies are empirically rooted in institution discrimination by Whites against Blacks. The key word here is empirically. I do not think that it has been empirically proven that all of these differentials are rooted solely and exclusively in institutional discrimination. If these cannot be explained by IQ, they can possibly be explained by other cultural variables or other biological variables. Other cultural variables may include things like Blacks creating a culture of failure in the Black Underclass or in general that leads to negative outcomes. It is also possible that some of these differences may be partly or wholly explained by racism and discrimination. There are quite a few average significant biological differences between the races. You can see some of them in this perfectly horrible online book. Fuerle’s book is not horrible because it’s wrong; it’s horrible because it’s unpleasant and most decent people don’t wish to discuss such things. Even Jared Taylor has noted that his Southern ancestors would have been offended by a discussion of such difference and would have described such a discussion as rude and poor manners, and he says that the debate has been forced on White nationalists by anti-racists continuously invoking White racism as the reason for these differences. As Alan notes, there have been some notable successes in the war against racism in the US. Ending slavery was one of them. It’s true that the movement has been fairly successful. My point is that it is insane of the Left to wage war to end racism, sexism and homophobia. The idiot feminists extend this to a war to end rape violence against women. Rape and violence against women will never end. Racism will surely never end. I will not see the end of sexism and homophobia in my lifetime. Alan says that I am implying that these things are in our genome. Perhaps they are. As I noted above, I’m sitting out the whole genes versus culture debate as a rhetorical dead end and waste of time. What has this debate accomplished one way or the other since its inception? On the one hand, you have liberal and leftwing idiots arguing that nothing is genetic and everything is cultural. On the other hand, you have a group of mostly Northern Europeans, with a few high-caste South Asians, overseas Chinese and other such elites tossed in, arguing that everything is genetic and nothing is cultural. Both sides usually preface their discussion by making a meaningless bow to the God of fairness. The environmentalists say that of course some stuff is genetic, then go on to argue that nothing is. The hereditarians argue that it’s a mix of environment and genes, and then proceed to attack all environmental explanations. The point here is mostly preaching to the respective choirs and a lot of people who like to get involved in insoluble and interminable nasty dust-ups. Saying that these things will be with us as long as I am alive is not the same as saying that racism is genetic, though I suspect it may have such elements. Anti-racism and affiliation with outside groups may also be genetic. You can postulate all sorts of genetic theories for both. Kevin MacDonald suggests that males may naturally pursue outgroup females in order to improve group fitness by adding new genes to the group. I would add that it also weakens outgroups by stealing their women. At the same time, he argues that that males naturally try to keep outgroups away from their own women. Allowing outgroups access to your women could lead to the usurpation of all of the ingroup’s females and the extinction of the outgroup. Further, males would be blocked from perpetuating their lines within their ingroup. We can see through human history that humans have great tendencies towards altruism within group and extreme cruelty to outgroups. Ingroups and outgroups can also get along quite well for varying periods of time. Periods of relative hostility are sprinkled with outliers who cooperate with the opposing group. Periods of relative peace are dotted with incidents of group competition and even hostility. There seems to be a lot of evidence that the racists are wrong in that all humans are naturally and normally racist as a condition of their genetics. The millions or hundreds of millions of people embracing relative anti-racism in the West and other parts of the world would argue against that. If we were naturally racist, anti-racist individuals would be rare and anti-racist campaigns would be ludicrously ineffective. On the other hand, the continuing existence of racism all around the world despite a major decades-long project to wipe it out implies that unfortunately, like murder, rape and wife-beating, it may be something that we are stuck with to one degree or another. No one wages wars to end crime, homicide, suicide, domestic violence, etc. It’s widely acknowledged that such unpleasantness is an aspect of the human condition. These conditions can be either ameliorated or exacerbated. They cannot be eradicated. The folly of the Left is that it wages wars of eradication, not wars of amelioration, on things that are permanent aspects of our existence. The folly and cynicism of the Right is that negative aspects of our condition cannot be ameliorated through cultural change, and that some are permanent, and even laudatory aspects of our existence.

The War on Men

Repost from the old site. Couple of nice articles here and here. I used to think this stuff was stupid, but now I’m starting to think there’s something to it. I’m sitting here, barely above poverty level, in the barrio. I don’t feel like I’m oppressing anyone. How am I a member of some male ruling class that is lording it over the women? How has society advantaged me my whole life to detriment of the poor females? I just can’t see it. I feel oppressed myself. I don’t feel like I’m automatically a member of some privileged elite by nature of my gender. That’s where all this patriarchy crap leaves me cold. Patriarchy says we men rule this society, if not this whole planet. Well, I don’t feel like I rule anything. I feel like a peon. So I can’t sympathize with all this “male privilege” BS. What privilege? I don’t necessarily agree with the bit about casual sex being so disastrous either.

Peeping Toms

Repost from the old site. I was doing some research on paraphilias for the Joseph Duncan stories when I came across voyeurism. I don’t think I’ve ever engaged in any voyeurism, certainly not the criminal kind. But one thing always bugged me about this law. What exactly does it mean? It bothered me because the law seems to imply that there’s something perverted about watching a woman take her clothes off, take a shower or walk around naked. That doesn’t sound so perverted to me. That sounds like my idea of a good time! In reading some stories about some voyeurs that got arrested, it turns out that almost all of these guys are engaged in obviously criminal behavior. They typically are on private property, and they are up against someone’s bedroom or bathroom window, looking at a woman undress. Ok, that’s clearly a violation and a crime. Another case involved a guy who poked holes in the ceiling of a woman’s bathroom so he could spy on the. Ok, that’s a crime too. A woman has a reasonable expectation of privacy in her own home or in windows accessible only from her own property, and in a ladies’ bathroom. But one thing has always bugged me. I’ve lived in plenty of apartments. Now, what if I’m sitting in my apartment one night and I look across at the apartments across the way, and there’s a woman in there, undressing, or walking around naked, or whatever. Ok, so do I get to look at her? Or am I a voyeur? I don’t think such a thing has ever happened to me, but I would think that would be legal. If you don’t want people to look at you, draw the fucking curtains or blinds. If you’re walking around in your apartment naked in front of an open window, you’re an exhibitionist or a future stripper! This article in particular bothered me. This woman thinks that all people with “paraphilias” should go on sex offender lists forever. WTH? She particularly singled out voyeurs for abuse. Here’s a couple of interesting cases. These stupid women were walking around in their apartments that had broken blinds. I don’t know if they were walking around naked or what. Well, anyway, this guy was watching them walk around their apartments. They called the cops on him and said he was a peeper. He said if you don’t want people watching, fix your damn blinds! The cops told the women to fix their blinds, and they let the guy off. Good job cops! Here’s another one. These two retarded female college students, Rosanne Strott and Emily Niland were in their dorm room at Wentworth College having lesbian sex at night. With the fucking light on. With the fucking blinds up. So, of course, some guys across the way settle in for the show. Why not? I might have settled in for the show too! Grab me a beer! Then the guys make a video out of it and put it on the damn Internet. Now, the Internet stuff may have gone too far, but these bitches are just stupid. If you want to have lez sex without an audience, either turn out the lights or draw the blinds or both. “You can’t violate people’s privacy like that and expect to get away with it,” said one silly bitch. Jesus Christ woman! You decide to have sex with the lights on and the blinds up for the whole damn world to see and guess what? You have no privacy. I decided to ask Sexmaniacman about this because he’s an expert on all sex stuff:

Bob, this has been bugging me for a while too. I’m not sure if I’ve ever been a voyeur either! I’ve watched plenty of porn, and I’ve been to a ton of strip shows. Hell, I used to practically live in porno theaters and strip joints! I’m a pervert! Haha! Fuck you, puritans!It was the summer of 1977, and I was working and living at Yosemite National Park. I was living on park food, marijuana, and young women! Good diet! Haha! Well, one day I was off work and I saw these two women sunbathing by the beach of the Merced River. I thought they had black bikinis, but then I figured out they were naked. You do the math! This was before the shaving era! Haha! So I strolled down there, looking at them all the time. Ok, so am I a fucking voyeur? Yeah, I was looking at em. They’re naked women, you think I won’t look at em? I get down to the beach, and there’s these two naked hippie chicks, both 19. I introduce myself, and say hello. Now, according to the psycho feminist cunts from Hell, I’m sexually harassing these chicks! Women have a right to lay around fucking naked anytime they want, and if any man looks at em or God forbid walks up to them to chat or join them, he’s harasser and a misogynist. Well, fuck me, feminists! I take off my sandals and shirt but not my shorts. So I go into the river with my shorts on cuz I’m too shy to take them off. In the water, I take my shorts off and I’m naked. Now, according to feminazis, I’m a fucking rapist! You see, I need to ask permission to do this shit! I look back at the women and the feminazis would predict they’d be throwing their clothes on and screaming rape and calling the cops on the sex offender! Well, instead, they’re nudging each other and going, “Hey look, he’s naked, whoo-hoo,yeah, check him out, he’s hot!” What do you know, feminist cunts! Amazing! Some women actually like naked men and don’t scream pervert and call the cops every time they see one! What’s bugging me is, what if they didn’t want me to take my shorts off? Am I a rapist? A paraphiliac? A sex offender? An exhibitionist? A sexual harasser? WTF? One part of me says screw these damn laws. Give em to the lunatic feminists, and they’ll just use them as a sledgehammer to destroy innocent men. Nothing happened afterward, no sex. I got out of the river, and we all put out clothes on and walked away. We met some hippie dude they knew from their travels around the country. I think they went off to smoke some dope. They promised to stop by my place at night, but they never did, of course. Let me tell you another story. I was living in a rural area in the early 1990’s. I used to walk down the roads all the time and take hikes. I always had my binoculars with me, and I was always looking at stuff with em. After a while, I learned that some shitty rumor had gone around the neighborhood about me, and about 10 Yeah, I was looking at stuff. I was looking at birds! I’m a birdwatcher! I even had a Petersen’s Guide in my pocket the whole time. Did I ever look at any people? Dunno, maybe I saw some walking around. In their homes? Doubt it. Did I ever look at anyone’s home with my binoculars? Doubt it, unless maybe there was a bird in the yard! Did I ever look inside anyone’s home with my binocs? Don’t recall, don’t think so, why the Hell would I do that? Was there a bird in the house? If no, I’m probably not gonna look. I’m one of those weirdo birdwatchers, remember? We’re into birds, not humans. You can see humans anytime, but when do you ever get to see a really hot bird? This is what I hate about these shitty laws. I bet a lot of innocent people go down on this stuff and then on sex offender databases for life. I could have easily gone down on them myself. I had a whole neighborhood full of retarded White middle-class American fuckheads ready to swear to the cops that I was peeping on them. WTF?

Stomach of a Mangina

LOL. + for humor.
Found this on the Internet. It’s the stomach of a mangina. For those who are slow, it looks like a vagina. It’s a great big, fat, hairy, unshaven pussy. Which is what a lot of middle aged manginas are like in real life anyway, I bet. Found here, on the feminists and anti-MRA blog Man Boobz: What’s Wrong with the Men’s Rights Movement. For the record, I’m not an MRA guy, even though I made it onto this character’s enemy’s list. I’m an equity feminist, and I’m also a masculinist. The MRA movement and blogosphere disturbs me, particularly with its misogyny. I’m a guy who loves women. I can’t stand guys. Given the choice, I will associate and communicate with females over males. Not that women aren’t fucked in the head. It’s just that I like their fuckheadedness better than male fuckheadedness. So I’m down with misogyny? Fuck that. If I want to hear misogyny, I’ll go hang with the guys. Anyway. Man Boobz is an idiot. He spends most of his time quoting feminist blogs and defending feminists. Bad idea. Very bad idea. Feminists, and Western women in general, freely attack men and take pride in doing so. Normal women, as a Brazilian woman I know said, don’t like to attack men. “Brazilian women don’t like to challenge men. They don’t like to fight men.” And so it is. The less acculturated Latinas in my town, the most connected to Latin America, are the friendliest towards me and I assume towards men in general. They love men, and they love the sexual Dance of the Genders. The more Americanized they get, the more bitchy and in your face hostile they get. Isn’t gender feminism great? It strives to create World O’ Bitches. Yeehaw! The capitalists are giving us World O’ Crap with their planned obsolescence, and to go along with it, the feminists have ordered us up a side of World O’ Bitches, and of course, we’re picking up the tab, right “women are equal” ladies? Oh that’s right. Women are equal, except they don’t want to be! Like at the end of the meal. Silly me.

"Drunk and Disorderly: The Joys of Ranterism and Other Topics," by Jacob Bauthumley

For white English or American readers of this blog, a question. Who went to church this morning? Go on, own up. Nobody? Coming home on the bike I passed the Catholic church on the corner of my block (West Earlham). Everyone was of Indian origin, speaking Indian languages! In white Norwich! Not a white Caucasian in sight. This morning I was up extremely early, and at first light I was worshipping at the church of my allotment, delighting in the alchemy of all life. Yes really! Just enjoying it. Then, I went scrumping windfall apples, and gathered 150lb of different varieties, which I moved on my bike trailer in an old plastic cistern back to my friend Ruth’s place. I am so knackered now that I have to go back to bed. I’ve been up since 4am, and I’ve had three hours’ sleep. What the hell. Sleep it off, baby. It’s a Sunday! I rang a friend, a local poet, and he put me in touch with a local cider maker with a press, out in rural Norfolk, in Old Buckenham. My friend John and I plan to turn the apples into ten gallons of cider and sour the cider to make ten gallons of cider vinegar. Religious views are a very tricky area, aren’t they? The two things you are not supposed to discuss in polite English society are religion and politics. It is clear that I do not have the manners of an Englishman, since I talk about both. My nom de guerre Abiezer Coppe gives his views on the Christian religion at the end of the piece. I have been at times an Marxist atheist, an Marxist agnostic, and a Marxist with Christian leanings. In the next phase of my life I shall settle for a Marxist gnosticism, marrying the rational materialist dialectic of Marx, to the otherworldly insights of the Christian Gnostics, starting with Valentinus (3rd Century AD). I am in good company. Ernst Bloch (1885-1977) was also a kind of Marxist gnostic. True, he was a Stalinist, too, but Stalinism is not the main thrust of his remarkable magnum opus on Hope, Das Prinzip Hoffnug, or of his biography of the 15th Century revolutionary peasant leader, Thomas Munzer, which I found in French translation. Spiritual search: should I give it up entirely? I have tried the Cheshire Cat Buddhists at the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order (I swear they all had the same smile) but they gave me the creeps, as every religious group does. Experiential spirituality is the only type I can connect to: I learned Vipassana meditation once. Ten day silent retreats in Herefordshire, no speaking, no eye contact: it takes a lot to discipline a wild mind. I’ve always been poor, and even the poor can afford it: I gave service instead of cash, and went back and worked in the kitchens on another retreat. Vipassana was good, and it works, but who wants to spend two hours a day sitting on their arse meditating? It certainly chills you out like nothing else does, the ten day retreat. You come out feeling clean, really clean. A good friend of mine called L–a came on a Herefordshire retreat with me (I drove my totally illegal French taxed, French MOT’d and French insured Citroen BX from Norwich to Herefordshire and back, and around on the roads of the UK for 2 years, and the police never stopped me once). She’d smoked dope and tobacco, and drank alcohol all her life. After the 10 day retreat she just stopped, without even a struggle. No alcohol, no drugs, no tobacco. She just didn’t want them anymore. Buddha was really onto something, then. Buddhism is a practical spirituality centered on the practice of compassion, and the meditative practices of Buddhism actually renders one more compassionate. It can’t be a bad thing. I’ve met atheists and Marxists who are – or seem – spiritual, and plenty of Christians who are not. It’s about the being, the beingness of the person, the kind of love they put forth into the world. I’ve met Muslims with a spiritual energy to die for. Spirituality is? – taking the risk in every moment to be honest, to connect with other beings (it might be a frog, my favourite amphibian) and live and love from my deepest sense of whom I am, from my wild and untamed self. And damn the consequences. It’s difficult. We are English. We are fairly shy. We like dissimulation and subterfuge; it is what, as a nation, we are more comfortable with. At least the chattering classes, the bourgeois, the middle classes. I can only speak for my own class, and I am not Jay Griffiths, though I admire her guts. I am more comfortable with Latins, personally, than the emotionally repressed public school Englishman (I did that. I went to a small private boarding school in Suffolk for six years). WYSWYG: What You See Is What You Get, in my experience with people of Latin  extraction. If they don’t like you they come straight out with it. I respect that. In fact, seriously, who would WANT to live any other way once the inner wild being in each of us is brought to light? Who then would settle for the psychic equivalent of suburbia? here on Chinese workers). I still identify as a Marxist, but as a Marxist Feminist Gnostic, which is totally unacceptable to the comrades! I’ve done the Communist Party (CPGB, PCF), done the Socialist Workers (SWP), but I couldn’t hack it, organised male Marxist politics (yawn…), so these days I work for the Green Party, campaign for them, but I won’t join. I’ve stopped being a joiner. At least the UK Green Party do not have the one thousand hang-ups about the Soviet Union that the Communists had, and all that bloody coded language… They mean the things they say, too….it’s prefigurative politics, of the type I’ve always believed in. You carry the changes you want to see into your personal life. If you’ve rubbed shoulders with Stalinists for several years, as I have without ever being one of them, you’ll know how refreshing that is. Where’s the Libertarian Marxist Feminist Gnostic Party? That’s what I want to know. I haven’t seen one yet. When I do I’ll sign up. I struggle with the materialist epistemology of Marxism. I have had a go at being a philosophical materialist, read the books (back in the day it was Maurice Cornforth, now completely and deservedly forgotten, and Emile Burns)  but found it kind of miserable…back in the day I read a lot of Marxists. The only ones I could go for were the outliers, the non-conformists like Ernst Bloch, a German Marxist who wrote a thousand page book about dreams, day dreams, hope and the place of utopia in the human imagination (Hope The Principle, 3 vols). Bad Marxists, utopian dreamers. William Morris and his News From Nowhere. Nowhere is where I live – the name of Utopia! Philosophical materialism, in the forms in which I have encountered it, rules out as nonexistent that which palpably exists! I have yet to meet a Marxist, for example, who takes homeopathic medicine at all seriously, and I trained as a homeopath, so I know it works!  They parrot the standard line. One would think that a revolutionary would have had a little more insight than that. If I had breast cancer, for example, a homeopath would be my first port of call. See Dr A U Ramakrishnan’s work in that area: consistent success across many types of cancer, with five year follow-ups, and none of the extreme toxicity and immune devastation of chemotherapy. Mr Abiezer Coppe was, I imagine, a Christian gnostic sans le savoir, and inspired William Blake, who I think knew he wrote in the gnostic tradition (see historian E P Thompson’s last book, Witness Against the Beast: William Blake and the Moral Law, which is a brilliant study). That is why I identify with Blake, too, and especially with The Marriage of Heaven and Hell (1793), a text on the dialectic before Marx and Hegel. It is a lot more fun to read than Karl Marx’s Theses on Feuerbach, too! The English Ranters rejected all forms of spiritual, sexual and religious authority, and insisted that the only church was the human body. They were good chaps, religious anarcho-communists before communism, and more libertarian than Gerard Winstanley’s more puritanical Diggers, the only other Commies on the block at the time. The Ranters had a endearing habit of preaching naked (if their enemies are to be believed) in the open air, on heaths, and drinking ale and fornicating at religious meetings. Very endearing. The Ranters did not believe in sin. Ranter women are said to have looked for sin in men’s codpieces, and on being unable to find any, declared there was none. That’s a kind of healthy materialism I like. So they didn’t believe in that superstitious shit the Church teaches, either, the Virgin Birth, Original Sin, or the sexual perversions resulting from the Christian, especially Catholic, strictures on the priesthood. The Ranters were not feminists, but you can’t have everything, and in any case, who was a feminist in 1650? Ranters believed everything should be held in common, including women; they weren’t keen on the legal union of marriage and, I guess, just as in the 1960s, these 17th Century anarcho-hippie Ranter men enjoyed their sexual revolution and their sexual libertarianism while Ranter women got pregnant, had the babies, and were left holding them on the heaths of England, bereft of the men who had sired them. Maybe the Ranter males were indeed “only around for the conception”. Nothing new there, then! So much for sexual liberation in 1650s England. Did they know about satisfying a woman in bed? Funnily enough a feminist historian (Alison Smith) of early modern England told me that that there was a generally held view at the time that if a woman did not have an orgasm during sex with a man, then she could not conceive. So, in the beliefs of the time, no female orgasms equaled no babies…Quite progressive really, but did condoms exist then? I doubt it – condoms came in later…18th century, I think. Any condom historians here? English Ranterism and the Digger movement represented a political dead end. With the Cromwellian Thermidor of the English Revolution after 1649, and the general persecution and ostracism of the Ranters, a lot of them recanted their beliefs, including Abiezer Coppe, stopped railing against the rich (one of their specialties!) and settled down to become Seekers, or Quakers (who are very much in the Gnostic lineage – no priests, no service, no dogmas, no crap, just the Inner Light of Not-God, etc…) or even Muggletonians…see E P Thompson’s book on William Blake (1993) for more. He interviewed the last surviving English Muggletonian. How about that? More on the Ranters below: Discussion of the Ranter historical context, and Ranter views. – Extracts from the writings of Abiezer Coppe My comments, writing as Abiezer Coppe, on Christianity and gnosticism:

The Bitch Question

The Bitch Question is one of the most debated issues in the War of the Sexes. The feminists delight in being bitches and their pet males (manginas) support them in this endeavor. It’s all about the bitch, baby! Why these bitches have pet males in the first place is beyond me. I assume these are pussy-whipped idiots who think bitchy women are awesome. I’ve known some guys like this. Some of them got tons of sex. So what. All the sex in the world is not worth being a mangina. Females make no sense on The Bitch Question. To them, it’s all about men not letting women fight back, get their pound of salt and vent some well-deserved righteous rage. Sure, there are chauvinists who think that women are children who must obey men come Hell or high water. But that’s not the whole debate. The sane men say that retaliation is allowed, but not offensive action. Defense OK, offense no. The feminists are insane because a woman, no matter how deranged, screeching or dangerous, is always playing defense. A female friend writes me:

Sometimes you can get nasty with a guy if he’s being nasty with you.

I think this is just fine. Women can pummel me all they want to like a human pinata if I’m being bad. I figure I deserve it. This is not the complaint about bitches. Not from the sane men anyway. A woman is never a bitch for fighting back, unless she takes it too far, like physical attacks, theft, crimes, etc. But that’s more a matter of dirty fighting. The sane man’s complaint about bitches is that these women attack us more or less or unprovoked. They are simply and plainly mean. They think they can get away with saying any fucked up thing to us that they want to, and so they do it. Honestly, the only solution is to put fear into women and terrorize them a bit. A terrorized woman is a well behaved one. She watches her words very carefully for fear of the consequences. Many 3rd World women are effectively terrorized. I’ve been told by a Brazilian friend that Brazilian women don’t like to challenge men. As it ought to be. There’s no excuse for flat out meanness. Is it OK for me to be mean? No it is not. Is it OK for women to be mean to me? No it is not. Meanness is sadism. Mean people attack unprovoked, just to be sadists and aggressors. It’s not fighting back, and it’s not acceptable. If it takes terror to make women realize this, so be it.

Report on Al Quds Day Demo in London

This is a report from the progressive World People’s Resistance Movement (Britain) on the annual Al Quds Day demonstration in London. As you can see, it was a fairly secular affair, with little religious fundamentalism or anti-Semitism in evidence.

Lurid predictions of the march being dominated by overtly homophobic, anti-women and anti-Semitic groups like Hizb ut Tahir and Muslims Against the Crusades were proved false, as neither group had a visible presence. The Muslim Association of Britain, who were listed as one of the organizers, didn’t appear either, though even if they had, their presence (and even that of Hizb) would have proven little as both have been regular attenders at anti-war demos for years.

The demo was mainly (8

There were a few people hawking pictures of Khomeini, and I saw a couple of people holding them but the chant “We are all Hezbollah” was eclipsed by the more secular “We are all Palestinians.” There was the occasional Allah Akbar, but most slogans were of the “Free free Palestine” variety.

As for the gender issue, I saw a number of Asian women not wearing any head covering (and plenty of white women too) and only two wearing the Niqab. I mention this only as a measure of fundamentalism or lack of. Men and women marched together, which is ironic given that I can remember being at various demos (gay rights, womens’ rights and anti-nuclear) in which there was a degree of segregation introduced by feminists.

One man leading the chanting with a megaphone was wearing a Rolling Stones tee-shirt – hardly Taliban material! And a woman who was wearing a headscarf wore a tee shirt with the slogan “Live to Love” on it; again probably not the sort of thing the moral police in Tehran would have liked!

As for anti-Semitism, there were more Jewish people on the Al Quds demo than on the pathetically small counter demonstration (about 30) which included fascists, Zionists and, sadly, the Iranian Green Movement.

Transcript of My Latest Interview on Voice of Reason Radio

This runs pretty long – it runs to 48 pages on the Net – so be forewarned. In case you didn’t listen to it, here it is. The audio is here, with some comments, mostly silly as usual.

Robert Stark: We’re going to be discussing something a little bit different. The topic tonight is The War on Men. Robert, I’ve just got to say that you’ve gotten a lot of slack for some of your views on this show.

Robert Lindsay: That’s true. I’m going a little easy on the Jews I guess.

Robert Stark: Kevin MacDonald uses the term, “a hostile elite” to refer to the elite, and he’s talking about the Jews, but you could say that the whole elite in general is dangerous when it has no loyalty to the nation-state whatsoever.

Robert Lindsay: The multinational corporations – and these White people in America, they love these corporations so much – they are a hostile elite. The elite is not just the Jews in America, it’s these hundreds of millions of very wealthy people – of rich people – all over the world. They are hostile not just to Americans but they’re hostile to their own people. They’re only out for themselves, and they’re sending the whole world down the tubes really.

You see, every one of them will sell out their own country. The elite of India will sell out India. The elite of Pakistan will sell out Pakistan. They will all sell their own countries down the tubes.

Robert Stark: I don’t think the elite in Israel has really sold out their country. That would be the one exception.

Robert Lindsay: Yes, they are patriotic in a sense I suppose. But what these elites will do is they will ruin their countries’ economies in the name of getting richer. They don’t care about their own country’s economy.

Robert Stark: The people who call themselves patriots, they often defend these sorts of people.

Robert Lindsay: The patriots, you mean the Tea Party types?

Robert Stark: Yes.

Robert Lindsay: The Tea Parties are simply an arm of the corporations. The Tea Partiers really are rootless cosmopolitans. They’re effectively all “Jews” if you want to put it that way. They’re a Judaized people; they’re infected with the Jewish spirit.

Robert Stark: Yes, Sarah Palin, she made some comments that she considered herself to be a Jew, and she has an Israeli flag in her office, and she’s the leader of the Tea Party movement.

Robert Lindsay: Sarah Palin is a Jew! All the Tea Partiers are Jews! And they’re also shilling for the multinational corporations too, so if you think about it, the Tea Parties are just the forward movement of these multinationals. They’re like the army of the multinationals, and they’re also shilling for the elite. They’re like this Brownshirt White army for the richest people in America, and I just fail to see how that’s a progressive working class movement in any way, shape or form, forget it.

Robert Stark: Yes, it’s definitely been co-opted. But let’s move on to our issue for tonight, the War on Men. So can you introduce us to our topic and talk about how feminism has really changed our society? You support equity feminism, but you are critical of the movement in a lot of other ways. You are saying that it has really destroyed marriage.

Robert Lindsay: It has in a way because we used to have mandatory marriage in America, and in most societies have mandatory marriage or especially mandatory early marriage. And what happens with mandatory early marriage is that just about everyone gets married in their early 20’s or so, and that takes care of the sexual problem. Here in the US, everyone got married, everyone. And then, in marriage, apparently, there was sex, I guess, or there was or there wasn’t – many women didn’t like it that much, but back then, I think they just put up with it.

And back then, most men got plenty of sex in marriage, or at any rate, there wasn’t a big issue about guys being sexually frustrated. You’ve got the Alphas, that’s like 1

Robert Stark: Yes, it was sort of like sexual socialism. You can talk about wealth, but when it comes to the mating market, it’s a zero-sum game, because there is one person of the opposite sex for every person of the other sex, and with marriage, you can distribute that evenly.

Robert Lindsay: Exactly. It is sexual socialism. There’s also a group called the Omegas. There are the Betas, who are like 7

Robert Stark: So they would marry a woman in their own league.

Robert Lindsay: Right.

Robert Stark: What’s happening now is that with the destruction of marriage, we are reverting back to caveman times when we had more of a polygamous society. The idea is that women are hypergamous, and they go for men who are above their status. Whereas biologically, women can only have a limited number of children, men can impregnate large numbers of women, so men want to impregnate as many women as possible.

I think in the past before feminism, women were not allowed to work. Women do have an advantage over men in the mating market. So in a society where men controlled the wealth, that sort of evened things out because women were dependent on men for money. Now, middle and upper class women have good jobs, and lower class women are taken care of by the welfare state, so they don’t really need men anymore. So we are reverting back to this really primitive system.

Robert Lindsay: If you study primitive agricultural societies in Africa and New Guinea, what you find is polygamous societies. You find the head man thing. African Blacks evolved in this polygamous society. There’s a Head Man and maybe his buddies – they get all the women. And then, a whole lot of the rest of the guys, apparently, they don’t get any. So with the African Blacks, they’ve evolved for 9,000 years with these Head Man type guys impregnating all the women, and so Blacks have gotten bigger and stronger, with high testosterone, etc.

Robert Stark: That’s probably a factor in why there is so much crime and violence in their societies because if they can’t have a woman and reproduce, they have no incentive to contribute anything to society, so they all just become criminals, and that’s probably why there is such a high rate of sex crime in Africa.

Robert Lindsay: Well, I’m not sure if the setup is like that anymore, with the Head Man thing, but the thing is they’ve evolved this big huge super-athletic bodies over time because it’s only been the most macho, masculine, roughest, toughest and most high testosterone man has been impregnating most of the women for like 9,000 years and so what we’ve ended up with is that Blacks have high testosterone, they’re really big, strong and aggressive because they’re all descended for 9,000 years from the biggest, baddest, roughest, toughest guy around.

Robert Stark: One of the main problems in the Black community, what happened was, in the past, even though they were poor, there was some level of decency because there was an incentive for Black men to go out and get a job in order to get a woman, recently what happened was the Great Society came in with the welfare state, and Black women were dependent on the government, so there was no incentive for the men to be decent.

And then their culture glorifies being a thug and a criminal. It’s seen a lot with rap culture, but it goes back a lot further than that. Well, the women favor the men who are criminals. So the whole system is subsidizing criminal behavior, and there’s no incentive to be decent anymore if you want to get a mate.

Robert Lindsay: Well, I’m a liberal, so I don’t agree with that analysis of the Great Society. I think the Great Society was a great thing. Furthermore, welfare was put in by FDR in the mid-30’s – AFDC. So we had welfare all through the 1930’s, 40’s, 50’s and early 1960’s, and hardly anyone was on it because everybody had a job.

But it looks like what happened was the jobs all took off in the industrial areas of the North. All those Blacks had moved up to there to those cities, and then the factories started shutting down, and then the Blacks were out of work, and apparently the women started going on welfare. Welfare has always been there.

Robert Stark: You’re right that the best manufacturing jobs have all gone overseas. Then you have the sexual revolution, and men were lied to, like Playboy Magazine sold that idea to men that the sexual revolution would benefit them, but that turned out to be a total lie. You were at your prime during that era back in the 1970’s. Can you go over some of the trends that you saw and what it was like back then?

Robert Lindsay: Back then, that was the sexual revolution that we were growing up with, and there weren’t many sexual diseases. I think Herpes wasn’t really around that much. The worst STD seemed to be crabs. I never knew anyone who was catching anything other than that one. A lot of people were having a lot of sex. I went to a White high school, and all the girls were on the pill, every single one of them. Not one White girl at my school had a baby.

There were pregnancies – one of my girlfriends got pregnant, but it wasn’t me. It was some other guy. They would automatically have an abortion. Back then there was not much controversy about abortion, and the anti-abortion people were not around so much like they are now. If girls were pregnant, they automatically got an abortion, no ifs ands or buts about it.

We had a White society there and a White point of view, and where I was growing up, for a White high school girl to have a kid out of wedlock, that was like the lowest, worst, most disgusting thing you could possibly do. You were thought to be acting like a Black or a Mexican, and you just weren’t supposed to do that. So we had no girls with babies at my high school. There was a lot of screwing around back then, it’s true. This was the hippie era, and it was free love. I suppose there were guys that didn’t have a lot of fun, but I did.

Robert Stark: But you see the destruction of marriage as a negative trend?

Robert Lindsay: It has been, because that whole hippie free love thing seems to have gone out, and now, it’s been replaced by a sort of a consumerist sexual culture, and women have reverted back to Cavewoman tendencies. Now that we’ve gotten rid of marriage, and women can survive on their own, women don’t need men anymore. See, back in the old days, women needed men to survive.

So a woman would hook up with a guy, and the guy would support her, and she’d have kids by the guy. The truth is, she stuck around with him for the support. And in return for the support, she gave him sex. It was a trade-off. The guy was satisfied. He was getting the sex, love and companionship of marriage, and the woman was also satisfied, she was getting support and then the love and companionship of marriage.

And now, women can have sex, have babies and raise children. That’s what the single Mom’s are all about. They don’t need men to support them anymore, so they’re simply not marrying.

And so what you have is we are reverting back to Cavewoman times. In Cavewoman times, the Alphas get all the women. It was Head Man times, just like in Africa and New Guinea. The Alphas are 1

He’s The Man With the Golden Sperm. He’s the guy with the best genes. See, women think biologically. At a very subconscious level, they all want the guy who has the best genes. They all want to have his baby, to have his kid and pass on his superior genes. Even if they are on the birth control pill, and they are not going to be having any babies, they are still thinking that way.

I mean, I knew guys in junior college…my idol in junior college, he would have say 3 or 4 dates in a day. He would have a morning date, then an afternoon date, then an evening date, then at midnight, he would climb into some girl’s window at her parent’s house. And he would have sex with all of them. And this was how he lived. And every girl and woman wanted this guy. They were basically lining up outside of his door, and it was like take a number. They would have sex with him, and they would walk out of the door with a big smile on their face, and they were quite satisfied.

He used to live on the beach in the summer, and those guys would go through like 3 different girls or women every single day. They would have a keg of beer, an ounce of Thai weed, and they would surf all day. That’s the environment that I grew up in on the beach in Southern California with a bunch of hippie stoner surfers.

Robert Stark: What effect do you see this having on society if as you say, a large portion of men are being kept out of the mating market? Society could collapse. For instance, that guy Sodini, I think he had psychological problems, but his situation is symbolic of this phenomenon. If you look at what’s happening in China, how there is this huge shortage of women in China, and you see rising crime there and other problems that this is leading to, due to the shortage of women. This could be problematic in the future if this trend continues.

Robert Lindsay: They are having a lot of Sodini-type mass killings over there too. A lot of these guys apparently are not married and not getting any women, and they’re going crazy with bulldozers, tractors, guns and knives and whatnot and mass murdering people. Just like Sodini. Probably because they aren’t getting any. Back in my parents’ generation, Sodini would have gotten married. There were no Sodinis, not really anyway.

So what’s going on nowadays is that these 1

Robert Stark: Some of them will settle for a regular guy when they are past their prime. In a sense, who wants someone else’s leftovers?

Robert Lindsay: So now they all want Alphas. At least the White women that I see around here, they are all looking for the Alphas. And the Alphas, they are all pretty much taken. And by age 30 or so, the Alphas are all just gone. And these women, they don’t want Betas. So you have all of the best women going for say 1

Robert Stark: What’s ironic about this is that the feminists got rid of sexual socialism, and in other ways, the feminists aligned themselves with socialism economically, but at the same time, they don’t want the real free market to work in terms of sex. I know a lot of people have moral issues with prostitution, I can understand that. I’ve had concerns too, but with the current situation, I think it would be the fair thing to legalize prostitution but only based on the current situation.

Another thing, the feminist Senator from Washington, Maria Cantwell, she co-introduced this bill with this neocon Senator Sam Brownback which would make it difficult for men to find wives from overseas. So they use socialism and get rid of the free market in certain cases where it suits their agenda. So you don’t have a problem with feminism if it’s about gender equity. But they use the government to rig the system when it suits their own interests.

Robert Lindsay: Well, the problem is that radical feminism has become Female Rule. You can probably never have true equality in a society sexually. It’s probably the case that you either have Male Rule or you have Female Rule. And there are a lot of problems with Male Rule, which is Patriarchy, but at least it seems to work. It’s not very fair to women in a lot of ways. But it’s a zero-sum game.

Robert Stark: It’s the same with race relations. I think that very rarely will you ever have true racial equality. One group will always end up dominating the other. That’s just human nature.

Robert Lindsay: It seems that way. If the men don’t rule, then the women are going to rule. And that’s the way it is in relationships. I’ve concluded that in relationships, the man has to dominate the woman. I came out of the 1970’s, and we were into this hazy gender role thing, and we were all supposed to be androgynous, and we were the New Men and the Feminist Men. And we were into not being macho and all that.

Thing is, that stuff doesn’t really work, because women do seem to want a macho guy who takes charge and who frankly dominates them. Women get off on being dominated. They enjoy it. That’s an essential part of their sexual nature. The man must be the dominant partner, and the woman must be the submissive partner in marriage or in any kind of a sexual relationship or love relationship.

If you don’t wear the pants in the relationship, she’s going to take those pants right off of you and put them on herself. Either the man dominates the woman, or the woman dominates the man. And if you look around at marriages and relationships, you notice that that’s how it works. If the guy doesn’t dominate the woman – if he’s a really wimpy guy – have you ever noticed that the woman ends up playing the male role and dominating him. Then you have these situations where the woman is playing the role of the man and being really nasty to the guy and lording it over him and the guy being all cringing and wimpy.

Robert Stark: The social conservatives haven’t really tackled any of these issues. The problem with them is that they the two issues that they are obsessed with are abortion and gay marriage. Gay marriage is purely a symbolic issue – it doesn’t have any really strong negative effect on society. As far as abortion goes, I know that you are pro-choice…

Robert Lindsay: Definitely!

Robert Stark: The thing is that women no longer have responsibility, and they can be promiscuous and not depend on a man. Social conservatives focus on these two issues, but they are not really offering any alternatives. Then we have the conservative feminists. For instance, I believe that Sarah Palin calls herself a conservative feminist. They want the men to go back to being chivalrous and be the traditional men, but then the women will enjoy the perks that liberal feminism has brought them.

Robert Lindsay: Yes, they want it both ways, don’t they? Equity feminism is a good thing. I want equality for women in all of the important ways. I’m on the mailing list for many of the big feminist organizations in the US. I used to be a member of NOW.

The only thing that I don’t like about these organizations is that they’ve been taken over by radical feminists. And a lot of them are lesbians; a lot of them hate men. And there’s a real animus in this movement against male sexuality, towards what it means to be male. What they prefer is female sexuality. There are two types of sexuality. There’s female sexuality, and there’s male sexuality. I don’t really have to define them. Every guy around knows what male sexuality is.

Robert Stark: You’ve defined the War on Men as a War on Male Sexuality.

Robert Lindsay: Exactly, because females want female sexuality to be the dominant paradigm in society. Female society is ruled by female sexuality. That’s what females want; that’s what their lives are ruled by. Male society is ruled by male sexuality.

And typically, male sexuality has been privileged at least somewhat in society as far as our rules go. And most societies tend to be more or less dominated by male sexuality. On the other hand, most societies tend to temper male sexuality by instituting early marriage because if you totally allowed male sexuality to take over, most guys probably wouldn’t even get married.

But the feminist movement attempts to make female sexuality the dominant paradigm for all of society, for all of public space. So all males must live under the rules of female sexuality.

That’s why they hate what they call the exploitation of women in porn, in advertising. Any advertisement that shows a sexy girl in any way whatsoever is evil according to them because that represents male sexuality. To them, male sexuality is all about the objectification and the use and abuse of women. For instance, porn is all about the objectification of women and the use and abuse of women, and to guys, it’s just sex, that’s all it is. Porn is all about getting off.

Female sexuality hates pornography, they hate erotica, they hate any sexuality at all being displayed in the media, in advertising, or in movies or TV. They want a completely desexualized public space. They want to desexualize the media, advertisements, consumer culture, movies and TV. Female sexuality is basically puritanical!

Robert Stark: That’s true, but if you look at our popular culture, it has gotten a lot more sexualized over the years, so we have these contradictory factors in our society. But one thing that you have been talking about is this mass hysteria where all men are being viewed as potential sexual predators.

Robert Lindsay: Yes, that’s right. The radical feminists – that’s their thing. Male sexuality is all about rape! And males are all about rape, and we are all rapists. And they can’t stop talking about rape. You talk to these radical feminists, and they’re just rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape. And these are White women! And their claim is that the men who are the rapists are White guys like you and me. Well, if you know much about rape in this country, White guys like you and me, we don’t run around raping women.

Robert Stark: I don’t know what the statistics are, but Blacks are about 1

Robert Lindsay: All I know is that they commit rape at about 6 times the White rate.

Robert Stark: So you are trying to say that a lot of the propaganda that they put out is to try to show White men as being sexual predators.

Robert Lindsay: The feminist movement never talks about the fact that Blacks and Latinos are six times more likely to rape a woman than a White man is. Their whole thing is that White men like you and me are these evil sexual predator rapists. And their definition of rape keeps on expanding and expanding. Now, if you have sex with a woman who is intoxicated in any way whatsoever, I suppose if she even has one glass of wine, if she’s high, if she smoked a joint, if she did a line of coke or speed or if she’s on acid, then that’s rape.

Well, then there must be hundreds of millions of instances of rape occurring every week in this country. Because lots of women are having sex when they are intoxicated. And I simply do not believe that that’s rape.

Robert Stark: So you think that they are promoting a lot of these false accusations.

Robert Lindsay: Yes, and to them, any kind of coercion that leads to sex, especially verbal coercion, really, seduction itself…The feminists are now claiming that seduction itself is rape because the seducers are supposedly brainwashing women and tricking and fooling them into bed. Well, that’s what seduction is all about. Seduction is all about brainwashing women and tricking and fooling women, casting a spell on them, and more or less lying to them, in order to get them into bed. And men have been doing this for 100’s, or probably 1000’s of years.

And the whole idea of being a woman…mothers and fathers are supposed to raise their daughters with the idea that guys are just dogs, they’re no good. Guys will say and do anything to get you into bed. And an aware and savvy woman knows that guys are like this, she’s aware of it, and she’s got all of her defenses up to keep this guy from putting one over on her and seducing her and getting her into bed when she doesn’t want to.

So, seduction is not rape. Seduction is just the normal human way of going about sex, and it’s normal male sexuality to seduce women. So when they say seduction is rape, they’re saying that all us guys are rapists. And most radical feminists theorists, not just Andrea Dworkin or Katharine McKinney, but really all of them, they all say that we live under a system of patriarchy, and under patriarchy, all male-female sex is rape.

Robert Stark: Another thing is that they vilify large age ranges in relationships such as an older man dating a younger woman. One thing that I noticed is that Alphas can get good-looking younger women early on, but other men who are not Alphas can build up their wealth and get them later on. Historically, women would often marry a much older man because they were dependent on them economically.

Robert Lindsay: Another thing about female sexuality is that women age quicker than men. They live longer than we do. I don’t know why it is, but if you have a woman and a man, and they’re both married, and they’re both around 50-60 or so, the woman is going to look 10-15 years older than the man.

Robert Stark: Women have a huge advantage in their 20’s, but once they get past 30, men have the advantage. That’s why the feminists are trying to pathologize men who are dating women who are much younger than they are.

Robert Lindsay: This has been going on forever and ever and ever. If you read literature all down through the centuries or even millennia, the theme over and over is that a man, as he’s aging, continues to want younger women. And an older woman has a hard time keeping her husband around because as she starts getting into her 40’s and 50’s, he starts wanting to chase younger women.

So one of the prime aspects of female sexuality is this hatred for this aspect of male sexuality in that aging males want to chase young women. And it’s hard for an older woman to keep her man around. How do you keep him around? And in many cases, middle-aged men leave their older wives and go for young women. And women hate that; female sexuality hates that, so feminism hates that. And that’s the reason for this law that Maria Cantwell and Brownback passed…is it Brownback?

Robert Stark: Sam Brownback is this social conservative…

Robert Lindsay: Right, so what’s going on is that American guys who’ve just had it up to here with nasty Western women are heading off to the 3rd World, and they are picking up younger 3rd World women, and they are marrying them.

Robert Stark: What’s really strange about this is that Cantwell and Brownback and both very much pro-immigration Open Borders types.

Robert Lindsay: Cantwell represents female sexuality, she represents feminism, actually radical feminism and the rage of feminists and aging women over the fact that a lot of White guys are shining on these nasty feminist witches here in America, and they’re going to get women overseas. And also middle aged guys are blowing off their older White spouses and going to get some young hottie overseas. This is all just about – “cut off the competition.”

And it’s the institutionalization of female sexuality in law. This is one of the things that the feminists are tying to do – they are trying to make law and the legal code that we all live under in our public space to be an institutionalization of female sexuality.

Robert Stark: Yet at the same time, they got rid of marriage, which was a fair form of socialism. I’ve analyzed these various movements, not just the feminist movement but also various economic movements, and it’s way too complex to say that this person is a capitalist and this person is a socialist if people pick and choose either free markets or government intervention when it suits their own interests. That’s why I object to these people who break everyone up into, “You’re either for free markets or you’re not.”

Robert Lindsay: And the sexual harassment thing, this is another one. The feminist movement, as I noted, wants to remove all sexuality from the pubic space because female sexuality hates sexual expression in the public space. If you’re a good-looking woman, apparently as soon as you walk outside the door, you have guys after you all day long. And women don’t like this. Female sexuality doesn’t like this hyper-aggressive nature of male sexuality in which we are always raping them with our eyes and chasing after them and all.

What they would really like, in their female sexual utopia, is to ban us from looking at them, they would like to have us arrested and sent to jail for “illegal looking.”

Robert Stark: This was targeted against pedophiles, but there was a law in Maine making it a felony for adults to stare at minors in public. I think what the radical feminists – I think the woman who introduced that law was a radical feminist – what they would like is to make it a crime to men to stare at adult women in public as well. So this looks like a slippery slope.

Robert Lindsay: This is one of the aspects of sexual harassment. Now, if you’re in a workplace, or even outside of a workplace, you can be accused of sexual harassment just for looking at women. A friend of mine, he’s an older guy, and he was in a coffee shop, and the young women didn’t like the fact that he was an older guy and he was looking at them so they complained, and the management told him to quit looking at the girls or they were going to throw him out.

So it’s not just happening in the workplace, although in the workplace, if you look at the women too much, if you check out the women, they call that sexual harassment and a “sexually hostile workplace.” I think they also want to remove all sexual commentary, sexual banter, sexual wording and flirtation from the public space.

But after all, people have a very strong sex drive, at least males, and the entirety of public space is where we spend most of our time. We go out in public all the time doing this or that, and the workplace is a large part our lives now, a lot of us are spending almost all of our time at work. And female sexuality and radical feminism wants to completely remove all sexual expression from the public space, where we are spending so much of our time.

I don’t think they even want us talking to women, honestly. They certainly don’t want us talking to them about anything sexual in any way whatsoever. For women, to remove all sexuality from the pubic space makes that a friendly space.

But I came out of 1970’s, remember, I came out of the hippie movement, I’m a liberal, I came out of the New Left, I’m a sexual revolutionary and a libertine. And I don’t believe in any kind of Puritanism at all. My attitude is, “Do it in the streets.” Not literally of course, but I’m very pro-sex. And it really bothers me how anti-sex the feminists are. And that they are trying to reproduce their view of female sexuality, which is very anti-sex, it’s very puritanical, onto the whole of society.

Robert Stark: What is strange is that if you look at some aspects of our society, they have become much more sexualized. If you look at commercials…I really don’t know what to make of the whole thing.

Robert Lindsay: This is strange, the extreme sexualization of our society – although the feminists would love to get rid of all that too, but they haven’t been able to yet…on the one hand, we have this hypersexualized society…

Robert Stark: One thing I’ve also noticed if that teen sexuality has been really glorified, like teenage girls, one the one hand, they are encouraged to act slutty, but on the other hand, if a man so much as looks at a teenage girl nowadays, they are being called pedos. So what do you think of these two polar extremes?

Robert Lindsay: Well, on the one hand, you have this hypersexualized media space in terms of advertising and consumer culture and the corporations and then in our popular entertainment…

Robert Stark: Yes, because sex sells, they want to make money.

Robert Lindsay: Music, TV, movies and all that, the sexual mores have been loosened down. So if you’re a person who is immersed in our consumer and entertainment culture, you are being bombarded with sexual messages all day long. And after a while, it’s probably going to make you pretty horny. If you’re a young man, you’re probably pretty horny as it is, but all this media sex stuff really gets you thinking about sex all the time.

And then as soon as you step out your front door and go out into the public space, now you’re out in this feminist world where the feminists are trying to put their Female Rule (matriarchy) over everything, and you can’t look at women, you can’t talk to women, you can’t say anything sexual, you can’t do anything sexual…

Robert Stark: What are some of your thoughts on the racial component of the dating market?

Robert Lindsay: Well, like I said, the White women, they all want an Alpha guy. And then by the time they’re 30, almost all of them, they didn’t get him, and so they’re angry. And then they either hook up with a Beta, and they’re not really all that happy about it, and they try to dominate him, and they’re aggressive and mean towards him. Or they get married, and then they get divorced at some point.

For instance, I have a Yahoo group for people who are fighting the Internet love scammers. The group is about ½ women. Most of the women are middle aged White women, and a very large

We’re macho pigs, we’re jerks…and they are filled with hatred towards male sexuality. We don’t treat them right, we’re mean, macho jerks. And all of them are radical feminists. And then at the same time…they’re all going for Black guys! And I didn’t understand that at all!

Robert Stark: The Black men would probably treat them a lot worse than a White man would.

Robert Lindsay: They will treat them a lot worse! But I finally figured it out, and I finally understand it. These White women who are going for Black guys, it’s a way of giving the finger to the White man. It’s a way of saying “F- you” to the White man, screw you to the White man. That’s the ultimate way of insulting a White man. Saying, “The heck with you, White men, here I am, I’m going to go for a Black guy!” And I think that Black males and White females share a common enemy. Remember that guy in Connecticut who shot up the beer factory when they accused him of stealing beer? And he said he “shot the racists?”

Robert Stark: I think you told me about it…

Robert Lindsay: He said he shot the racists, and he killed like 7 White people. He hated White people. We see over and over these Black guys who hate White people, and they’re attacking Whites, but then over and over, you see that this same guy has a White girlfriend!

Robert Stark: Yes! You’re familiar with the Knoxville Murders? They raped, tortured and killed two Whites, and their defense attorney tried to say that this guy’s not a racist because he had a White girlfriend.

Robert Lindsay: Right! Exactly! What’s going on there…I finally figured it out, is that the Black male and the White female share a common enemy. Their common enemy is the White man. So that’s how a Black man can hook up with a White woman and be happy, and they can have a common enemy, the White man, and how a Black man can have a White girlfriend and then go and shoot up 15 White guys at a beer distributing plant because they share a common enemy. These Black guys – they don’t hate White women. They hate White men.

Robert Stark: If you look through history at basic human tribalism, one tribe would try to steal the females from another tribe and yet be protective of their own women. And that’s why, to this day, a lot of men have double standards. They’ll date women of other groups, but they will get very defensive if someone tries to date their own women.

Robert Lindsay: Exactly! And in White society, the worst thing that a White woman can do is go out with Black guys. I know really liberal White guys, and they told me that if any White woman they know, if they find out that she dates Blacks, she’s through. She’s gone. They won’t even consider her. And a lot of White guys think this way. She’s history. She is basically evicted from the White race.

So this is a way that White males have of controlling and policing our women. This is how, just as you were saying, how we protect our women. We essentially banish them from the tribe, from the White tribe, for messing around with Black guys. Just like in the old days when tribal groups would evict you from the tribe for a transgression.

And at the same time, males of any race will have sex with females of the opposite race. Because then they are basically stealing the other tribe’s women, and if you impregnate them, you are forcing their women to bear your children. At the same time, you protect your own women, because your own women are your seed stock, and they are the continuity of your tribe. And you can’t allow them to be contaminated by the genes of these competing tribes because then your women are going to be raising the children of the competing tribes. And I still think that these ancient tribal ways are still ongoing in modern society.

Robert Stark: This is basic human instinct, but it’s not politically correct due to this Cultural Marxism has made these notions into something pathological to even discuss, but it’s still an essential human instinct nevertheless. So you see all of this as a part of the War on Men.

Robert Lindsay: It is, it is. It’s mostly a war on male sexuality. Even this sex offender thing and the pedophile thing, the Pedophile Mass Hysteria…have you noticed something? The pedophiles? They’re all men! And the victims are all women and girls.

Robert Stark: And the media portrays pedophiles as mostly White, which is also a myth. You were comparing it to Salem Witch Trials. There are dangerous people out there who we have to keep an eye on, but this whole pedophile hysteria, it’s gone way too far, and a lot of innocent people are being caught up in this and having their lives ruined. All men are being suspected that they are up to something no good sexually. This has just gone insane…

Tom Leykis on Older Women

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOezYzK3yck]

Damn, this is some mean, misogynous stuff here, but that’s Leykis. Unfortunately, a lot of what he says is true about White American women. So many of them are bitter and mean in middle age. Why should we bother with them?

I haven’t had a ton of experience with non-White middle aged women, but I would say that middle aged Latinas, Arabs, Iranians, Europeans, Chinese, Vietnamese and Filipinas don’t seem to be nearly so angry.

I really don’t get it. The less feminism in a society, logically, the worse women are treated, but the happier they are. The more feminism in a society, the more miserable the women are. All feminism does is make women miserable. Miserable and angry. I don’t see the point, honestly.

“Beyond the Reach of Feminism,” by Alpha Unit

Like all women who came of age when I did, I have been a beneficiary of feminism.

Feminists have a done a superb job of chronicling the treatment of women at the hands of men. They have done an admirable job of trying to secure power and access for women where women didn’t previously have it. But there is certain territory that feminism cannot touch. It has no valence here. It comes up against a force that renders it null and void.

This place has no particular name. You could call it Elemental Truth, I suppose.

Male imperatives are the driving force of the world.

Some people might say, “Yeah, we know that. We’re trying to do something about it!” Well, excellent. A lot of people have been very busy doing something about it. But there’s only so much you can do.

There are things that guys value, intangible things. The complaints of women can’t make them stop valuing these things.

There are certain inclinations guys have. Feminism can’t eradicate these inclinations.

The concessions men have made in the face of feminism (and even before) are significant, but it was their prerogative to make them. Do you think women could have overpowered men somehow and forced these concessions out of them?

And could women have forced men to establish the institution of marriage – a stabilizing force between men and women that pre-dates feminism, and exists in places that never heard of feminism?

Feminism has for a short time been a driving force in the West, but in the face of certain male drives – things like ethnocentrism, nationalism, and their various branches – it’s nearly insignificant. It’s like a little offshoot that gets sustenance from certain branches. There’s no doubting who’s dependent on whom.

In this sense, it really is a man’s world. Women and children just live in it.

On the deepest levels, I suspect that women understand this. They know that they have to maneuver their way in a world governed mainly by male fears, male desires, and male prerogatives.

Feminism has its limits.

It has changed a lot about the societies where it has taken hold, but some things are beyond its reach.

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)