Facts and Nonsense About the Brain

Repost from the old site. Like most things, there is much nonsense spoken about our brains. Our brains are very interesting to us, even to stupid people, because we use them to think. Yes, even dumb people do use their brains to think. We don’t really understand how our brains work, so some of us try to sound smart by pontificating about our mysterious brains. Here are some widespread myths about our brains: We only use [choose one: 1 It’s one of those feel-good statements that is complete nonsense. We use all of our brains. Even total idiots are using all of their brains most of the time, strange as it may seem. There are parts of the brain that are emotional and parts of the brain that are dedicated to cognition. This one is not nearly as silly as the first one, but it’s still not true. I know this because 15 years ago I was acquainted with a neuropsychologist. He did various sorts of cognitive testing, and he also worked with people with various forms of brain damage. He was also a strange guy, but he was nice enough, and he did have a PhD. I assumed that getting the PhD had probably driven him partly crazy, and he was neurotic as a result. He informed me that there were no emotional or thinking parts of the brain. He said that all of the brain engages in both thinking and emotion. Sure, some parts, like the amygdala, are more dedicated to emotion and other parts, like the prefrontal cortex, are more dedicated to thinking, but all the parts do both. Every drink (or joint) kills a few brain cells. I can’t believe even physicians tell me this crap. It’s nonsense. Yes, alcohol is one of the few drugs that actually kills brain cells, but you have to drink alcoholic-style for years before it happens. Cannabis, like many drugs, does not kill brain cells at any dose. Unfortunately, drugs don’t need to kill cells to mess up your brain. They can damage cells and destroy connections between cells. Male brains are better at math and science than female brains. Actually, they start out the same, but worldwide studies show that at about age 13, when massive male hormones kick in, males all over the world start to surpass females. A personal observation is that females who do well at these subjects are more likely to be more masculine (not necessarily lesbian) than other women. The President of Harvard, Lawrence Summers, was recently massacred for stating this obvious fact. Female brains are better at verbal than male brains. Apparently the case, though there are arguments about which type of verbal we are talking about. If you think about it, there are evolutionary reasons why females would end up better at verbal (needed to raise young kids) and males are better at visuospatial (needed for hunting). There are some more facts about the brain that you may find interesting. We have a maximum number of brain cells at age 23, and after that, there is a steady decline. This is correlated with what is known as fluid IQ, a rough measure of brain efficiency. This is why mathematicians, physicists, novelists, poets, songwriters, musicians, artists and others like them tend to do their best work when they are still pretty young. On the other hand, only an insane person would put the 18-22 year olds in charge of a country. This group has never been put in charge of anything in any society, with good reason. Their brains are going like gangbusters, but they don’t have any sense. They think they know everything, but they don’t know shit. They are supremely self-confident, and they have not even reached the stage of self-doubt. Other than passing their classes, they are contemptuous of learning and knowledge in general and never admit there is anything they don’t know. If they can’t figure it out, it’s worthless. This age group is a prime example of the notion that a little bit of knowledge is dangerous. They have a grotesquely poor understanding of their fellow man, and they are horribly intolerant. Also, they are very much group-thinkers who are terrified to defy group-think and peer pressure. If we put them in charge, it would be a nightmare. They would hold public executions and would probably torture people in public. There would be stupid wars all the time. Everything would be legal, and no one would care. There would be private armies all over the place and probably some form of fascism would be the flavor of the day. We occasionally put them in charge of some stuff, like being Presidents of fraternities, but often they even fuck that up. Mind you, I was an 18-22 year old too, and those were the best days of my life. I remember myself as being supremely mature and with-it, but I assume I had my head up my ass like the rest of them. Yes, the brain declines with age, but wisdom is good. The crystallized intelligence of age does have advantages over the rarely-used super-brains of the young. Our brains are slower, but with the gifts and harsh lessons of time, we are vastly superior at making decisions. Any tribe or civilization of any worth always put middle-aged to old guys in charge and revered its elders. We are cautious and careful, and we already did most of the dumb things there are to do, and we are not likely to do them again. Crystallized intelligence is more or less the stuff you know. As you age, you accumulate knowledge and theoretically wisdom. You don’t get a hardon with every passing breeze, but you’re much less likely to do stupid shit. It’s called a trade-off. A process called pruning occurs in which there is actually a massive loss of brain cells and connections. Most folks do not know this, but there is a massive overgrowth of brain cells in childhood. At adolescence, the brain decides to clear out all those stupid dirt roads that don’t go much of anywhere and make some superhighways instead. The result is like pruning a tree, and the brain works much better as a result. There is quite a bit of loss of brain structure in the process, but it’s all good in the end. In fact, pruning is an essential process for the adolescent brain. If you observe most adolescents, it would not seem controversial that they are experiencing massive loss of brain structure, but a lot of folks still refuse to believe this. There is a window in the brain for language that starts to close at about age 7. If you wait until later, you never really get language right. We have folks born deaf who got hearing at age 33 and have still never picked up language right. You can learn a foreign language in adulthood, but you will always have an accent, and you will never get 10 There is a blind cave fish that has a window for sight. If it is exposed to light before a certain age, it can see. If not, it just figures there is no light down in this cave, so it just goes blind and turns the visual portion of the brain over to something else. The brain seems to open up windows, so to speak. The brain opens a language window that says, “Any language here?” as it waits for input. If there is no input, the brain just closes the window, figures there is no language coming, and turns the area over to something else. The brain is plastic. That does not mean it is made out of polyurethane. It just means that it is smart. For instance, if one part gets damaged, your brain will try to reroute connections around the damaged area. Also, other areas of the brain will try to take over for the damaged area. Brains are smart! They actually think about how to fix up messed up brains! Cool!

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.)

97% and 82%

9 The other I would imagine that most men are currently doing it too. That’s one thing I don’t like about living with male roommates. Soon or later, you catch the guy jerking off, and it’s really embarassing for both parties. Either that or you can hear him doing it in the next room, and that makes me uncomfortable. I figure that all single guys who are not living with a woman are jerking off. It’s just obvious. There’s no point discussing it. Most married men are too, if truth be told. That’s a bit more of an interesting subject, but most men will just laugh if you bring it up. A lot of stupid women think that male masturbation is absolutely hilarious. In the past, I’ve had some of them ask me if I did it. The answer was DUH. She started giggling. I felt like slapping the stupid bitch. Guys don’t sit around and have conversations about, “Hey you do jerk off or not?” It’s like asking if you take a crap or eat. What’s there to discuss? On the other hand, the subject is somewhat taboo in that most guys don’t openly admit to doing it, say, “I just jerked off,” or discuss different ways of doing it. It’s all sort of taboo. I knew a young guy once (age 21), who told me that he would go to guys’ houses and they would all sit around and watch porn and jerk off, but not do it with each other. I asked him if he thought that was gay, and he said no. It’s a pretty wild thing to do, and I don’t think I could handle it. Gay guys have jerkoff parties too. Not sure exactly what goes on there, but I guess it’s fun and doesn’t give you AIDS. If you go into those adult book stores, there are movie stalls. It’s obvious, if they have locked doors, that about 10 I was in this one in Garden Grove, California, once. It was run by Vietnamese who had the same attitude towards sex as a restaurant would have about food, which seems healthy. There were locked doors on the stalls, and obviously guys were jerking off in there. The Vietnamese guys were going up and down the aisle with a mop and a bucket, mopping the floor with soapy water all the time. A door would swing up, a guy would leave, and the Vietnamese guy would wisk his mop in there and mop around. They didn’t act like what these guys were doing was gross or horrible. They had the most bored, flat expressions on their faces. This was completely banal as far as they were concerned. The ones that are run by White guys are a lot weirder. Even if they have locked stalls, if a guy stays too long on a stall, they conduct a raid on the stall and unlock the door. Guess what the guy insidie is doing! Then they act like cops when they catch him in the act. Fuck that. These guys are running a porno movie arcade, dammit. Guys are jerking off while watching the movies. LOL, duh, no kidding. Instead of admitting that they do it, guys engage in endless jokes about masturbation. The hand in the air jerking off motion is a typical component of male conversation. Everyone knows what’s being said. But there’s no reason to admit to anything. Every now and then some idiot will insist he never does it or has never done it. This is met with an appropriate chorus of catcalls and “Liar!” 8 You go, girls!

Do Women Like Sex As Much As Men Do?

I know quite a few grown women who masturbate a lot. Some do it every single day (age 45). She has a teenage daughter and she encourages her to do it too. I knew a teenage girl (age 16) who used to steal her Mom’s vibrator. She like to suck on it and pretend it was a cock. She asked if I thought that was weird. I said Hell no! When I was young, for a while we had some young girl relatives living with us. There was an electric toothbrush in the bathroom that kept disappearing. After a while, I figured out they were stealing it. They treated that thing like it pure 24 karat gold. At the time, I never exactly got it, but I always wondered. I don’t wonder anymore. Our relatives were around ages 13, 10 and 7! I know women who surf porn for hours at a time, masturbating (age 30). I know another one who surfs the male webcams for hours on end, looking at the cocks as she puts it (age 23-27). I not sure if she’s masturbating, but she may well be. I used to talk to this Russian woman online. One time she said she had to go for a bit. She came back online and said she just masturbated herself to a great orgasm (age 35). I congratulated her on her awesome achievement. All of this sounds like something a man would do. Masturbation is the purest form of sexual pleasure and it’s a good way to measure inherent sex drive. In females, sexual desire is often tied in with emotional and psychological factors, but masturbation needs none of that. If women really didn’t like sex nearly as much as we do, you shouldn’t see all this Mother of All Female Masturbation Epidemics. The uncertainty you are seeing in real life sex is women who have lost interest in partners due to psychological and emotional factors. In my life as a sex addict, I found that quite a few women were more than willing to accommodate my sex addiction. They were overjoyed to do it for hours a day (up to 6-8 hours a day), hours at a time (up to 2-3 hours), or 3-4 times a day. They were often the ones who were asking me for it 3-4 times a day. In general, they ranged in age from 18-34. I’m not sure if older women get into it like this. I figure they were just normal. A woman is like an old machine that you wonder if it even works anymore. Once you flip that switch, it’s hard to shut it off unless you actually go to the wall and yank out the damned plus physically. Otherwise, it will keep humming away all day long. As I age, I can’t really do it with young women (say age 23 or so) that much. Why? They always want to do it again, dammit! I’m 53 years old. “Do it again” is not part of my vocabulary, if it ever was. If you made it through all of this hot text without reaching for your groin, it should be apparent that the notion, very popular among prudish women and men of all types, that women don’t like sex nearly as much as men do, is a theory that leaves much to be desired.

Letter from Australia

I received this letter from Savvas Tzionis, a Liberal Race Realist (The movement is spreading!) in Australia. He’s a good, solid progressive person, and he’s one of my favorite commenters. I don’t agree with all of his post, but I do agree with some of it. Womanless and often aging bachelors in China are indeed going nuts and committing mass murders, possibly because they are not getting any due nookie to China’s one-child policy combined with Chinese discrimination against women resulting in mass abortions of female fetuses. This has created a hug imbalance in the male-female ratio, and there are now many more men than women in China. A similar thing is occurring in India for similar reasons. I have nothing against Asian women; in fact, I am an Asiaphile, a Rice King or whatever you want to call us. That’s right. I like to fish for yellowtail. They put up one Hell of a fight, but once you reel them in, they sure look great in the sack. They say we Rice Kings have a fetish, and maybe we do. So what? I don’t think that White women are being left out in cold, though certainly many of them deserve to be! Perhaps that would discipline them a bit. I’m not wild about tight pussies either. As an Asiaphile, I’ve had plenty of experience with that, and I don’t see what all the fuss is about. I kind of like my pussy loose myself. One problem with White man-Asian woman thing is kids. Her body is not designed to carry that big White baby. Lot of C-sections! I’m putting this up here for comment, and hopefully this will stimulate some interesting discussion.

Here in Australia the increase in the number of these White man-Asian woman couplings has in the last 18 months gone through the roof if my perception is of any worth. I really really hate this. I feel like going up to the couple and asking the White man if he is worried about his sister finding a man with all the available White men going for Asian women. And likewise, asking the Asian women if her Asian brother is attached. Because lets face it, not many White women are going to date Asian men. For one thing, his doodle won’t be able to do the job! Which these weak White men are getting plenty of. Tight twat! What are your views? Because of mass migration from East Asia, the numbers are staggering. This never happened during the Southern European migration period of the 1960’s and 1970’s. I actually call it the Social Time Bomb. The Asian men are bottling up their rage and will explode. Whether they kill the (Asian) women…or the (White) man I am not sure.

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.

"Games Men Play About Rape," by Alpha Unit

Do you know that you can do everything in your power to keep away from Black people and still end up as a crime victim? In predominantly White areas of the country, in nearly 10 Furthermore, I’ve heard that your worst enemy can be someone you like and trust. The way some people talk, you’d think these simple facts had never occurred to them. People insist on making the world into something it can’t be – like the kind of place where you’ll be all right if you just stay away from Black people. My purpose here isn’t to demonstrate that White people commit crimes. Everyone knows they do. The people who go on and on about Black crime know that Whites commit crime. What interests me is this “Dueling Rape Statistics” game. It’s a game some men enjoy playing. These men will admit that Whites rape. They’ll admit that a White woman who is raped is most likely to be raped by a White man. What they like to emphasize is that Black males rape a whole lot more than White males, and that Black males rape White women more than White males rape Black women. What is the purpose of all this “You rape more than we do” talk? This ridiculousness is something that only matters to men, and to certain men at that. It doesn’t matter at all if you’re a woman. Rape is one of the hazards of being vulnerable, and especially of being female and vulnerable. It doesn’t matter what race a woman is. A man from just about any race could be a rapist. Girls and young women have been raped by men they knew and never would have imagined would harm them. All over the country there are young women putting themselves at risk of being raped. Some of them are White women who know all about the high crime rate among Blacks. Their rapists won’t all be Black, though. No one who is serious about the safety of women plays this game with them about “They Rape More Than We Do.” If you’re a White woman who has been raped by a White man, of what relevance is the fact that Black men are prosecuted for rape at a higher rate than White men? No woman of any race should give any group of men the benefit of the doubt when it comes to something like rape. The only thing that matters from a woman’s perspective is that men rape. As for those of you who like citing rape statistics and pointing out how much Black men rape, what do you hope to gain by doing so? Is rape prevention your mission? That must be it. You’re seriously concerned about the safety and well-being of women. People who are seriously concerned about rape prevention normally advise women to do one very important thing: always trust your instincts. If something about a person or a situation doesn’t feel right, then pay attention. They advise women not to be afraid to seem rude when it comes to their safety – in other words, asking people for ID before allowing them into your home, not divulging to people whether you live alone, not allowing people to touch you or pressure you into going places. It’s the kind of information you’ll find here. People who are seriously concerned about the safety and well-being of women do not say things like, “Black men have a higher prosecution rate for forcible rape, so avoid them, if you can.” Those of you who bring up these rape statistics are only concerned about women, and want to bring attention to the horrible problem of rape and sexual assault. Is that it?

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.

Sexmaniacman is a Rapist

Repost from the old site. I thought this definition of a the crime of sexual violence was interesting:

Regarding the “incapable of giving consent” hypothetical you posited, my response is, violence and/or a crime occurs when anyone’s body is touched beyond incidental contact or for more than a brief instant unless the person being touched affirmatively gives permission for such contact.It is not the “responsibility” of the person being touched to give permission. It is the responsibility of the person doing the touching to ensure that the other person has voluntarily given permission. If the other person is “incapable” of giving permission, for whatever reason, that means no permission has been given, and a crime has been committed.

Along the same lines, the feminazis says every time you have sex with a drunk woman, you are raping her. I decided to ask Sexmaniacman his opinion on this definition of rape. Sexmaniacman:

According to that definition, I’ve been raping women and girls all my life! I’ve always touched women, I’ve reached around and jumped them and started kissing them, I’ve grabbed them, thrown them up against walls in public and kissed them, I’ve done all these things. I always grabbed women or touched them, and I never asked permission first.In general, most of the time, permission was granted, though sometimes, when I tried to go beyond kissing, she stopped me. I picked up a hot 20 yr old woman at a Hollywood nightclub, the Anticlub, two minutes after walking in the door, then had sex with her in my car while driving around Hollywood at 1 AM (to the extent you can have sex with someone while driving a vehicle) then after the show, she tried to weasel out of coming home with me. I pointed to her, pointed to the car, and said, “You are going home with me. Now get in the car.” It was an order, but she was free to refuse, and I was laughing. I sneered at her like Johnny Rotten. She smiled, sneered back, and said, “Says who?” I said, “Says me.” Women love guys who give them orders and they love to follow orders. So she got in the car. Quite willingly. I drove her home and we had sex on the 5 Freeway in Downtown LA at 3 AM while going 55 miles an hour, to the extent one can do such a thing. Good thing I didn’t crash the car. I deny that this was either kidnapping or rape, but it was pretty fun. Another time I had sex with a drunk 14 yr old (I was 16) on the rooftop of an apartment building at 2 AM, and later she went around telling everyone I raped her. I didn’t rape her; she was drunk. I deny that this was rape. Another time I went to a punk rock show with this beautiful 20 year old named Linda and we both came back, drunk, to my house. I got her on my couch, pulled up her top and started feeling her breasts. “Pleease let me go home,” she whined unconvincingly in her best little girl voice. “No!” I said. “You’re staying right here!” I was pissed that I went to all this damn trouble and she was trying to weasel out of the dicking, like they always do. Plus, earlier in the evening, both of us drunk, she had put me in a shopping cart and raced me up and down some 2 AM streets. She kept “dropping her lighter” on my groin in the cart, and then “having to fish around to find it”. Now she was trying to get out of the boning. Well fuck that. The Hell you are, woman. She was free to leave at any time, as the cops say. “Now get over on that bed right now!” I said, half-smiling and not really threatening. I’m not sure what happened later. Finally I just said, “Fine, you don’t want to have sex, I’ll just sleep on the couch. You take the bed. See you in the morning.” Then I lay back on the couch and closed my eyes. Next thing I remember, she was saying, “Come on over to the bed.” And so it went. I deny that this was false imprisonment or rape, but it was pretty fun, except when she started to puke in bed while we were having sex, grabbed her mouth, and ran to the bathroom and puked for a while. Basically, with women, you have to read their minds. At some point, via telepathy, you figure you can make your move. At that point you just grab her and start kissing her. You can do it really aggressively or you can do it real soft and nice. Most of the time, it goes just fine. Having to ask permission for everything you do sexually is insane. If we had to do that, no one would ever get laid. I’ve been having sex with drunken women most of my life, and I hope to continue doing so. A lot of women are way less inhibited when they’re drunk. I’m embarrassed to admit that there have been quite a few times when I grabbed at women and they did not want to do go along, so they pushed me off or said no in some way or another, along the lines of, “Hey! Knock it off, asshole! Get your hands off me!” Most of the time, I did just knock it off right then, though sometimes I kept trying my luck, and she kept knocking my hands away, raising her voice. I deny that this is rape or attempted rape or any crime at all. It’s actually something called “dating”, and I never got any sex any of those times anyway. Once they brush you off once, you might as well give up, because you aren’t getting any. I don’t believe I’ve ever raped a woman according to the legal definition of the word. If she’s not interested, no problem. She has ownership of her body and the right to decide not to do this or that with me. As far as the feminist version of rape law above, well, they can just fuck off.

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.

Arabs or Hispanics, Which Do You Pick?

I pick Hispanics any day. FG writes:

Many are concerned about the demographic and cultural Hispanicization of the US. It’s a big change that surely carries major costs and benefits. Who knows what the future holds? But I have to say that the future of the US seems brighter than that of Europe.

Most Latinos do not fit the traditional American definition of White, but they are a quasi-Western people. From my perspective, that’s preferable to being demographically swamped by Muslims with their affinity for Shariah Law, as is happening with France, Holland, and other Western European states.

I don’t lose a lot of sleep over Hispanicization, but keep in mind that I’m a native Californian who grew up with Mexicans, took Spanish lessons at age 6, was raised on Mexican food, had Mexican-American friends and girlfriends in high school and spent many vacations down in Old Mexico.

If you spend a lot of time around these 2nd generation and up Hispanics (especially the 3rd generation ones), you realize that they are so much like us Whites. For instance, just about every White teen cult has been replicated by Hispanics. There are Mexican bikers, hippies, punks, heavy metalers, skaters, emos, Goths – you name it, they have replicated it.

On the other hand, Blacks have not replicated our cults like this. You don’t see a lot of Black bikers, hippies, punks, heavy metalers, skaters, emos, Goths, etc. It’s like Black people have this totally different culture that’s not like White culture at all.

The only reason that I can think of why these Hispanics are replicating our movements is because they are like us culturally and possibly genetically. Blacks may not be so much like us culturally, and they are not like us genetically.

Last night I spent some time at the local market discussing honor killings with the local Yemeni (born in the US by the way). He defended them, and said that if a married woman cheated on her husband, she had to be put to death! He then said that Islam mandated this. It’s not true, and I argued with him about this, but he didn’t buy it. He also said that if an unmarried woman had sex, 1

He and his brother also told me that there was no such thing as Al Qaeda and no such thing as terrorism, and added that Jews did 9-11, not Arabs. I like these guys a lot (Arabs are great people), but it was quite a discouraging conversation.

Europe is experiencing this mindset in spades. I don’t envy them.

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 Between The Sexes

Repost from the old site. Ok, look. If you’re heterosexual and involved with women, especially sexually involved, you’re going to get into fights. That’s pretty much just all there is to it. The more women you date and sleep with, the more fights you will get into. If you act bad, like Sexmaniacman does, or are probably incapable of monogamy, as Sexmaniacman is also, you’re going to really attract a lot of fury. But you’re also going to get it if you’re just a mild and soft-spoken, non-macho type guy. This will bring out the shrieking, cackling dominatrix in most any woman, and these guys often end up with real bitch types. Why? In part because no other man would put up with these bitches. Any normal, macho type guy, paired with an evil bitch like this, well, he would just leave. Sexmaniacman says he would either leave, or if not, he would just have to kill the bitch. So the only guys who won’t murder them or run out the door are wimpy guys. Also, normal, feminine, submissive type women don’t really like wimpy guys, so they go for macho guys. Wimpy guys and bitches are stuck with each other. They both hate their roles, but there’s no alternative but singleness and masturbation. I asked Sexmaniacman what he felt about this and this is what he said:

Thanks Bob, for letting me post on another sex-related topic. I’ve dated, or slept with, or whatever, something like 10 Black or mulatto women. I don’t really mind em. They are kind of aggressive though. But the ones from the Caribbean, North Africa and even Black Africa are much less so. They are often quite submissive and feminine. I’m not really into aggressive women. I’ve dated enough bitches for 20 lifetimes, and one of my mottoes is no more bitches! I don’t have to worry about the former girlfriend bitches, because I already killed all of them! LOL! Just kidding! That’s funny, huh?

Interview pauses for about five minutes while he falls off his chair laughing, rolling on the floor.

No, really man, I’m going to be single for the rest of my life before dating another emasculating, ball-breaking, cruel, mean, sadistic bitch.  I’m having a hard time figuring just what is a bitch though. I mean, women have a right to get mad at us, right? I really think they they do. Women have a right to get furious at me, throw non-lethal objects at me, threaten me, push me, shove me, threaten to kill me, threaten to cut my balls off, call me every evil name in the book as long as it doesn’t imply I’m not a man. I guess what I’m saying is I don’t mind women getting mad at me as long as they are getting mad at me as a man, and acknowledging that I am a man in that process. It would be helpful if I did something to piss her off, but it’s not necessary. All women are bitches sometimes, whether we provoke them or not. I don’t mind if it feels like she is retaliating, getting back at me, fighting back against me, calling me cruel, mean, evil, bastard, asshole, etc. It’s not ideal, but it’s probably inevitable. She’s attacking me from the point of a view of an outraged women defending herself against a masculine, objectionable, caddish, rougish, man. She’s a victim of a cruel, mean, evil, assholeish, aggressive man who has hurt her terrible. She’s fighting back, as a victim retaliating against an aggressor, and that feels ok. I’m sitting there laughing in her face the whole time and she’s getting even more pissed. Plus, this is the way relationships are supposed to be – I’m the masculine, dominant male and she’s the feminine, submissive female, albeit a highly combative one at this point. Ok, so why does some of it feel so objectionable? I guess I don’t like blatant sadism, attacking me in public just to publicly humiliate me, laughing in my face, condescending towards me, mocking me, belittling me, ridiculing me, or certainly attacking my masculinity in any way or implying that I’m not much of a man. It’s like she’s the aggressor and I’m the victim. She’s beating up on me. I’m a wimp and I’m just sitting there taking it and I haven’t even done anything to fucking provoke her, except maybe not make enough money for her money-grubbing hands to grab and shove into her purse! I feel like a pussy, or a fag, or a wimp, or not much of a man. If they do it in public, Mexican men and women look at me like, “You fucking pussy! You wimp! You wuss! You LET your woman talk to you like this public! Faggot!” And she’s doing this to me in public of course just to provoke precisely that sort of reaction.

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?

What Do The "Psychos" Look Like?

Repost from the old site. For about 25 years now, I’ve been hearing people tell me that so and so is a child molester, so and so is a psycho, so and so is a pervert, so and so is a predator, so and so looks like a rapist, so and so is a serial killer, or looks like a serial killer. I’ve been checking these guys out the best I can for decades now, and not one of them has turned up dangerous yet. Every one I met was just a harmless neurotic. I find this whole exercise bizarre. I really do want to know what the Hell a child molester looks like. People keep telling me that so and so looks like a child molester, but this makes no sense to me. Can someone tell me precisely what a child molester looks like? Let me tell you geniuses something, all you clowns who think you can “spot the pedo.” Tell you what, idiots. You can’t. Not only that, you can’t even “spot the dangerous person.” I’d wager a lot of the folks everyone insists are such a menace are probably the most harmless people out there. Take that notion, that you can “spot the pedo” or even “spot the dangerous people,” into the office of anyone who really knows what they are doing, say, a clinical psychologist, and they will laugh you right out of the office. Mental health professionals will inform you that there is no way to “spot the pedo” or “spot the psycho” based on appearances. Furthermore, you’re going to get such a tidal wave of false positives that the whole exercise is absurd. I can honestly say that I’ve never met anyone who “looked like a child molester.” I’ve seen all sorts of guys who looked “weird” in one way or another, but I if I observe them for a while, I can usually figure out somewhat what’s going on with them mentally. There’s weird-looking people everywhere in this world. I just give em the benefit of the doubt and move on. I don’t equate weird with “psycho,” “pedo,” “serial killer,” “rapist.” The world’s full of strange-looking people, but in most cases, they’re harmless. Plus I can actually read people pretty well. I did meet one guy who “looked like a child molester,” but that was due to behavior, not appearance . I was teaching school at an elementary school in Compton in 1989 when I saw a guy parked in a van at lunch. He had long hair and an extremely strange, haunted look in his eyes. And I swear to God I thought he was looking at the kids. It freaked me out so much that I got his license plate and called the cops. That’s the only “pedo” I’ve ever spotted, and I don’t even know if he was a pedo. I’m even more mystified by what a rapist looks like. Way back in 1980, at age 22, I was coming out of a porn theater in downtown Long Beach very late at night, 1 AM. Yeah, I used to go watch the porns back in the day. So fuck me, Puritans and feminazis. Well, this movie was sick. The basic premise of it was rape. It consisted of a main character who wore gloves and a ski mask, and he was going around raping women. I didn’t really enjoy it. I think it was called “Obsession.” I was coming out of the theater to the parking lot, and there was this young White guy, tough-looking, working class. He looked very, very angry. He was seething and looked like he was ready to kill. The energy was radiating off him like heat in a desert. He was wearing shorts and had a knife in a sheath on his waist. And he was coming out of a sick rape flick. I don’t know if he “looked like a rapist,” but he didn’t seem like a very psychologically healthy young man, and I worried about what he might do in the future. Other than that, “looking like a rapist” means nothing to me. There are dangerous looking characters all over the place, especially in working class White neighborhoods, Black ghettos and Hispanic barrios. I figure 5 I know one guy in the mountains who did time for rape of a child under age 14. He’s an Indian and hangs out in the library drawing pictures. He’s seriously anti-social and refuses to talk to anyone. He’s lived up there for 16 years, and he hasn’t re-offended. I knew the guy for a long time before I found out about his offense. I don’t think he “looks like a rapist.” I just think he looks like an antisocial asshole, that’s all. Even more peculiar is the notion that someone “looks like a serial killer.” Wow. What does a serial killer look like anyway? I can honestly say that I have never met anyone who “looked like a serial killer,” nor have I ever known any serial killers, nor have I ever known any killers period, and I wouldn’t know what they look like anyway. Do they look dangerous? The world is full of dangerous looking men, mostly younger men. Do they all “look like serial killers?” I knew one of the local guys on the Sex Offender list here. He was on there for molesting a child under the age of 14. I don’t know the details. He’s kind of a sleazy-looking Mexican immigrant guy, but that describes about 5 He worked at the local market, and I never thought there was anything wrong with him. In fact, I thought I was weird, and he was normal. Only later did I find the guy on the list. I knew another guy who went down on a sex offender law. He lived in Oakhurst, California, and he was in his mid-30’s. He had really long hair – hippie type – and worked in a computer store. He was absolutely normal in every sense of the word. Once again, I thought he was normal, and I was weird. He went down for “child molesting” – what he did was he shacked up with a 15 year old girl. He went down for 4 years or so. Now, they’d give him 10 or even 20 years. Not good judgment on his part, but whatever. They also found “child pornography” on his computer. In our Modern Bullshit World, that could very well have been naked pics of his 15 year old girlfriend. For example, this fire inspector just got 20 years in prison (!?) for getting local 15 year old girls to pose nude for him. That’s called “production of child pornography.” I don’t call that “producing child pornography;” I call it “getting a teenage girl to pose naked and snapping pics.” Incredibly, the judge says he’s a “pedophile,” and he will have to go on the stupid Sex Offender list for the rest of his life. I don’t call this guy a “pedophile” for taking pictures of naked 15 and 16 year old girls. That’s a perfectly healthy and normal desire for a male of any age. I do think that he broke the law and was stupid and careless. Whether this stuff should be illegal, I’m not sure, but it ain’t worth no 20 years. Studies show that all normal males have an extremely high, though not maximal, attraction for 14-15 year old girls. They have maximal attraction for 16 year old girls. That is, they react as strongly to 16 year old girls as to females of any age 16+. The reaction to 15 year old girls is about 9 Now, in our crazy modern world, guys over 24 at least need to be real careful about girls aged 14-16. Mess around with em, and you are likely to get pounded for 10 years, or even 20. So though your desires are normal, healthy, and certainly non-pedophiliac, it’s best to control yourself and not give in to temptation. The whole crazy idea that we can “spot the sickos” is complete nonsense, but people believe it anyway. But it’s comforting. The notion that we can’t spot the psychos makes the world a pretty terrifying place.

Time, Vengeance of the Males

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOezYzK3yck] I don’t like Tom Leykis too much at all. He’s such an asshole. But there is a little tiny bit of Tom Leykis in the best of men, a tiny corner in the blackest pit of our misogynist hearts, where Tom Leykis holds sway and throws an eternal party in Hell for all the bitches that done us wrong. We’re roaring drunk, throwing darts at pin-ups on boards and pummeling pinatas dressed up like strippers. The Rolling Stones is blasting away on the stereo. And what a sweet revenge it will be. We can taste it on our lips as we swill cans of beer and rock to Midnight Rambler and Under My Thumb. The best of men may as well be dead, or there are no best of men. They’re all the party too. Time wounds all heels, and time will be the revenge of the vain and vicious prettiest young things. As the Buddhists say, when you bet on the body, you bet on a losing horse. Woman fears our rage, and rightly so.

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.

Someone Explain This to Me?

Young women are always either giving me vibes of or directly accusing me of trying to pick up on them. Which is totally bizarre, because I almost never am! In fact, the vast majority of the time, I’m not even flirting with them. I generally assume they’re not interested in me, and then I just proceed from there. But it’s as if they are paranoid. They are always twisting stuff that I say and do in a sexual direction. Comments are mistaken as attempted pickups or flirtations, looks are interpreted as come-on’s. To be honest, I’m not thinking this way at all! I usually assume, “This chick wants nothing to do with me romantically, so I’ll just have a conversation.” But the conversation keeps getting derailed because they think I’m coming onto them. I know how to flirt, believe me. I’ve dated hundreds of females, I know what’s going on. And in general, I’m not flirting with these chicks at all. But sometimes I remark on an outfit, makeup or hair style. Is that automatically seen as flirting? One thing that’s funny about this is with a lot of these chicks, I’m not even attracted to them! They’re flattering themselves! Believe me. And the conversation is generally not about anything that could be construed as sexual. Yet they keep interpreting it that way, even if it’s about the weather. If I’m going to flirt, you’re going to know it! And I’m going to try to pick up on you, you’ll know that too! For one thing, I’ll try not to walk away without a phone number. Weird this is it’s always native-born Americans, especially White chicks, who think like this. The more assimilated Hispanics do too. The less assimilated Hispanic chicks, you can more or less talk to them about anything. They just assume that all men are pigs, plus they love men and enjoy talking to men of all ages. With the real Mexicans, the male-female dance is a lovely thing at any age. Can someone tell me what’s going on? Is it age. I’m 53. I’m basically not allowed to converse with young chicks at all, right? I’m talking age 18-23 here.

"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:

“Ivy League Horror,” by Alpha Unit

“No means yes, yes means anal.” “My name is Jack, I’m a necrophiliac, I fuck dead women.” These are a couple of the chants that pledges to Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity were ordered to recite during initiation Wednesday night at Yale. The outrage is in full force on the Yale campus. Higher-ups at DKE have issued sincere-sounding apologies; campus officials are emphasizing that such speech has no place at Yale. Women on campus have labeled it hate speech and a call to sexual violence. “It was a serious lapse in judgment by the fraternity and in very poor taste,” is the way DKE President Jordan Forney put it. The fraternity does not condone sexual violence. I wonder if the DKE President is snickering about all this behind closed doors. Since when haven’t fraternities engaged in this kind of thing? These “male bonding rituals” are notorious for drilling into men, in all kinds of inflammatory ways, that they’re not women and that “real men” are superior to women and keep them in their place. Okay, Yale women, and young women everywhere else – get upset and call this hate speech. That’s fine. But you ought to be learning from it. Everybody knows that men at this age are in their prime sexually. They also don’t always exercise the best judgment, especially in alcohol-fueled environments with like-minded others. You’d better be careful.

Nice, But Scary

I’ve been thinking for a long time now that the way to be in life, for a guy, is: 1. Nice, friendly, even warm, etc. I even compliment people a lot, make jokes, etc. Plus 2. Scary! Don’t fuck with me or I’ll kill you. Or I’ll make you wish you were dead. This actually seems to work pretty good. You try to be as nice as possible to most everyone else so they have no reason to retaliate. Plus you try to be warm enough to get some kind of friendly interaction coming back. On the other hand, you are just scary enough that most people only want to say nice things to you, or humor you. If they feel like insulting you or attacking you, they hold back because they’re too frightened of your reaction. Works pretty good! I had a couple of friends who no one ever messed with when they were young. In fact, one of them treated his friends like crap, and they still kept coming around. One was a relative, a cousin who lived with us for a while. She was beautiful but a little bit nuts. She was also seriously crazy, as in dangerous and unpredictable. She had a lot of friends, but almost no one ever fucked with her for one second. She was just too scary. I remember one time in middle school she beat up a Samoan girl! The rest of us, especially me, were always getting our feelings hurt. I even cried as a boy at the way my “friends” used to treat me. I was walking around hurt and bewildered half the time. Of course, I was always Mr. Nice. There are a couple of people in my circle who I pretty much will never put down or even criticize. If I do criticize, I am very careful how I do it. These people go nuts and almost seem like they’re going to get violent if you critique them. So everyone leaves them alone, humors them or watches what they say around them. It’s not a bad setup. I strongly recommend it. And if you do get an insult, if it’s a woman, glare at her like you’re about ready to hit her. You’re not going to hit her, of course. You’re a gentleman, and she’s just a woman. But she needs to know the score. If she likes you, she will apologize. If she doesn’t like you, just turn your back to her and act really cold. Stop looking at her and look at the ground. If people seriously burn you, like start laughing at you in public or something like that, stop and stare them down. Go into the post office shooter mode where you really feel like you’re going to mow them all down right now. You’re unarmed, and you won’t do it anyway, so no worries. Walk back aways, then stand there and stare at them really crazy doing your best Michael Myers impersonation. Totally go into the mindset like an expert actor. You’re not really psycho, so don’t worry. It’s all a big show. Pretty soon lots of bystanders will start getting nervous and act like they are getting ready to call the cops, but no one will. After a while, the targets will get so nervous that they will quickly pack up and leave. When you stand there with that hurt puppy dog expression on your face saying in your mind, “Please! Please! Like me! Accept me! I’ll do anything,” sadly, all that does is encourage the blood lust. Training humans is sort of like training animals. Good behavior gets a pat on the head and a treat. Bad behavior gets swift punishment. Most relatively healthy humans are quite trainable. Unhealthy people like sociopaths and narcissists are the equivalent of alley cats – impossible to domesticate. Best to mostly just keep your distance.

Ball-Breaking Bitches of the Right

Sharon Angle told Harry Reid in a debate last nite: “Man up, Harry Reid.” The debate was about the “insolvency” of Social Security. On another level, Angle is cutting off Reid’s balls. She’s telling him he’s not much of a man. Sarah Palin, hero of sexist rightwing males, is also a castrating bitch. When she told Barack he lacked cojones, she was telling him he’s not much of a man. It’s interesting that rightwing, anti-feminist women are doing this without a peep from rightwing, anti-feminist sexist men in their party. I can’t tell you how many bitches have done this to me. Mostly girlfriends too. You know what? I want to kill every single one of those bitches. I’m not going to do it, of course. I’m a pacifist, and I’ve never even hit a woman outside my immediate family. You know why I want to kill them? Not because I’m a psycho misogynist pig. It’s because they attacked my masculinity. You see, in Man World, those are fighting words. Not just that, but they can get you killed. Every sane man knows that. So most guys don’t attack other guys’ masculinity, especially if the target of the attack is a scary guy. We don’t dare do it, even if we hate the guy. But these bitches do this to us all the time. These bitches are insane. You know what? They’re trying to get murdered. My Mom said she never wanted to attack my Dad’s masculinity. Sometimes I would ask why don’t you say such and such to him, and she would say, “Oh, I’m afraid he would see that as an attack on his masculinity. I don’t want to attack his masculinity.” And they used to argue quite a bit too towards the end. But that was one line she would not cross. I told her that women in my ignoble generation did this all the time, and she said that was terrible. She said it was a major taboo in her generation to attack a man’s masculinity. A woman just did not do that. And one who did was reviled by other women as an evil bitch, even if they guy she attacked was a wimp. Maybe in some ways, they were the Greatest Generation. Better than mine anyway.

You Can’t Get Sad, and You Can’t Get Mad

A Black commenter notes that either Blacks are more emotional than Whites, or Whites are taught to keep their feelings under control:

Either we are more emotional and excitable as a people or other cultures teach the need to keep said emotions under control. One of these has to be true I think.

I will tell you, it’s been drummed into my head in the most major way, not just in childhood but certainly in adulthood, that one must keep one’s emotions in check. In fact, it is so bad, that I am now something like a rock. Which is not really good at all, but at least people won’t call me crazy for having feelings. For a long time in adulthood, it seemed that whenever I felt or displayed strong feelings, people would start calling me crazy. I really hate being called crazy! So now I’m afraid that if I show feelings, I’m going to get called crazy. I’d rather be a rock than be called crazy. The two things in adult White male society are:

  1. You can’t get mad.
  2. You can’t get sad.

The last one is especially tough. A girlfriend died some years ago, and I was sad for quite some time, about a year actually, but it was all OK, but that was a normal and appropriate and real response. It actually felt good because I finally had a feeling, and it was beautiful in a way to have such a wonderful sad feeling. Because when someone dies, you ought to feel sad. Well, within I think a few days or maybe a week, White people were already angrily ordering me to snap out of it. A couple of them ended friendships with me because I would not snap out of it soon enough. After she died, I cried maybe 15 times over a year or so. I went into this place called The Feeling World where I felt like I was on acid all the time for like 6-8 weeks. It was horrible, but it was wonderful too because it was real.

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)